Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change

May 28, 2015, University of Southampton
Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change
The RAPID moorings being deployed. Credit: National Oceanography Centre

A new study, by scientists from the University of Southampton and National Oceanography Centre (NOC), implies that the global climate is on the verge of broad-scale change that could last for a number of decades.

The change to the new set of climatic conditions is associated with a cooling of the Atlantic, and is likely to bring drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region. Since this new climatic phase could be half a degree cooler, it may well offer a brief reprise from the rise of global temperatures, as well as resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.

The study, published today in Nature, proves that ocean circulation is the link between weather and decadal scale climatic change. It is based on observational evidence of the link between ocean circulation and the decadal variability of temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.

Lead author Dr Gerard McCarthy, from the NOC, said: "Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic vary between warm and cold over time-scales of many decades. These variations have been shown to influence temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world. This decadal variability, called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences."

These climatic phases, referred to as positive or negative AMO's, are the result of the movement of heat northwards by a system of . This movement of heat changes the temperature of the sea surface, which has a profound impact on climate on timescales of 20-30 years. The strength of these currents is determined by the same atmospheric conditions that control the position of the jet stream. Negative AMO's occur when the currents are weaker and so less heat is carried northwards towards Europe from the tropics.

The strength of ocean currents has been measured by a network of sensors, called the RAPID array, which have been collecting data on the flow rate of the Atlantic meridonal overturning circulation (AMOC) for a decade.

Dr David Smeed, from the NOC and lead scientist of the RAPID project, adds: "The observations of AMOC from the RAPID array, over the past ten years, show that it is declining. As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative phase, which will result in cooler surface waters. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic."

Since the RAPID array has only been collecting data for last ten years, a longer data set was needed to prove the link between ocean circulation and slow climate variations. Therefore this study instead used 100 years of sea level data, maintained by the National Oceanography Centre's permanent service for mean sea level. Models of ocean currents based on this data were used to predict how much heat would be transported around the ocean, and the impact this would have on the sea surface temperature in key locations.

Co-author Dr Ivan Haigh, lecturer in coastal oceanography at the University of Southampton, said: "By reconstructing ocean circulation over the last 100 years from tide gauges that measure sea level at the coast, we have been able to show, for the first time, observational evidence of the link between and the AMO."

Explore further: Ten years of ocean monitoring uncovers secrets of changing UK winters

More information: "Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations" Nature 521, 508–510 (28 May 2015) DOI: 10.1038/nature14491

Related Stories

Tide gauge network to be updated after 30 years at sea

May 13, 2015

The National Oceanography Centre (NOC) has been awarded funding to upgrade the South Atlantic Tide Gauge Network. This network has now been continuously operating in some of Earth's most remote places for 30 years, including ...

Volcanic eruptions durably impact North Atlantic climate

March 30, 2015

Particles emitted during major volcanic eruptions cool the atmosphere due to a 'parasol' effect that reflects sunlight. The direct impact of these particles in the atmosphere is fairly short, lasting two to three years. However, ...

Atlantic Ocean overturning found to slow down already today

March 23, 2015

The Atlantic overturning is one of Earth's most important heat transport systems, pumping warm water northwards and cold water southwards. Also known as the Gulf Stream system, it is responsible for the mild climate in northwestern ...

Recommended for you

Evidence of earliest life on Earth disputed

October 17, 2018

When Australian scientists presented evidence in 2016 of life on Earth 3.7 billon years ago—pushing the record back 220 million years—it was a big deal, influencing even the search for life on Mars.

Arctic greening thaws permafrost, boosts runoff

October 17, 2018

A new collaborative study has investigated Arctic shrub-snow interactions to obtain a better understanding of the far north's tundra and vast permafrost system. Incorporating extensive in situ observations, Los Alamos National ...

Arctic ice sets speed limit for major ocean current

October 17, 2018

The Beaufort Gyre is an enormous, 600-mile-wide pool of swirling cold, fresh water in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Alaska and Canada. In the winter, this current is covered by a thick cap of ice. Each summer, as the ice ...

220 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ironwood
2.2 / 5 (30) May 28, 2015
I thought all this science was settled and we only had X years to stop catastrophic warming. Now this study in Nature says we may start cooling for a number of decades. If you dispute this you are an anti-science denier and should be punished. We should round you up and put you in camps.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (25) May 28, 2015
It is settled in regard to the physics of GHG's and anthro CO2 causing warming. What's not settled is the transport of the resulting accumulating heat around the globe.
BTW: This is SST's and not the heat contained in the bulk of the ocean - which is increasing......

http://en.wikiped...012).png
antigoracle
2 / 5 (30) May 28, 2015
You got to admire the AGW Chicken Littles and their faith in the AGW Cult's "science"..er...excuse me..lies.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (27) May 28, 2015
Naaa we all rather admire poking fun at antisciencegorilla and his puppets swinging from trees giving answers with their finger up their noses... :D

Thanks to all the Scientists for your hard work.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (20) May 28, 2015
Humm 20 years of cooling, would someone be kind enough to point out which model predicted this.
MR166
2.8 / 5 (18) May 28, 2015
Also would someone care to prove that this cycle ond others like it were not responsible for the warming of the past decades.
Benni
3.2 / 5 (25) May 28, 2015
Also would someone care to prove that this cycle ond others like it were not responsible for the warming of the past decades.
..............or the past several millions of years for that matter
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (20) May 28, 2015
This is going to make it really hard for the arctic sea ice to melt and kill all the polar bears.

I guess the sky is still falling, just a really really slow fall.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (23) May 28, 2015
This is going to make it really hard for the arctic sea ice to melt and kill all the polar bears.

I guess the sky is still falling, just a really really slow fall.


Quick on the uptake there.
It was always going to be "a slow fall". Whatever made you think otherwsie? (rhetorical).
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (20) May 28, 2015
This cooling started 18 years ago, so the AGW Cult cooked the temperature to sustain their lies. But now the gig is up.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (20) May 28, 2015
"This cooling started 18 years ago, so the AGW Cult cooked the temperature to sustain their lies. But now the gig is up."

That is the problem with cooking the books. Like any Ponzi scheme eventually the whole thing crashes and the fudged warming trend can not be sustained. The AGW crowd was just hoping that the draconian laws that they want to pass will be instituted before the hoax became known.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (20) May 28, 2015
Dont worry everyone, what antiscoencegorilla actually meant is that his 2 braincells started cooling down 18 years ago, but it's it's still hot from overworking it by trying to type the right words (he finds it hard to explain it to real people which is quite understandable... ;) )
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (21) May 28, 2015
"This cooling started 18 years ago, so the AGW Cult cooked the temperature to sustain their lies. But now the gig is up."

That is the problem with cooking the books. Like any Ponzi scheme eventually the whole thing crashes and the fudged warming trend can not be sustained. The AGW crowd was just hoping that the draconian laws that they want to pass will be instituted before the hoax became known.


Nope There is emperical evidence backing scientist's claims, i only see nose pickings coming from you and your swinging partner above... ;)
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (29) May 28, 2015
antigoracle claims
You got to admire the AGW Chicken Littles and their faith in the AGW Cult's "science"..er...excuse me..lies
Beg Pardon ?

How does this show cooling at all - are you completely insane or just overpaid to sell your integrity ?
http://images.rem...ies.html

Would you claim RSS is part of some conspiracy or what precisely or are you STILL after all these years completely ignorant of the difference between weather & climate ?
http://woodfortre...to/trend

@MR166
You should know better, get a handle on radiative transfer & details here:-
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

What base evidence is there that ADDING heat can possibly result in cooling, have you anti-AGW flunkies never used a blanket on a cool night to keep your asses warm, what is with you lot ?

Unlike Water_Prophet you guys appear to be paid to be immensely blind & ignore evidence ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (26) May 28, 2015
MR166 claims
Like any Ponzi scheme eventually the whole thing crashes and the fudged warming trend can not be sustained.The AGW crowd was just hoping that the draconian laws that they want to pass will be instituted before the hoax became known
FFS. Ponzi is pyramidal !
What are you on ?

It *only* shows average OVER Atlantic, doh !

Guess what, great deal of water there comes from melt via Greenland & North Pole *and* Atlantic conveyor which brings warm water from equator - if that cools as it competes with water from North then its a very troubling indicator we are in even more urgent dilemma then expected !

Its the great thing about an education in Physics & Maths, you not only gain an understanding of the primary causes of climate ie Heat distribution, you also gain an appreciation on permutations & variations of how that heat moves around chaotically until a new metastatic equilibrium is reached.

AND education makes you immune to paid anti-science propaganda :-)
Intuition
2 / 5 (21) May 28, 2015
"Since this new climatic phase could be half a degree cooler, it may well offer a brief reprise from the rise of global temperatures, as well as resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States."

The climate has been cooling since 1998, that's almost two decades! And, since they didn't notice this either, the number of and the severity of hurricanes; that is, category 4 and 5, hitting the U.S. has been down for years now. Who believes the garbage these people spill out?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (23) May 28, 2015
The climate has been cooling since 1998, that's almost two decades
@intuition
except that you are wrong and easily proven to be wrong: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

anyone with any ability on the internet can simply search for the Global temperature for the past couple decades and see that you are simply parroting political and non-scientific dogma

is it your religion making you do it?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Intuition
2.4 / 5 (23) May 28, 2015
The climate has been cooling since 1998, that's almost two decades
@intuition
except that you are wrong and easily proven to be wrong: http://www.woodfo...60/trend


Unadjusted temps show that 1998 was the hottest year since 1934. The year 2010 was the second hottest since 1934. That is, the temp has not risen above the 1998 high. Unfortunately your religious beliefs in global warming go hand in hand in rigging the actual temps taken to adhere to your alarmingly false dogma. Wood for trees website! Seriously, that is your source for information?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) May 29, 2015
Unfortunately your religious beliefs in global warming go hand in hand in rigging the actual temps taken to adhere to your alarmingly false dogma. Wood for trees website! Seriously, that is your source for information?
@intuition-failure
ROTFLMFAO
first off, wood for tree's is just the easiest site to show you that you were wrong
secondly: the info is the exact same info you find on NASA, NOAA sites
third: you would know that if you were scientifically literate enough to check sources
The first four months of 2015 was the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.80°C (1.44°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.07°C (0.13°F).
http://www.ncdc.n...l/201504

there is no "faith" there
the science speaks for itself
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) May 29, 2015


Unadjusted temps show that 1998 was the hottest year since 1934.
In the United States. Globally, 1934 was about 14th hottest.
The year 2010 was the second hottest since 1934. That is, the temp has not risen above the 1998 high.
Wrong, 2005, 2010, 2014 were all higher than 1998, and it looks like 2015 will be too. Globally. According to NASA (http://climate.na...og/2224) Your source is?
Unfortunately your religious beliefs in global warming go hand in hand in rigging the actual temps taken to adhere to your alarmingly false dogma. Wood for trees website! Seriously, that is your source for information?
"There is no global warming because CONSPIRACY!!" 20 points.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (18) May 29, 2015
Oooohh.... another day, another monkey, this time intuition/watermonkey/gorilla sockpuppet got a kick hard in both nuts, looks like the 4 tier ping pong marathon has taken off, O... i'm looking so forward to it... :D.... well said Captain and Maggnus :D
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (26) May 29, 2015
Intuition claims
Unadjusted temps show that 1998 was the hottest year since 1934
Prove it, where are these unadjusted global temps ? & you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole - really ?

Intuition claims
The year 2010 was the second hottest since 1934
Prove it ?

Intuition claims
That is, the temp has not risen above the 1998 high
Wrong ! See other link you ignored, don't be a liar now like Water_Prophet !
http://images.rem...ies.html

Intuition claims
.. your religious beliefs in global warming go hand in hand in rigging the actual temps taken to adhere to your alarmingly false dogma
No idiot religion, evidence, physics are you so uneducated you deny radiative heat transfer &
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Intuition claims
Wood for trees website! Seriously..
Has good Provenance, prove otherwise !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (26) May 29, 2015
Intuition I am taking you to task, any person that makes a claim WITHOUT any link to support it comes across as an idiot of the highest order - as this is a Science site & you should NOT be trusted !

We have had our fill of paid flunkies & you sadly come across as just as bad & uneducated !

So PROVE your idiot claims, get an education in radiative transfer or STFU !

Intuition claims
The climate has been cooling since 1998, that's almost two decades!
Prove it & SHOW how its possible at all as its counter to laws of physics re radiative heat transfer & radiative forcing ?

Do you have basic school education, don't they teach IR & heat at school any more re gases ?

Intuition mutters
And, since they didn't notice this either, the number of and the severity of hurricanes; that is, category 4 and 5, hitting the U.S. has been down for years now. Who believes the garbage these people spill out?
Chaotic weather patterns need climate averaging - ie MATHS !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (24) May 29, 2015
MR166 claimed
Humm 20 years of cooling, would someone be kind enough to point out which model predicted this
Might be possible in US as more cold from Canada & North Pole as more mobile but, it isn't the case over the globe !

But, hey MR166, you have ALREADY been told this multiple times & NEVER refuted and NEVER offered any rationale as to how it might happen when we KNOW for sure we are burning > 230,000 Litres of petrol each sec which means more heat & more CO2 - the latter of which has PROVEN & irrefutable thermal properties for > 100yrs eg as covered here
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Why in hell does MR166 come across as completely unable to read earlier posts & inept at learning even a little Physics OR

Does MR166 have a an agenda to obfuscate Science & present a lame anti_science stance consistent with that of a lowly paid flunky who sells his integrity at the drop of a hat ?

Any Physics MR166 of ANY form - even middle school ?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
Why in hell does MR166 come across as completely unable to read earlier posts

It's the oil lobby's 50 cent party.

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) May 29, 2015
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole
--mikemoron
Uh huh, every morning those Canucks must chip their way out of that block of ice.
What is your point?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (22) May 29, 2015
antigoracle with a really stupid transparent question
Uh huh, every morning those Canucks must chip their way out of that block of ice.
What is your point?
You already know the answer, have been told many many times, comparative specific heat(s). Ocean vs ice vs atmosphere - doh !

Does require a basic high school education antigoracle - what is wrong with you, feeble redneck :-) ?

You have been here since April 12, 2009 - it does appear you are going to the trouble to inform us just how little you have learned and even more confirming you have nil interest in Physics & Science.

Whats worse is your pattern betrays contrived indignance originating from political/commercial bias.

How much are you paid - to sell your integrity antigoracle & maintain idle ignorance ?

How much is it worth you to go to the trouble to actively appear immensely stupid ?

Physics antigoracle, then you become immune to idiocy, paid services, failed efforts, bias & lack of
empathy...
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (13) May 29, 2015
How to justify the coming artificial collapse in the global economy? With political shortsightedness does not sound good. With colossal corruption too. With unnatural finacial system and bуsiness model also. So global warming is the solution. These articles form the majority opinion and the media care even for a moment the people to not forgot about this fictional problem. Hollywood also working hard on the issue.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) May 29, 2015
How much are you paid
--mikemoron
The ignoRANT of the AGW Cult's brainless drone.
You want to talk physics, then let's talk physics.
Canada is actually closer to the true block of ice called the Arctic and guess what has happened to Canada's temperature? http://www.ec.gc....raph.gif
What does your physics have to say about Canada's temperature vs that of the US.
https://uddebatt....1999.jpg
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (21) May 29, 2015
viko_mx with immense cognitive failure arising from lack of education claims
How to justify the coming artificial collapse in the global economy?
Look up fiat currency.

viko_mx mumbles
With political shortsightedness does not sound good
Common, some desire power, SAME with religions, no deity !

viko_mx states
With colossal corruption too
ie Politics & religion

viko_mx claims
With unnatural finacial system and bуsiness model also
What is a natural system then ?

viko_mx claims
So global warming is the solution
No. A consequence of ignorance & lack of understanding of Physics re scale & complexity

viko_mx mumbles
These articles form the majority opinion and the media care even for a moment the people to not forgot about this fictional problem
Huh ? Only among the uneducated

viko_mx misunderstands
Hollywood also working hard on the issue
its called entertainment, soma of the masses

viko_mx get a base physics education Please ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (20) May 29, 2015
antigoracle FAILS to offer any Physics or answer key questions of his political bias & commercial agenda with
The ignoRANT of the AGW Cult's brainless drone
Flake antigoracle misses the point, ie Physics of radiative transfer, go to community college & get a decent education in Physics or go away !

antigoracle claims
.., then let's talk physics
Yes, START with radiative transfer & forcing & the well accepted & irrefutable greenhouse effect.

Why can't you ?

antigoracle states
Canada is actually closer to the true block of ice called the Arctic and guess what has happened to Canada's temperature? http://www.ec.gc....raph.gif
Yeah & some parts warming, some don't change much, some cooler, whats the integrative average with detail ?

Why are you so 2 dimensional antigoracle, where is your maths/physics/combinatorial complexity, still a redneck then.

Understand specific heat, currents etc
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) May 29, 2015
"How to justify the coming artificial collapse in the global economy?"
-------------------------------------

Capitalistic greed by rich and selfish capitalists. Go curl up with a Wall Street Banker.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
radiative transfer & forcing & the well accepted & irrefutable greenhouse effect.
--mikemoron
Ok now we are talking.
How do these compare for Canada and the US?
How do that comparison explain the differing temperature trend?
gkam
2.5 / 5 (22) May 29, 2015
Anyone who uses a political statement for an ID has no credibility in a science forum.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (19) May 29, 2015
antigoracle offered
Ok now we are talking
Good !

Then ipsofacto, acknowledging your confirmation then you must fully accept proposition of overall radiative forcing as exemplified thus:-
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Do you ?

antigoracle asked
How do these compare for Canada and the US?
Fair Q, to undertake such task one must sum all specific heats/mass for ALL constituents of each continent including (& not limited to) water, ice, atmosphere, sources of geothermal, other natural etc & a host of unnatural thermal sources moderated by the complexity of ocean & atmospheric flow

As it MUST be 100% clear no nation state is an isolated climate system it shares heat with all other adjacent regions quickly & other non-adjacent over proportional periods commensurate with climate flow dynamics !

antigoracle went on
How do that comparison explain the differing temperature trend?
Start - atmosphere has 4000x LESS heat capacity than H2O

cont
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 29, 2015
Continued @antigoracle

One can clearly see a sizable effort best addressed by a range of climate models (with error bars) based on core Physics, that is the issue - what is the core Physics ?

You antigoracle have accepted it is firmly founded upon radiative (heat) transfer & its effect, relation & measurements are confirmed by data
http://images.rem...ies.html

Principles of which, EASY to test with one of those infra-red remote temperature sensors (with or without laser pointer) manufactured by Fluke Instruments etc; reliable, accurate enough with sufficient resolution to prove principle & HOW to extend the paradigm :-)

ie. Cool night, heat flux to ceiling, sleep blanket, reduced ceiling temp vs increased temp below blanket based upon experimentally proven issue of heat flux

Fact remains, CO2 has proven addition of thermal flux of > 1.5W/m^2 worldwide !

Is there ANY physics showing adding HEAT results in *any* cooling ?

That MUST be key !
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) May 29, 2015
There you go blabbering mike.
Let me make it simple for you.
How does the radiative forcing compare for Canada vs the US?
gkam
2.7 / 5 (24) May 29, 2015
Hey, anti, is there anything you are actually for, . . besides coal power, police states, and the Bush Wars?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (20) May 29, 2015
antigoracle complains when slightly compelx physic & maths is presented
There you go blabbering mike
This PROVES you desperately need education in Physics Eg the movement of Heat !

antigoracle claims
Let me make it simple for you
Got your question the first time but, you OBVIOUSLY need to get a basic education in heat flow, why do you resist that simple skill ?

antigoracle asked
How does the radiative forcing compare for Canada vs the US?
In terms of the figure worldwide averaged of > 1.5W/m^2 its an average & thus the same, so multiply the area of Canada by the heat per square meter and you might well see it explains why Canada is warming.

Factor in specific heat of water, can you ?

Also answer the key question posed, why haven't you done that, its dead simple, you came close to approaching it but, flaked out, do you have ANY middle school,education in heat flow or why are you here ?

What have you ever learned re proven & experimentally heat flow ?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
How does the radiative forcing compare for Canada vs the US?

In terms of the figure worldwide averaged of > 1.5W/m^2 its an average & thus the same, so multiply the area of Canada by the heat per square meter and you might well see it explains why Canada is warming.

Mike again you blabber. Here is a link for your education https://www.e-edu...node/672

Now what's happening differently in the US, for it to be cooling?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
Mike I have an easy question for you. Is the amount of extra heat that the earth retains proportional the the amount of extra Co2 that is added to the atmosphere?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (21) May 29, 2015
antigoracle claimed
Mike again you blabber
No. Evidence is clear you uneducated prick, I suggest very simply & plainly you multiply the 1.5W/m^2 with area of Canada, so either you can't Canada's area and/or you cannot multiply, what is WRONG with you ?

antigoracle offers
Here is a link for your education https://www.e-edu...node/672
Insolation doh, add to it CO2's radiative forcing of >1.5W/m^2, guess what, multiply by area of USA - can you do that & arrive at overall heat flux, can you ?

antigoracle claims
Now what's happening differently in the US, for it to be cooling?
Prove it, where, when, over what period, details ?

Why can't you get the point, continent has immense complexity over regions which vary in humidity despite averaged CO2 forcing AVERAGED overall ?

Answer this

1. Do you expect all regions across the USA or world must heat equally ?
2. Added CO2 forcing must be equal effect ?
3. Evidence ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (20) May 29, 2015
MR166 asked
Is the amount of extra heat that the earth retains proportional the the amount of extra Co2 that is added to the atmosphere?
Evidence of Oceans, ice melt re latent heat of fusion & variations across land masses & atmosphere as lowest specific heat support that proposition.

The question I ask you; antigoracle, dogbert & other uneducated people who have NO physics ?

How can adding heat somehow reduce temperature, what possible mechanism can ever do that ?

Given the experimental proven properties of heat & materials there MUST be local heat movements due to change/shift in equilibira as all heat moves to lower enthalpy regions, what can ever ameliorate that OTHER than increase in temps of materials with lower specific heat WHEN its in contact with materials that have higher specific heats ?

Can a AGW denier confirm they have education in Specific Heat incl Latent heat of Fusion ?

Get a Physics education you guys or go away, this is a Science site !
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
Prove it, where, when, over what period, details ?

Mike the moron blabbers again.
I provided this at the very beginning - https://uddebatt....1999.jpg
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2015
Now what's happening differently in the US, for it to be cooling?

antiG
1- the US is NOT cooling: http://www.epa.go...ure.html

2- if you are referring to the recent winter cold snaps: see links below and learn some science

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

http://iopscience...4005.pdf

https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

https://www.youtu...wJg4Ebzo

http://www.arctic...ortcard/

http://www.arctic...ortcard/air_temperature.html

if you actually thing AGW isn't real: tell NOAA and the global world all about it in your conspiracy blog
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2015
Prove it, where, when, over what period, details ?

Mike the moron blabbers again.
I provided this at the very beginning - https://uddebatt....1999.jpg

a gif by watts taken out of context is your "proof" that the US is cooling?
really?

i guess you didn't see the actual measured/observed temp data i linked from NASA/NOAA that shows not only you are wrong, but that you are not able to read

it even had a nice graphic picture for you to look at

i always try to make sure it has pictures for trolls like you, antiG
guess that makes you...?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
Captain stunted to the rescue..NOT
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
Now go and grow a brain and then we'll talk.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (20) May 29, 2015
antigoracle FAILS in his claim
Mike the moron blabbers again
Evidence shows you ONLY say this when you don't understand Science or the scope of the questions raised, what a complete dick you are !

antigoracle claims
I provided this at the very beginning - https://uddebatt....1999.jpg
Huh, its 15+ years old & DOESN'T show region, all details missing & no provenance !

antigoracle FAILS yet again !

And antigoracle FAILS to answer my questions, why the f..k is he here in the first place ?

antigoracle FAILS to get an education in Physics, Science or ANY maths despite here for years!

antigoracle FAILS to offer ANYTHING !

antigoracle FAILS to offer any hypothesis or ANYTHING to show why heating a region should cool it !!!!

antigoracle the idiot political denier who's nick betrays him so very well as an uneducated redneck !

WHY does antigoracle BOTHER showing such very old data, has he got dementia of the worst type ?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (19) May 29, 2015
antigoracle claims
Captain stunted to the rescue..NOT
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
Now go and grow a brain and then we'll talk.
Huh ?

Talk about a brain, antigoracle's very BEST attempt at data is 15+ years old !

Is he trying to show us just how stupid, banal & out of date he really is - what is his point please ?

WHY is antigoracle wasting everyones time with data of 15 years ago - why oh why ?

Is he ill, demented or a plant and needs a f..k load of watering, is he drunk or on drugs - FFS !

Get a life antigoracle, grow up, be pertinent, not a feeble pretender who desperately needs an
education in:-

Physics
Experimental Methods
Data Reporting
Mathematics
Dialectic

FFS go away antigoracle, grow up or STFU & get an education !

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) May 29, 2015
So, mike the AGW moron pretends to know physics, but when challenged to discuss it, all he can do is blabber like the idiot he is. Guess what has happened to global temperatures in the last 15 years.
Did the US change from cooling to warming in the last 15 years?
If so, then what's so different about the US that it's temperature trend is opposite to that of the rest of the world?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (25) May 29, 2015
anti, please go away.

Thanks,
The Decent Folk
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (17) May 29, 2015
WhooooooHOOOoo .... throwing the coals right under the seat with antisciencegorilla Chesthumping his chest like the very gorilla he proves himslef to be, what a show.... :D Ahhh Mike and Captain, beating his 3 braincells to smithereens (o i feel for you monkey...not lol..) Untill he finally missed a few branches falling on his face...

Gorillamonkey not providing any evidence and after countless of empirical proof from Mike and Captain throughout the YEARS antisciencegorilla tries to tell them they do not provide proof lol I'm starting to think mental school does more bharm than good for him, do they teach you to read in those classes ? I know it's too much work for those now roasted braincells but the idea behind getting you to be able to read is to one day understand emperical evidence that was given here countless of times....

Gorillamonkey you earned your bannanas today well done... :D :D (and the world is still laughing...) lol... :D :D
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (17) May 29, 2015
nope gorillamonkey can't leave now...what would happen to his dumb legacy, he needs to constantly prove how stupid he and big oil is (and it really shows).... :D
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 29, 2015
Captain stunted to the rescue..NOT
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
Now go and grow a brain and then we'll talk.
@antiG
like i said: your graphic is not only wrong, it is also out of context as well as out of date
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
here is a link that is actually up to date AND it has pictures you can look at (which directly refute your claims, BTW)
http://www.nasa.g...mary.pdf

it is also a NASA link just like your feeble attempt to try and prove your delusions

it also completely debunks your "cooling" as well as "cooling to warming" BS being spouted above to Mike

but i will let mike answer that for himself

oh, and it really is too bad you are back to TROLLING

runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2015
anti, please go away.

Thanks,
The Decent Folk

It's easy ... just hit "ignore user".
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) May 29, 2015
Captain stunted, in every post you endeavour to confirm you lack a brain. But, if by some miracle you should grow one, then perhaps you could follow this conversation which started with the following from mike the moron.
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole

HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (16) May 29, 2015
Now now monkey, no need to cry over the last few braincells that toasted, here have a bannana... ;)

Well respected scientists Mike and Captain knows monkeys can't be taken seriously.... so instead we like to see monkeys swinging from branches to our amusement, but even monkeys must sleep, i'll have the cage open with fresh hay for you to go to sleep tonight to dream of your monkeyness tonight... ;) until then, makes us laugh...we like it lots.... i've got more bannanas for you... :D
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (19) May 29, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

Before you proceed, please consider:

- local/regional temp data/trends also reflect effects of prevailing air/ocean currents which may input/remove some heat from local/regional dynamics. Eg, Britain would be buried under glaciers except for the warm ocean currents that affect its local/national climate. And it gets pretty Icy when East Winds bring cold arctic air from Siberia via Europe.

- also note than any trend is from a previous base reflecting the previous 'settled' patterns of these factors. Changes, whether temporary or trending longterm, in these local/regional factors are unavoidably 'driven' by overall GLOBAL dynamics...which latter is changing NOW rom previous 'global pattern' to evolving one; via intermediate chaotic 'swings' from local/transient 'nodes' pattern towards different patterns which global warming will usher in.

Beware your egotistical/facile self-interest in this matter...as your children will pay for your self-indulgence.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
Mike I asked you a simple question, "Mike I have an easy question for you. Is the amount of extra heat that the earth retains proportional the the amount of extra Co2 that is added to the atmosphere?" and you quoted my question but did not answer it. Would you like to try again?

Mr

PS retaining more heat is not an answer.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) May 29, 2015
The solution to this problem is simple. Most trees planted. But they do not want a solution. They want crisis.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
gkam
2.8 / 5 (22) May 30, 2015
166, do you really think we are going to take the word of an anonymous internet poster over those of professional scientists?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) May 30, 2015
166, do you really think we are going to take the word of an anonymous internet poster over those of professional scientists?


gkam:
This is why I said prior on this thread - hit "ignore user".
"They" will never give up their position. It is belief, and we only have to look around the planet to see how powerful "belief" is.
Whether you choose to follow an evil god or a benificent one even. Shows the illogic of it, never mind hanging on to your ideological peer-group and saying "nananana", determined that the real world bends to "your" concept of it, and not vice versa.
I hear the "cant let them have the last word" argument ... to which I agree ... but sorry, beating heads against a wall is what they do. They are untouchable, and happy in their ignorance. There is a basic disconnect that rational discussion cannot mend. Neutrals on here must see this., as I think most come here for the science and the minority to troll.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
"How to justify the coming artificial collapse in the global economy?"
-------------------------------------

Capitalistic greed by rich and selfish capitalists. Go curl up with a Wall Street Banker.

..........Yeah, that's what the Clintons have done. You voting for another one? If you do, you're condemned by the words of your own post.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
The first graph shows how poor the UN's climate predictions are.

http://www.cato.o...tterfeed

It is Gkam and Runrig that have the disconnect when they worship at the AGW alter.
zz5555
5 / 5 (11) May 30, 2015
The first graph shows how poor the UN's climate predictions are.

http://www.cato.o...tterfeed

It is Gkam and Runrig that have the disconnect when they worship at the AGW alter.

It's interesting that this link is presented to "disprove" the science. The link from Cato uses a presentation from John Christy to congress as evidence. But Christy has looked at temperatures in the mid-troposphere - someplace where nobody lives (unless you climb Mt. Everest) (http://www.skepti...ing.html ). Why doesn't he compare how the models perform at the earth's surface - you know, where everybody actually lives. Because he knows that his conclusions would be wrong (http://www.thegua...accurate ). No one denies that the models aren't perfect. But they do quite well for surface temperature projections.
denglish
1 / 5 (11) May 30, 2015
Mother Nature cares not for these monkeys with big brains. Despite their predictions, or justifications for taking money from others, she does what she wants.

My only regret is that I probably won't be here to see the AGW'ers take their rightful place in history-shame.

In California, the AGW hoax already puts $.50-$.60 extra into our gas prices. Where does the money go you ask? Slush funds. Yes, they're VERY concerned...
zz5555
5 / 5 (12) May 30, 2015
My only regret is that I probably won't be here to see the AGW'ers take their rightful place in history-shame.

It's a shame that you won't live that long? The science associated with AGW is pretty solid, so you already know that the scientists will be well respected in the long run. Certainly, in the science world, that's already happened. For the public, that's happening more and more and as the polar ice caps continue to melt, temperatures continue to rise, sea level continues to rise, more and more of the public will listen to the pro-science side. So you already know this will happen, why not relax?

By the way, it really won't take that long - 20 years at tops. I wonder what will come of the anti-science side as people understand that it's more expensive to adapt to the changes than to mitigate them. Will they blame the anti-science side for any economic problems? That will be interesting.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 30, 2015
The first graph shows how poor the UN's climate predictions are.


For those interested in this "Epic fail" ... (on his/Christy's part) ... go to:

http://www.drroys...r-means/

It's Spencer's Blog !!
And read Glen Tamblyn's critique of it - to which Spencer did not reply BTW.

As it happens Tamblyn missed a trick and ...

https://www.skept...nced.htm

Explains it - read comment from KR.

Either deception or incompetence.... but what to have as a result a climate denier's myth. Never to be expunged in their minds.
FFS
gkam
2.2 / 5 (17) May 30, 2015
We have perturbed complex interactions between complex systems, and will reap the effects. Complex systems change until they reach Stable States. If perturbed by changes in important factors, they will change, oscillate to extremes before coming to a new Stable State, which may not be conducive to Human habitat.

We have perturbed the climate, our Life-Support System. The ignorati have been propagandized to react as if it were a lie, such as "WMD!" and"Bring 'em on!", because that is what they would do.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 30, 2015
Either deception or incompetence.... but what to have as a result a climate denier's myth. Never to be expunged in their minds.

Well, Christy has knowingly lied to Congress before, so it wouldn't be the first time for him. In my comment, I had assumed Christy was at least honest enough to use mid-tropospheric projections from the model, but if he just used the surface projections, then that would be massive deception on his part. His specialty is the satellite temperature dataset, so he knows very well that they don't really measure surface temperatures.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) May 30, 2015
MR166
Mike I asked you a simple question, "Mike I have an easy question for you. Is the amount of extra heat that the earth retains proportional the the amount of extra Co2 that is added to the atmosphere?" and you quoted my question but did not answer it
Answered but, Mr166 can't read.

"Evidence of Oceans, ice melt re latent heat of fusion & variations across land masses & atmosphere as lowest specific heat support that proposition"

Too complex for feeble intellects ?

Here in simpler form for the uneducated AGW deniers who can't understand Physics of Heat

"Evidence .. support that proposition", can you parse that MR166 ?

If not, why not ?

Why is it straightforward references to Science ie Physics has the anti-AGW crowd crying their question wasn't answered or its claimed answer is "blabbering" ?

antigoracle & MR166 knows full well the issue, has been here long enough, deduction is they are dis-ingenuous, not to be trusted obviously as a paid flunkies
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
" I had assumed Christy was at least honest enough to use mid-tropospheric projections from the model,"

So the mid-tropospher predictions may or may not be more accurate. The fact is that surface temperatures are not increasing and Co2 levels are.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 30, 2015
So the mid-tropospher predictions may or may not be more accurate. The fact is that surface temperatures are not increasing and Co2 levels are.

Hmm. Interesting claim. I know you've attempted to show this in the past with short term RSS plots. But, of course, since those are satellite measurements, you know that those don't measure surface temperature, so it would be foolish to rely on them to "prove" lack of warming. And, of course, since they're short term, they're very far from statistically significant - meaning it could just be noise in the system rather than actual cooling. So it would be foolish to rely on short term measurements.

But I'm sure that's what we'll get from you. ;)
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
The science associated with AGW is pretty solid,


If it was solid, then everyone would agree, and the most vociferous AGW proponents would take their own pill. If it was solid, populist rationalization would not be used to support AGW.

How come the polar ice didn't disappear in 2012?

How come Californians are putting extra gas prices into a slush fund because of global warming laws?

How come cap and trade auctions are making billions of dollars with no oversight re: where that money goes?

denglish
2 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Either deception or incompetence.... but what to have as a result a climate denier's myth. Never to be expunged in their minds.
FFS


You forgot something:

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

All those scary predictions. All that reality. Ooops.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 30, 2015
How come the polar ice didn't disappear in 2012?

Because no one expected it to?
How come Californians are putting extra gas prices into a slush fund because of global warming laws?

What does this have to do with the science?
How come cap and trade auctions are making billions of dollars with no oversight re: where that money goes?

What does this have to do with the science?

You can whine all you want about politics - I might even agree with you on occasion (but I try not to discuss it because, really, it's impossible to discuss politics and not look like an idiot). But this is all irrelevant to the science.

So it stands: The science associated with AGW is pretty solid. Some of it is settled (i.e., the direct warming effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere). Some of it isn't (i.e., how much additional warming will be caused by feedbacks). But, overall, the science is pretty solid.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
" But, of course, since those are satellite measurements, you know that those don't measure surface temperature, so it would be foolish to rely on them to "prove" lack of warming."

Right ZZ and data that does not support the agenda must be denied. With Al Gore as the pope and the UN as Vatican City who can deny the validity of the religion?
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
If it was solid, then everyone would agree

This, of course, is nonsense. Look at relativity: extremely well tested. But you'll find lots of people here claiming that relativity is crap. And you'll even be able to find scientists that make the same claim. Why would you expect everyone to agree? There are plenty of people who don't understand science at all (look at how easily the anti-science group has been able to fool you). And even among those who understand science, the Dunning–Kruger effect can fool them.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Because no one expected it to?

https://www.youtu...oIw4bvzI

What does this have to do with the science?

Exactly

What does this have to do with the science?

Exactly

But this is all irrelevant to the science.

This science?

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

But, overall, the science is pretty solid.

I would believe that if everyone was on the same page. If it wasn't for climate change, the earth would either still be a fireball or an ice-ball. The earth changes and has since day 1, and humans had nothing to do with it. We are lucky for it. Reasonable doubt. Humanity is innocent until proven guilty. The jury is still out, but the reparations are already in effect. Something stinks.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
You forgot something:

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

All those scary predictions. All that reality. Ooops.

Interesting. runrig supplies a link to how Spencer erred, and you ignore it completely. That link shows that Spencer was either incompetent in presenting his satellite data, or he lied. Given that satellite data is his specialty, which do you think it was?

Your delight in being deceived by the anti-science group is fascinating. ;)
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
This, of course, is nonsense. Look at relativity: extremely well tested. But you'll find lots of people here claiming that relativity is crap.


There's a difference.

Relativity made predictions that have since been observed.

AGW has made predictions that haven't been observed.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) May 30, 2015
Now MR166 is bing immensely ignorant or is also a LIAR & CHEAT with this claim
The fact is that surface temperatures are not increasing and Co2 levels are
WRONG - & you have been told this before, because you continue to trot out statements like this makes you a bare-faced LIAR and are NOT to be trusted with ANY claims, comments, jibes or anything useful as the evidence is clear from server logs you are following a polticial/commercial agenda

Temps are rising, the altitude temp profile matches that of a typical thermal blanket effect here
http://images.rem...ies.html

When will MR166 own up and accept he not only lies & has nil understanding of Physics ?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Your delight in being deceived by the anti-science group is fascinating. ;)


Show me data that compares actual global temperatures vs. the predictions.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Because no one expected it to?


https://www.youtu...oIw4bvzI

Ah, yes, here's the part where you bring up Gore's statement where you admitted that you lied and that you felt it was ok for you to lie. You'd think that if someone cared about their reputation, they would try to avoid revisiting a time when they said it was ok for them to lie. ;)

But as for that, Gore was quoting a model when he said the ice could be gone by 2013. And what did that model say? It said that arctic ice could be gone in 2016 +/- 3 years. So it has until 2019 until it's proven wrong. Personally, I think that prediction will fail, but given the continued loss of arctic sea ice, who knows? But you can't say that failed until Sept. of 2019. (I know, requiring you to wait until predictions actually fail to claim failure is a "typical liberal ploy", so I'm sure it's ok for you to lie about it ;)
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
denglish also with LIES claims
AGW has made predictions that haven't been observed
Evidence shows increasing heat in the system, the Physics is settled ie
https://en.wikipe...transfer

denglish claims relativity but, cannot understand radiative heat transfer even though its simpler and experimentally proven before relativity was able to be tested definitively...
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

denglish is also coming across as immensely dis-ingenuous in Science & Physics and being inconsistent with Physics.

Can denglish show just why more heat from CO2's radiative forcing should somehow break the laws of physics & result in either NO change or any cooling ?

Is there any climate based system or basic physics component of our earth whether oceans or atmosphere or anything which should cool or not change phase as a result of adding heat ?

I vote denglish show physics details or retract his claims, if not I vote he also be banned !
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
There are plenty of people who don't understand science at all (look at how easily the anti-science group has been able to fool you).


Careful. You have no idea of my background, nor of the others here. Presumption will lead you to tenuous argumentative foundations.

zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
This, of course, is nonsense. Look at relativity: extremely well tested. But you'll find lots of people here claiming that relativity is crap.


There's a difference.

Relativity made predictions that have since been observed.

AGW has made predictions that haven't been observed.

Sure it has. The climate has warmed. The stratosphere has cooled (one of the reasons satellite temperatures are so unreliable). Warming is more pronounced in the winter than in the summer. Warming continues at night. Warming is more pronounced in the polar regions than in the tropics. The ice sheets/glaciers are melting. Spring snow melt is coming sooner. The ocean is acidifying. Hurricanes are happening less frequently and with more intensity. Sea level rise continues and is accelerating.

There are certainly predictions that haven't occurred yet, because the prediction is still in the future, but claiming AGW predictions haven't been observed is another of your many lies.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Ah, yes, here's the part where you bring up Gore's statement where you admitted that you lied

Gore was quoting a model when he said the ice could be gone by 2013. And what did that model say? It said that arctic ice could be gone in 2016 +/- 3 years. So it has until 2019 until it's proven wrong. Personally, I think that prediction will fail, but given the continued loss of arctic sea ice, who knows? But you can't say that failed until Sept. of 2019. (I know, requiring you to wait until predictions actually fail to claim failure is a "typical liberal ploy", so I'm sure it's ok for you to lie about it ;)

Oh no, not the lieing thing again. Stop reeling. You're better than that.

No, the ploy used was to use an argument that would benefit him while leaving an out. All politicians do it.

You think an AGW prediction will fail? Ironic...unless other have failed before it.

Should we pay reparations and allow our economy to be destroyed while we wait for proof?
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
Your delight in being deceived by the anti-science group is fascinating. ;)


Show me data that compares actual global temperatures vs. the predictions.

Ah. Thank you for admitting that you look at none of the links I've posted - wouldn't want actual data to interfere with your conclusions ;). But I linked to it above: http://www.thegua...accurate . You can find many items like that in actual papers, if you're interested.

But science isn't what you're interested in, is it? I guess in politics, you can prove anything.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
but claiming AGW predictions haven't been observed is another of your many lies.


Data please.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
There are plenty of people who don't understand science at all (look at how easily the anti-science group has been able to fool you).


Careful. You have no idea of my background, nor of the others here. Presumption will lead you to tenuous argumentative foundations.

Hmm. You linked to a number of Spencer's graphs that were clearly deceptive. Yet you still link to his stuff. Why do you link to someone you know has lied to you? What other conclusion can I come to other than that it's easy to deceive you on this issue? And how would it be so easy to deceive you if you understood science. Ok, you could be a severe issue of Dunning-Kruger, but really you've given no evidence that you can even grasp the basic fundamentals of science.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015


Ah. Thank you for admitting that you look at none of the links I've posted - wouldn't want actual data to interfere with your conclusions ;). But I linked to it above: http://www.thegua...accurate . You can find many items like that in actual papers, if you're interested.

Thank you. Now. Why do the two sources of data, both pro and con, not agree?

Because they're both nasty, dirty liars.

Far from settled.

But science isn't what you're interested in, is it? I guess in politics, you can prove anything.

Actually, I love science. It is fascinating, as is my paycheck.

Yes, politics is very useful for proving things. Convince the masses, and you are right.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
denglish states with immense hypocrisy
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion
Coorect and this applies to denglish's hypocrisy, making stupid claims re AGW and relying on disingenuous sources that only come across as appeal to authority and that lack competence. Eg Calling AGW a hoax when it is soundly based on the settled Science of Physics in respect of:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Exemplified
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

So for denglish to claim "AGW is a hoax" goes to show denglish does not or cannot either due to a feeble intellect or political bias or a commercial agenda as a paid flunky is NOT scientific despite the choice of language he makes suggesting he can know some science.

Physics denglish, why can't he get to core issue ie That MUST be radiative forcing !

What else is core ?
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
paid flunkies
--mikemoron
Well, this is an "improvement" mike. You've gone from pretending to know science to confirming your ignorance. When you're ready to pretend to know science again, you can answer this:
Why did the US cool, from the 1930's on, especially since it emitted more CO2 than any other country during this time?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
but really you've given no evidence that you can even grasp the basic fundamentals of science.


Does that work on your kid brother?

(It doesn't' work on adults, it only makes it look like you are reeling)

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Thank you. Now. Why do the two sources of data, both pro and con, not agree?

Because Spencer either lied or was incompetent (the discussion was linked to twice). You read none of the comments, do you? You just pick a soundbite and then claim some random thing and ignore any evidence refuting your claim. You sound like a politician (that's not a compliment).
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Because Spencer either lied or was incompetent (the discussion was linked to twice).


So, one side is right, and the other side lies or is incompetent (please tell me where you earned your doctorate in climatology).

Nope, not a political issue at all. All science.

You still haven't told us why the common person are pay ingreparations into slush funds, or why corporations must pay billions into slush funds because of AGW.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
Data please.

Why bother? You've admitted that you ignore any and all data that opposes your political stance.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Data please.

Why bother? You've admitted that you ignore any and all data that opposes your political stance.


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

This seems silly. You seem to be asking me for all data ever collected. Can't you do any work yourself? Are you that uninterested in science? So what data are you looking for (please be a bit more specific)? That the sea level is rising? See http://sealevel.colorado.edu . For temperature, woodfortrees.org is good, but you can't get statistical significance from there (or I can't figure it out). You can go to http://www.skepti...rend.php . Seriously, it's not that tough. If you are skeptical of woodfortrees or skepticalscience, I think all the temperature series have a website. For a skeptics view on temperature, try http://berkeleyearth.org .
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
antigoracle claims
-mikemoron
Well, this is an "improvement" mike. You've gone from pretending to know science to confirming your ignorance
Prove your claim - I have, but you NEVER have, you liar & cheat !

antigoracle claims
When you're ready to pretend to know science again, you can answer this:
Why did the US cool, from the 1930's on, especially since it emitted more CO2 than any other country during this time?
You forget (AGAIN) US is close to large ice masses north and none are static and no region of air is static.

And in any case it depends on which part of USA, taking a single average proves your ignorance !

West USA has warmed eg droughts, East has cooled - quite understandably as east gets heat from the Atlantic Conveyor and that is under stress.

But, antigoracle you never actually ask science questions, you ask questions re permutations in a complex system of multiple metastable equilibria subject to a proven increasing heat load...
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
For a skeptics view on temperature, try http://berkeleyearth.org .


So, not everyone agrees. Now what?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
denglish claims perhaps dis-ingenuously
Nope, not a political issue at all. All science
Really ?
Are you sure or pretending to know Science ie the Physics of radiative heat transfer, is this like your superficial understanding of astrophysics re relativity which you blurt on

Why denglish, don;t you understand these key issues of the settled Physics re climate change
https://en.wikipe...transfer

AND
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

denglish claims
... or why corporations must pay billions into slush funds because of AGW
Really ?
Which corporations, how many billions, are the companies records now public, what period ?

US fuel taxes are very low and hopefully they will go higher with more money into electrification and less to CO2 emitting industries, wouldnt that be a good thing long term, I will vote for that ;-)

Got a US congress/senate report by republicans where the money went is going denglish ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
denglish being dis-ingenuous claims
For a skeptics view on temperature, try http://berkeleyearth.org .
So, not everyone agrees. Now what?
No. You misrepresent and imply there is some sort of equal agreement...

The vast bulk of educated in Science especially Physics agree & accept the earth is warming and the majority by far accept that CO2's thermal properties in conjunction with CO2's significant rise are the blame and suggest this will continue whilst CO2 continues to rise
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

Whilst temperatures continue to rise
http://images.rem...ies.html

Those that DO NOT agree or don't accept global warming are those overwhelmingly uneducated or not appreciative of the key Physics which is radiative forcing or paid to obfuscate
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

ie Affecting Earth's thermal balance

denglish, do you understand radiative forcing ?

Can you refute ANY of it head on & on what basis ?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
You forget (AGAIN) US is close to large ice masses north and none are static and no region of air is static.

There you go again mike, blabbering instead of pretending to know science.
Canada is closer to that ice mass and it shares the same oceans, so why is Canada's temperature trend the opposite of US.

Stop pretending to know about CO2 and tell me why has the US cooled while it emitted more CO2 than any other country?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
"The vast bulk of educated in Science especially Physics agree & accept the earth is warming and the majority by far accept that CO2's thermal properties in conjunction with CO2's significant rise are the blame and suggest this will continue whilst CO2 continues to rise."

Mike answer the question! Is the increase in retained heat proportional to the increase in Co2 levels?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
My only regret is that I probably won't be here to see the AGW'ers take their rightful place in history-shame
@deng
you've already lived that long - except that if you read the world news and you will see it is the blatantly stupid (like the anti-science, anti-AGW crowd) who are being pointed at as shameful and stupid, not the scientists
Where does the money go you ask? Slush funds. Yes, they're VERY concerned
imagine that: just like i said before and continue to say- the politicians are robbing the people
that is NOT the fault of the scientists, but of the politicians
that is also NOT science, but politics and a huge red herring/strawman and attempt to obfuscate and redirect the conversation into non-scientific topics
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
The fact is that surface temperatures are not increasing and Co2 levels are.
@mr
if you are going to talk science, you should actually read the studies which discuss CO2, it's interactions and the studies which demonstrate, observe, measure and spell out the physics, like Lacis et al, which you are still ignoring
all you are doing right now is parroting a political myth that is showing your ignorance (actually, in this case, it is intentional stupidity because i already linked these studies to you, but you are intentionally ignoring them)
Is the increase in retained heat proportional to the increase in Co2 levels?
perhaps you can answer this yourself by reading the literature
after all, i HAVE linked it to you already more than once
... tell me why has the US cooled ...
antig
it hasn't cooled
you've already ignored the explanation, from Mike, Thermo, Runrig, Maggnus AND myself
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
just like i said before and continue to say- the politicians are robbing the people
that is NOT the fault of the scientists, but of the politicians
that is also NOT science, but politics and a huge red herring/strawman and attempt to obfuscate and redirect the conversation into non-scientific topics


The politicians are using AGW to rob the people. Thus, any group that suggests the climate is much more complex than a blanket statement of AGW are quashed in the populist media, leaving the masses (in a misguided attempt to do the right thing) to support economical crippling and expansion of the dependent class.

Politicians are benefiting from climate change. That it is not science is my exact point.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
If it was solid, then everyone would agree, and the most vociferous AGW proponents would take their own pill. If it was solid, populist rationalization would not be used to support AGW
@deng
really?
you mean there would be agreement like this? http://iopscience.../article
the world already knows that you are simply parroting a political/religious/conspiracy delusion

anyone who can read can see that if you follow the logic, AGW is real
http://arstechnic...nformed/

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

the only people ignoring the science are agenda driven, paid for, or delusional and refusing to accept known physics/science because of personal issues
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
you will see it is the blatantly stupid (like the anti-science, anti-AGW crowd)


you are simply parroting a political/religious/conspiracy delusion


A person that uses pejoratives to advance their position will never convince me of anything.

You should know that by now.

the only people ignoring the science are agenda driven, paid for, or delusional and refusing to accept known physics/science because of personal issues


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Politicians are benefiting from climate change. That it is not science is my exact point
@deng
but that doesn't mean the actual science is not real, as you are suggesting
it only means that your politicians are crooked (imagine that)
if a politician is crooked and you can scientifically prove that what they are doing is not effective, there are solutions that you can take

for instance: follow in the footsteps of Colorado
impeach the politician
when you do, you had better be using SCIENCE and evidence to support your conclusions, however, because if you are NOT using it, you will end up with the court and gov't on your back, not theirs

that is your biggest problem to date here as well:
you are attempting to discredit SCIENCE with political parroting, NOT SCIENCE

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
A person that uses pejoratives to advance their position will never convince me of anything.

You should know that by now.
@deng
i also know that a person using scientific evidence and proven, validated studies will not change your mind too

so it makes no difference what anyone says because you've made up your mind to accept the delusion over reality
and that is proven in just about every PO climate change thread here
Intellectual dishonesty blah blah blah If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest
no one is more critical of me than me

but having said that: one of the requirements that are required for scientific discourse is scientific evidence, usually peer reviewed studies which have been validated, etc

you've only brought blogs, debunked studies and political parroting, which is none of that and subjective
it is a religious like acceptance based upon faith, not science
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015

you've only brought blogs, debunked studies and political parroting, which is none of that and subjective
it is a religious like acceptance based upon faith, not science


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
This, of course, is nonsense. Look at relativity: extremely well tested. But you'll find lots of people here claiming that relativity is crap.


There's a difference.

Relativity made predictions that have since been observed.

AGW has made predictions that haven't been observed.
@deng
again, if you are making this claim, then it is because you are gatting your info from politicians or someone with a vested interest in lying to you
case in point:
Lacis et al
Francis et al

BOTH made predictions that are spot on
and both have been linked to you multiple times in the past by at least me, and i know several others

so why would you ignore this scientific data when making a statement like yours?

intellectual dishonesty?
politics?
religion?
conspiracy?

feel free to elaborate on your reasoning
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015

you've only brought blogs, debunked studies and political parroting, which is none of that and subjective
it is a religious like acceptance based upon faith, not science


Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.
@deng
so, in other words: you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest with your comment
Relativity made predictions that have since been observed.

AGW has made predictions that haven't been observed.
like i asked above
feel free to elaborate on your reasoning
(also note: Francis has been pushing her science and predictions for more than a decade... pre 2010 for sure, and the predictions are incredibly accurate)
also note: her work is based upon prior work and has also been validated by studies AND observation/measurement

not just conjecture
SCIENCE
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
Whats wrong with MR166 as he asked again
Mike answer the question! Is the increase in retained heat proportional to the increase in Co2 levels?
I've already answered that, here it is AGAIN...

"Evidence..supports the proposition"

ie Simply "yeah it does". Learn dialectic then you might be able to take it further & not be dismissed as a crank !

But MR166, needs to qualify ALL "terms of reference" re the question & gain an education so you clearly understand what you are asking & its scope of the answer you can understand, in that respect get understanding of well known & proven properties of CO2, such as described generally here
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

However more important Q for you
"As it appears atmosphere (predominantly air) doesn't increase heat proportionately with CO2 then where is that heat going & will this movement be the same in foreseeable future ?"

Trained Climate Scientists study this in detail & understand complexity !
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Careful. You have no idea of my background, nor of the others here. Presumption will lead you to tenuous argumentative foundations
@Deng
there is no need to know your specific background when you make unfounded statements as well as conjecture that is easily refuted by scientific studies
and you can claim all the "intellectual dishonesty" you want, especially to me
and especially WRT your "data please" BS
i don't care
because i can prove that i've linked validated studies that refute your claims and given you evidence to AGW that is empirical, measured and observed

so the dishonesty is coming from you

and zz5555 had a valid point: you HAVE/DO ignore evidence that refutes you or is against what you want to believe
that is demonstrated above
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
antigoracle claims
There you go again mike, blabbering instead of pretending to know science
No. I am presenting FACTs, Canada is very different thus has many different dynamics to US !

antigoracle states
Canada is closer to that ice mass and it shares the same oceans, so why is Canada's temperature trend the opposite of US
see note, Canada also has more ice than US & is norther & thus has very different dynamics, US includes Alaska doesn't it which is adjacent to Canada, is Alaska/Hawaii incl in US average ?

antigoracle claims
Stop pretending to know about CO2..
I clearly appreciate it FAR more than you & all this time you refuse to gain education about its properties !

antigoracle asks
.. and tell me why has the US cooled while it emitted more CO2 than any other country?
Q's have assumptions, you assume CO2/air doesnt move with climate rotation & not carried by wind ?

Note: Best address a trained climate scientist but, qualify your Q as well !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
denglish states
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion
Then just why does denglish IGNORE the data
http://images.rem...ies.html

and does denglish understand this
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

does denglish then refute the settled maths & physics of
https://en.wikipe...transfer

denglish doesn't understand the assumptions implicit here re education
If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest
So answer this denglish, how should one judge any who make claims contrary to Science especially Physics and NEVER prove their claims ?

OR
Rabbit on about issues which only obfuscate the science & attempt to sidestep the Physics.

dneglish get a grip you appear as a paid flunky who only superficially touches on relativity re your comment and has nil appreciation of heat flow !
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Californians pay $.50 - $.60 extra for a gallon of gas due to global warming laws.

Corporations pay billions of dollars in cap and trade auctions.

All of that money does not go into AGW research or prevention. It goes into slush funds.

The grifting is obvious. That reputable scientists have expressed concern that we don't know everything, and that it is too soon to blame AGW, is troubling, in the face of the profiteering.

I have already posted examples of AGW predictions not panning out. No more. Maybe next thread.

There are over 100 posts in a thread that is supposed to be based on settled science.

That so many of the pro-AGW arguments are founded in insult and pejorative demonstrates that little value is placed on cognitive values.

We attack each other in these threads while billions of dollars are being made, economies are being wrecked, and the dependent class is being grown.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
Mike blabbers:
Canada also has more ice than US & is norther & thus has very different dynamics, US includes Alaska doesn't it which is adjacent to Canada, is Alaska/Hawaii incl in US average ?


So, what are those different dynamics?
How do they affect temperature differently?

you assume CO2/air doesnt move with climate rotation & not carried by wind


Carried where? Away from the US?
And how fast? Is it gone in minutes, hours, days, weeks....?

Are you going to just blabber or talk science?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
All of that money does not go into AGW research or prevention. It goes into slush funds
@deng
1- that is politics
2- that doesn't mean that the AGW science is not real
3- you don't like it: change it
there are only three things you can do with any situation:
change it
live with it
walk away from it

make your choice
That so many of the pro-AGW arguments are founded in insult and pejorative demonstrates that little value is placed on cognitive values
and yet when i've tried to share scientific evidence, the anti-AGW crowd (and you as well) simply ignore the validated studies

not speculative studies
not first time published data
VALIDATED studies
We attack each other in these threads
nope
i attack non-science

you've demonstrated knowledge of physics elsewhere, but ignore the physics here
WHY?
(please elaborate- thank you)
We should be ashamed of ourselves
yes! anyone who chooses conjecture over logic and science should

are you ashamed?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
That reputable scientists have expressed concern that we don't know everything, and that it is too soon to blame AGW, is troubling, in the face of the profiteering
@deng
and again, this is baltantly false
overwhelmingly, most scientists accept that AGW is real and we are the cause of a large part of the problem

the only speculations by scientists is what can be done about it and how to do it
THAT is still being worked out
that is also something Eikka brought up recently, and we discussed

i am not trying to promote anything as a solution, but i will defend the science that is validated
and i will also point out that this is the most egregious and strangest of your faults:
your inability to accept the physics of the validated science
(especially considering you seem to be fairly educated in other threads)

do not think that the confusion over what to do about a situation is justification for the claim that AGW isn't real and scientists don't agree on it
gkam
2.1 / 5 (18) May 30, 2015
"Californians pay $.50 - $.60 extra for a gallon of gas due to global warming laws."
-------------------------------------

Nope. Those costs are for special blends to fight air pollution.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
"Californians pay $.50 - $.60 extra for a gallon of gas due to global warming laws."
-------------------------------------

Nope. Those costs are for special blends to fight air pollution.
@gkam
is there a link where those outside of CA can read up on that?
i would appreciate it

Thanks in advance if you have one
gkam
1.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
Off the top without looking it up, I would try CARB, the California Air Resources Board. They probably set the standard.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
1- that is politics

Exactly

2- that doesn't mean that the AGW science is not real

It doesn't mean its real either.

3- you don't like it: change it

I vote.

and yet when i've tried to share scientific evidence, the anti-AGW crowd (and you as well) simply ignore the validated studies

No. The other side was presented.

nope
i attack non-science

If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

you've demonstrated knowledge of physics elsewhere, but ignore the physics here
WHY?
(please elaborate- thank you)

I'm not going to go into my background. One is science, the other is politics.

yes! anyone who chooses conjecture over logic and science should

Especially when profit is made when the answers are still in doubt.

are you ashamed?

Yes, actually I am.

denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Nope. Those costs are for special blends to fight air pollution


Wrong. It all goes into the general fund.

Also, by 2020, the gas prices could go up to more than $6 per gallon, by mandate. That's a conservative estimate.

CARB are a far left political party responsible for a number of economic disasters to have been averted or that that have befallen California.

http://www.ocregi...ces.html

Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
"Californians pay $.50 - $.60 extra for a gallon of gas due to global warming laws."
-------------------------------------

Nope. Those costs are for special blends to fight air pollution.
@gkam
is there a link where those outside of CA can read up on that?
i would appreciate it

Thanks in advance if you have one


I'm searching for the most up to date info but I can already state that denglish's claim of 50-60 cents a gallon is way off base, it's more like 12 cents.

Gham is incorrect also. Cap and trade has been in effect for three years and since Jan 2015 it has been applied at the gas pump. It should also be noted Big Oil signed off on the original cap and trade legislation.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
I'm searching for the most up to date info but I can already state that denglish's claim of 50-60 cents a gallon is way off base, it's more like 12 cents.


Like any political matter, it depends on who you talk to. Check this out for the 50-60 cent claim, and more horror:

http://www.kfiam6...3634250/
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
antigoracle impotent finding out has to ask me - really !
So, what are those different dynamics?
LOL antigoracle can't find out for himself, so many based upon some key distinctions
1. Latitude & Longitude
2. Altitude
3. Mass
4. Land vs water area etc

Two keys of course ocean/air currents but, antigoracle SHOULD know before posting, didn't he bother to check if he didn't he is inept if he did then he ignored them making him disingenuous & wasting everyones time !

antigoracle asked
How do they affect temperature differently?
Doh, work it out or ask a meteorologist !

antigoracle LOL
Carried where? Away from the US?
And how fast? Is it gone in minutes, hours, days, weeks..?
Sure & diffused at altitude, its obvious it varies speed etc ask a meteorologist !

antigoracle claims
Are you going to just blabber or talk science?
I've spoken enough Science for you that your only intent now is to waste time, you can discover for yourself, don't need me ;-)
gkam
1.6 / 5 (16) May 30, 2015
Gham is incorrect also. Cap and trade has been in effect for three years and since Jan 2015 it has been applied at the gas pump. It should also be noted Big Oil signed off on the original cap and trade legislation.
-----------------------------------

Nope. You are confusing automobile emissions with others, I think. Ain't no cap-and-trade for mobile emissions that I am aware of, but could be for large transportation point sources such as ships and.or trains. Cap and Trade (shift and dodge), was a conservative idea to dodge Best Available Control Technology laws they were facing.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
@denglish

The funds raised through cap and trade don't go into the general fund, they are targeted at California meeting it's CO2 reduction goals.

Doing a google search brings up a lot of fear mongering from the usual suspects but so far I've one balanced article and will continue to search.

http://www.mercur...en-house
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) May 30, 2015
vietvet, try the California Air Resources Board. Be ready to drink from a firehose.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
@gham

California's cap and trade covers most emitters of CO2. Start at page 63 of the following link and scroll down.

http://www.arb.ca...2015.pdf

Keep in mind the "carbon tax" at the pump isn't set by the state. It is determined by the supplier
and will vary by their activity in the cap and trade market.

http://www.arb.ca...ab32.htm
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
vietvet, try the California Air Resources Board. Be ready to drink from a firehose.


I have links, something you very rarely provide.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Gasoline pricing in California is opaque, there is no way of knowing how much of a carbon tax you are paying at the pump. At Chevron it might be 25 cents a gallon, at Costco a nickle and Shell a dime.

"The Energy Commission cannot estimate profit margins based on average retail prices and observed wholesale market prices. This is because detailed data on refining and distribution costs, costs paid by approximately 10,000 retail locations, hundreds of wholesale marketers, jobbers, and distributors is not available."

http://energyalma...ndex.php
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) May 30, 2015
"I have links, something you very rarely provide."
---------------------------

Were you in the service or not? Learn how to do it yourself or not?

Okay, . . . you are correct.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015


Nope. You are confusing automobile emissions with others, I think. Ain't no cap-and-trade for mobile emissions that I am aware of, but could be for large transportation point sources such as ships and.or trains. Cap and Trade (shift and dodge), was a conservative idea to dodge Best Available Control Technology laws they were facing.


You mean conservatives like this:
http://www.edf.or...ate/AB32
http://en.wikiped...nse_Fund
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) May 30, 2015
That's right, . . but after we got countered by Big Money from Filthy Fuels. It was impossible to get it through Congress as it changed hands, so we had to settle for Cap-and-Dodge.

I think you should look up the history of pollution control regulation.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
"I have links, something you very rarely provide."
---------------------------

Were you in the service or not? Learn how to do it yourself or not?

Okay, . . . you are correct.


Served as a Marine in Viet Nam from Oct. '66 til Dec. '69 . And that doesn't make me expert on Viet Nam or anything else.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) May 30, 2015
Sorry to hear that. We learned to think for ourselves.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
@denglish

The funds raised through cap and trade don't go into the general fund, they are targeted at California meeting it's CO2 reduction goals.

Doing a google search brings up a lot of fear mongering from the usual suspects but so far I've one balanced article and will continue to search.

http://www.mercur...en-house

My god, are there enough scripts on that SJ Mercury link? How much are they making on that?

No, the gas tax goes into the general fund. As does the cap and trade auction funds.

Also, the increase in gasoline prices can be directly attributed to AB32. Known in CA as "the final solution"

The crooks won here. And yes, I'm mad. The liberals, with good intent, elected grifters. Now, we pay.

See how fun politics are?

I'm right. No, I am. No, I am. No, I am.

Hey! Look! The climate is changing! Its your fault! huh? Got ya! Give me your money!
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) May 30, 2015
Hi denglish. :)

Some observations on your attitude in Climate threads vs Cosmology threads...

- It's a pity you don't bring skepticism to Cosmology science as you do to Climate science. Either way, though, you seem to end up on the 'obtuse/denier' side of 'belief/argument'.

- the topic here is Climate science as objective reality/knowledge per se. Your/antigoracle' etc continual politicizing of the discourse fails to recognize that what science/knowledge is, and what people/groups/govts do to exploit it for either personal or political or (heaven forbid!) for the sake of future generations, is an altogether different topic/argument which should be kept separate from objective science discourse/comprehension of that reality per se.

- it's funny to see you denying evolving Climate evidence/reality in these threads, while you (and most of your opponents here, except myself) denying evolving Cosmology evidence reality in those threads.

That's humans for you, hey folks! :)
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
Some observations on your attitude in Climate threads vs Cosmology threads...


You're the Electric Universe guy, right?

LOL
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) May 30, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
Hi denglish. :)
Some observations on your attitude in Climate threads vs Cosmology threads...


You're the Electric Universe guy, right?

LOL
No. Mate, what hope is there for your objective comprehension of an issue if you can't even get that straight from all the relevant posting record? I have always been, and remain, scrupulously lone, independent researcher/observer who comments according to the issue at hand without personal subjectivity/motives, without fear or favor, without prior bias or interests as to theory/associations, irrespective of the person/interlocutor/reputations involved on any issue. That is the only way to do intelligent and impartial science discourse/commentary. All else is part science and politics, each compromising the effectiveness and reality-comprehension/explanation potential of the other. Not my thing. I recommend you drop any such thing, and start being a true scientist eschewing of personal agendas. Cheers. :)
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2015
Sorry to hear that. We learned to think for ourselves.


@gham

You missed the point I was making.

I learned to read, write and speak Vietnamese. I studied the history of Viet Nam and observed the culture. For most of the last two years I was living among the Vietnamese. That doesn't make me an expert on Viet Nam.

If this was a thread about Vietnam, even with my background, and trying to argue my point of view, I would back it up with sources. And I sure wouldn't scream "look it up!"

Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
The polar bears will have more ice bergs to stand on.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) May 30, 2015
Hi Returners.
The polar bears will have more ice bergs to stand on.
Mate, that's a death sentence for them. Polar Bears need vast expanses of sea ice cover which forces seals to make 'breathing holes' because they cannot feed under the ice and get to open water easily/without possibly drowning. The Polar bears have learned to 'ambush' seals at these breathing holes, which provides most of their hunting successes/meals; and so icebergs and isolated slabs of sea ice do not provide these hunting advantages. Moreover the Polar Bear may be able to swim, but if it is forced to expend increased amounts of metabolic energy/heat in such cold waters, they are vulnerable to death from exposure/starvation due to the 'fine line' they are always treading between starvation and plenty, even in most favorable circumstances.

Can't remember who it was that quotes that line about Freeman Dyson and Polar Bears being alright, but it is clear that he and Dyson/others didn't realize this. :)
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
Hi denglish. :)
Some observations on your attitude in Climate threads vs Cosmology threads...


You're the Electric Universe guy, right?

LOL
No. Mate, what hope is there for your objective comprehension of an issue if you can't even get that straight from all the relevant posting record? I have always been, and remain, scrupulously lone, independent researcher/observer who comments according to the issue at hand without personal subjectivity/motives, without fear or favor, without prior bias or interests as to theory/associations, irrespective of the person/interlocutor/reputations involved on any issue.


Oh, so you're an ignorant speculator. Good luck with that.
Benni
2.9 / 5 (17) May 30, 2015
And I sure wouldn't scream "look it up!"


We know that for sure, it would be some measured litany of profanity.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) May 30, 2015
And I sure wouldn't scream "look it up!"


We know that for sure, it would be some measured litany of profanity.


" a Vietnam drug induced brain dead old codger with expertise in nothing but profanity."
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

Classy, Benni, real classy.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
It doesn't mean its real either
@deng
the validated studies and repeated similar conclusions that come from so many different perspectives and scientists all trying to find answers DOES mean it is real, though
THAT is the power of the scientific method
No. The other side was presented
no, only your argument was presented
there is NO evidence supporting your argument
NOR is there evidence which refutes AGW or the studies that i've linked
I'm not going to go into my background. One is science, the other is politics
then you have a technical or IS degree and are not competent enough in physics to judge complex interactions or studies (especially validated studies, apparently)
Yes, actually I am
at least you are honest
i can respect honesty

it doesn't let you off the hook, though
still no evidence on your part, only political parroting and blogs
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
http://www.kfiam640.com/onair/john-and-ken-37487/is-california-heading-for-13-a-13634250/
@deng
and again: do you have a more credible source other than someone else's opinions?
I am not even going to bother opening the link because your link states "onair/john-and-ken-37487/is-california-heading-for-13-a-13634250"
it is a radio station and not a legit resource for hard information

this is where you are typical of most anti-science acolytes posting here:
the credibility of your resources

just because something is published on the internet (or published at all, really) doesn't mean that it is credible
UNLESS it has been researched, validated and there is a strict guideline for getting published, as in the peer review system and the scientific method

so linking a radio on-air personality is like saying you have no evidence, but at lest bigfoot and the aliens agree with you

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (16) May 31, 2015
Hi denglish.
You're the Electric Universe guy, right? LOL
No. Mate, what hope is there for your objective comprehension of an issue if you can't even get that straight from all the relevant posting record? I have always been, and remain, scrupulously lone, independent researcher/observer who comments according to the issue at hand without personal subjectivity/motives, without fear or favor, without prior bias or interests as to theory/associations, irrespective of the person/interlocutor/reputations involved on any issue.
Oh, so you're an ignorant speculator. Good luck with that.
So, denglish, you just got through ignorantly (and incorrectly) speculating about me being "the Electric Universe guy, right?" and you come back with that self-insensible retort which ignores that you are the one doing what you stupidly assert I was doing? Do you even listen to what you're posting from one ignorant speculation/incorrect assertion to the next? Evidently you don't. :)
la7dfa
3 / 5 (14) May 31, 2015
Dont forget this is a science site.
If you are constantly wrong and lying about actual science, then go back to your stupid echo chambers.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (12) May 31, 2015
Mother Nature cares not for these monkeys with big brains. Despite their predictions, or justifications for taking money from others, she does what she wants.

My only regret is that I probably won't be here to see the AGW'ers take their rightful place in history-shame....


Fortunately there's no mercy for monkeys like you with small brains, and you will be exposed everytime, big OIL do what they want for ove 100 years they have been relentlessly destroying the earth, which is the side you are on.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
How come the polar ice didn't disappear in 2012?

Because no one expected it to?
How come Californians are putting extra gas prices into a slush fund because of global warming laws?

What does this have to do with the science?
.....
You can whine all you want about politics... (but I try not to discuss it because, really, it's impossible to discuss politics and not look like an idiot)...

So it stands: The science associated with AGW is pretty solid. Some of it is settled (i.e., the direct warming effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere). Some of it isn't (i.e., how much additional warming will be caused by feedbacks). But, overall, the science is pretty solid.


Donglish trying but failing again to provide Scientific Evidence whereas Science provides solid proof each and everytime.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
paid flunkies
--mikemoron
Well, this is an "improvement" mike. You've gone from pretending to know science to confirming your ignorance. When you're ready to pretend to know science again, you can answer this:
Why did the US cool, from the 1930's on, especially since it emitted more CO2 than any other country during this time?


In your little mind anything's possible little monkey, fortunatelly for the smart and well educated as well as the general public, we know that you are the monkey and we like to play with monkeys on this site... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
You forget (AGAIN) US is close to large ice masses north and none are static and no region of air is static.

There you go again mike, blabbering instead of pretending to know science.
Canada is closer to that ice mass and it shares the same oceans, so why is Canada's temperature trend the opposite of US.

Stop pretending to know about CO2 and tell me why has the US cooled while it emitted more CO2 than any other country?

No Pretence Mike Is well respected and provides countles of emperical proof throughout this site, on the other hand, everyone knows that the big clownmonkey is You.. lol... :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
]Then just why does denglish IGNORE the data...

oooHH donglish got beaton 12 love this time around, mike and captain sparing no mercy as they whack is little head with science and watch his head jump like a pogo stick, donglish forgot that to bring on a meaningful scientific conversation, he should stop play ping pong with is little donglish and start to make something meaningfull of those 2 braincells (but don't bet on it) :D ... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
antigoracle impotent finding out has to ask me - really !
So, what are those different dynamics?
LOL antigoracle can't find out for himself, so many based upon some key distinctions
1. Latitude & Longitude
2. Altitude
3. Mass
4. Land vs water area etc

Two keys of course ocean/air currents but, antigoracle SHOULD know before posting, didn't he bother to check if he didn't he is inept if he did then he ignored them making him disingenuous & wasting everyones time !

antigoracle asked
How do they affect temperature differently?
Doh, work it out or ask a meteorologist !

antigoracle LOL
Carried where? Away from the US?
And how fast? Is it gone in minutes, hours, days, weeks..?
Sure & diffused at altitude, its obvious it varies speed etc ask a meteorologist !


Probably the dumbest answers antisciengorilla provided thus far, well done Mike the monkeys really showing their stuff today, tand the world is loving it lol... :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
The polar bears will have more ice bergs to stand on.


You will have more bannanas to feed your 2 braincells (doesn't mean you'll eventually understand the the globe is warming up though)
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
It doesn't mean its real either
@deng
the validated studies and repeated similar conclusions that come from so many different perspectives and scientists all trying to find answers DOES mean it is real, though
THAT is the power of the scientific method
No. The other side was presented
no, only your argument was presented
there is NO evidence supporting your argument
NOR is there evidence which refutes AGW or the studies that i've linked
I'm not going to go into my background...
then you have a technical or IS degree and are not competent enough in physics to judge complex interactions or studies (especially validated studies, apparently)
Yes, actually I am
at least you are honest
i can respect honesty

it doesn't let you off the hook, though
still no evidence on your part, only political parroting and blogs

...Scoooore !, an ace on every serve :D Well done Mike, Captain and Maggnus and the rest of the well respected scientists !
Benni
3.2 / 5 (13) May 31, 2015
And I sure wouldn't scream "look it up!"


We know that for sure, it would be some measured litany of profanity.

" a Vietnam drug induced brain dead old codger with expertise in nothing but profanity."
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

Classy, Benni, real classy.


..........just following your lead, if you don't like it then you should learn a language not based in profanity.
phprof
1.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
The Multi-decadal patterns have been known for 60+ years. Just ask some of the older researchers who have been brushed aside by the activist generation.
meBigGuy
3.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2015
I keep trying to explain one simple concept to the idiots.

Put a glass of icewater into a thermally isolated chamber.

Slowly put heat into the chamber.

The chamber (and the water) will not start to get warmer until all the ice melts. Now, is that system all the while getting warmer, even though the temperature of the water and the air are not becoming higher?

How do the idiots explain any way in which constant water temperatures and constant air temperatures can be considered evidence that warming is not occuring?

dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
meBigGuy,

I keep trying to explain one simple concept to the idiots.

Put a glass of icewater into a thermally isolated chamber.

Slowly put heat into the chamber.

The chamber (and the water) will not start to get warmer until all the ice melts. Now, is that system all the while getting warmer, even though the temperature of the water and the air are not becoming higher?

How do the idiots explain any way in which constant water temperatures and constant air temperatures can be considered evidence that warming is not occuring?


The earth is not a glass of ice water and it certainly is not 32 degrees F everywhere.

A glass of ice water will measure 32 degrees until all the ice melts or all the water freezes. The earth is not such a simple system. It has temperatures over a large range all the time.

Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
meBigGuy offered
I keep trying to explain one simple concept to the idiots...
The chamber (and the water) will not start to get warmer until all the ice melts. Now, is that system all the while getting warmer, even though the temperature of the water and the air are not becoming higher?
Although correct that's for close thermal contact, problem we have on Earth's scale is wide disparate sporadic heat transfer, affected by currents; ocean & air. Idle anti-science (bulk badly uneducated) AGW deniers CANNOT appreciate NH greatest land mass, North pole ice mostly surrounded by land, whereas SH mostly ocean & South pole land surrounded by water

meBigGuy lamented
How do the idiots explain any way in which constant water temperatures and constant air temperatures can be considered evidence that warming is not occuring?
Because they refuse to accept or even Learn Specific Heat & especially "latent heat of fusion" which is the key to your comment & I sympathize !
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
dogbert states
The earth is not a glass of ice water and it certainly is not 32 degrees F everywhere
Sure but, principle of "latent heat of fusion" still applies & MUST be the core issue re enthalpy, heat flow & well explains why so much more ice has been melting and especially so in places with disparate specific heat & albedo constraints - another issue uneducated AGW deniers & antigoracle CANNOT understand as you mostly AVOID education in essential Physics !

dogbert states
..ice water will measure 32 degrees until all the ice melts or all the water freezes. The earth is not such a simple system
Sure but, fully based on proven & irrefutable heat transfer mechanisms & INTEGRATED !

dogbert tried to say[q It has temperatures over a large range all the time Sadly this proves you have nil understanding of enthalpy, the KEY issue is specific & latent heats which have immense mass & variance ALL affected by
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
Muttering Mike, confirming he pretends to know science, blabbers -
ask a meteorologist


Then spews this gem-
And in any case it depends on which part of USA, taking a single average proves your ignorance !
West USA has warmed eg droughts, East has cooled - quite understandably as east gets heat from the Atlantic Conveyor and that is under stress.

So, Muttering Mike, what average does the AGW Cult use to claim the GLOBE is warming?
In Muttering Mike's "science", when it's cooling it's the ocean, but the warming is all CO2.

Next time Muttering Mike accuses you of not knowing science, just ask him a simple science question.

Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
antigoracle states
Muttering Mike, confirming he pretends to know science, blabbers
ask a meteorologist
Indeed, obviously the best group to ask, ie not my area, don't live there etc, yet amateur antigoracle thinks there is something wrong with asking the best source, Pffft !

IOW antigoracle's FAILS by immature attack with anti-science sentiment, what does he imagine he achieves by drawing so much attention to himself in the worst way & so often ?

antigoracle went on with this tantrum
.. what average does the AGW Cult use to claim the GLOBE is warming?
Well first of all there is no cult, no deity from an old middle eastern book etc.

antigoracle SHOULD know, he's been here from April 12, 2009 (before me), surely he MUST have asked this before if he was genuine re knowing AGW, so why hasn't he & advise us what he was told before ?

Best: Meteorologists & Climate researchers

antigoracle last comment betrays his lack of education re Specific Heat :-(
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
Muttering Mike, pretending to know science, blabbers -
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole


So, when questioned as to the science behind his blabbering, he blabbers some more and finally mutters -
[Meteorology] not my area, don't live there etc


Muttering Mike believes he is an expert in CO2 ever since he inhaled too much of it.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
"So, Muttering Mike, what average does the AGW Cult use to claim the GLOBE is warming?
In Muttering Mike's "science", when it's cooling it's the ocean, but the warming is all CO2."

You are100% correct. Any negative deviation in temperature from the UN climate models is due to heretofore unknown cycles and ocean currents. They have to be unknown or else they would have been included in the models right?

It is amazing how these cycles or currents can only cause cooling and did not cause any of the heating of the recent past.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
antigoracle FAILS when stating incoherently with the very BEST he can
Muttering Mike, pretending to know science, blabbers
So, when questioned as to the science behind his blabbering, he blabbers some more and finally mutters -
Muttering Mike believes he is an expert in CO2 ever since he inhaled too much of it
LOL !

antigoracle, key issue is not my so called blabbering - by the way covers various Science, even you SHOULD know this forum & posts therein are NOT a full & complete education/lecture or anything like a geographical analysis.

The redneck uneducated antigoracle attempts to characterize addressing his questions with as little complexity as possible as 'blabber' ?

What particular 'blabber' does antigoracle NOT understand, eg specific & latent heats, that fact everything radiates light all the time, the asymmetrical issues re visible & IR light from Sol, the items affecting heat balance, especially so
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 states
.. Mike's "science", when it's cooling it's the ocean, but the warming is all CO2."
You are100% correct
No (antigoracles) & easy to prove too :-)

But MR166 must get educated in Specific heat, OBVIOUS to those of 'some' basic education oceans > 70% of earth, local hot atmospheric regions transfer heat to oceans & according to the 4000x differential in specific heat ie. Heat moves from hot to cold but, overall oceans heat atmosphere esp at night

MR166 added
Any negative deviation in temperature from the UN climate models is due to heretofore unknown cycles and ocean currents. They have to be unknown or else they would have been included in the models right?
Sure, this is why there are error bars & so far most models within those bars, easily understood

MR166 claims
It is amazing how these cycles or currents can only cause cooling and did not cause any of the heating of the recent past
No. Atlantic conveyor warms east US & part of Europe !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
Muttering Mike finds a link - https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Let's see if he read, far less comprehends, what's there.

So, Muttering Mike, going back to your original blabbering about the US, Canada and the Arctic. Based on the information in that link, how would you expect the temperature of the US and Canada to change due to AGW.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
Right Mike, Specific Heat and Co2 retaining heat----- it has to be good for you---"It contains Electrolytes"!

Yup sure enough it is the melting polar ice that is responsible for the 18 year pause. That Co2 is amazing, it is now absorbing 200% of all the 15 um engery and if it increases any more it will soon absorb 300%.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 with the best he could offer proving yet again he is a paid flunky
Right Mike, Specific Heat and Co2 retaining heat----- it has to be good for you---"It contains Electrolytes"!
Where is he Science, why can't you & antogoracle appreciate Physics ie Heat ?

MR166 claims
Yup sure enough it is the melting polar ice that is responsible for the 18 year pause
Wrong, evidence is against you, again & again, why bring attention showing you are uneducated, just sad
http://www.epa.go...ure.html

http://images.rem...ies.html

http://woodfortre...to/trend

MR166 sarcastically claims
That Co2 is amazing, it is now absorbing 200% of all the 15 um engery and if it increases any more it will soon absorb 300%.
See link repeated by antogoracle, seems you guys not on the same page - again, look
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
antigoracle repeated my link
Muttering Mike finds a link - https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Ok I'll bite, what does it tell you, in Watts per square meter or some other units useful to simplify the issue for you ?

antigoracle asks
Based on the information in that link, how would you expect the temperature of the US and Canada to change due to AGW.
More of the same as per this link, incidentally which shows greater variation according to many of the factors previously advised you
http://www.epa.go...ure.html

I'm not a fortune teller, what I can offer based on Balance of Probabilities and based on evidence of warming is there will be more of the same as already seen, best check with the Meteorologists in your own country.

Note: Atlantic conveyor carries immense amount of heat from equator to east USA & across to Europe, it appears under stress, it might well halt & freeze east US

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2015
Mike answer the question if you dare. Of the temperature increase since 1900 how much of is due to man's Co2 contribution and if Co2 levels double from here how much greater will that increase be?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 asked
Mike answer the question if you dare. Of the temperature increase since 1900 how much of is due to man's Co2 contribution and if Co2 levels double from here how much greater will that increase be?
I see you jumped on this question & therefore accept the veracity of the links I have offered also, as you have never refuted the Science & physics of them as has antigoracle.

You would have to ask your question of those more competent in Meteorology & climate research then I for a rather more definitive assessment however, based upon evidence from recent history when CO2 started rising quickly & the fact CO2's continued rise might well accelerate before it declines
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

That since US has more western droughts and more snow in east then you can expect more of the same from this essential data
http://www.epa.go...ure.html

I'd suggest run a trend & add a +-10% error bar
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
So Mike it is your opinion that the increase in the rate of temperature change say from 1970 to 2000 was solely due to man's Co2 contribution.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 asks me but why?
So Mike it is your opinion that the increase in the rate of temperature change say from 1970 to 2000 was solely due to man's Co2 contribution.
Why ask me, I've already advised to contact people better qualified & in any case you can find out for yourself by widening your activities on scholarly net sites, you appear to need spoonfeeding ?

But your question isnt best framed, far more appropriate to ask about heat because CO2's additive forcing is in Watts which is a power ie re climate its thermal flux. Temperature therefore is no useful an indicator of heat without good knowledge of comparative specific heats.

But MR166, I already advised of that & you should know, get to understand specific & latent heats & you will learn something very useful for you & become immune to political propaganda.

"Evidence.. the proposition that CO2 is correlated with heat is sound", to then assess temperature you have to be more analytical, beyond this forum
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
The Multi-decadal patterns have been known for 60+ years. Just ask some of the older researchers who have been brushed aside by the activist generation.

Yup, many attributed to the solar cycle.
http://plasmareso...tion.pdf
http://www.landsc...node/302
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
"MR166 asks me but why?"

Mike if you do not know the answer to the question then you have no scientific basis to worry about Co2 emissions. Your worries are based on nothing more than blind faith.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
Scroofinator claimed with 1st link
Yup, many attributed to the solar cycle.
http://plasmareso...tion.pdf
Yet nothing about the delta Total Solar Insolation (TSI), in any way definitive in the key units of Watts per Square meter, exceeding variations of
http://upload.wik...data.png

Scroofinator added a 2nd link
http://plasmareso...tion.pdf
Also nothing anywhere re the definitive units of Watts per square meter one needs to assess useful comparison with TSI.

Many have investigated widely to find anything even close to CO2/H2O of any other energy source comparable but, despite best efforts of those specifically trained & those without key training have found nothing even 1/20th of greenhouse radiative forcing
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Anything else ?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 asked
Mike if you do not know the answer to the question then you have no scientific basis to worry..
No. You are unscientific

I base my concern upon the fact CO2 is rising & the FACT CO2 has well proven thermal properties & that shift Earth's balance to overall warming AND most importantly that despite my training in Physics there are those even better trained which base their decisions upon the very SAME Physics - they are; Meteorologists, Climate Researchers & those that can work out there IS climate change ie Global Warming connected directly with the proportional increases in CO2 atmospheric levels

Evidence shows it. Denying it is 'not smart'

MR166 claims
Your worries are based on nothing more than blind faith
No. Its based on the Physics I know founded upon proven & irrefutable radiative forcing AND my appreciation there are better trained scientists than I who affirm the Physics & my deduction, they can assess details upon sound principles
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2015
Who cares about TSI? It's an insignificant way to quantify the energy the Sun delivers. Even using AGW logic it's meaningless since it only varies .01% over the solar cycle. It doesn't even account for ultraviolet and x-ray emissions, it just fits well with AGW predictions so it's the end all be all. I call BS.

Do your due diligence and check into the correlation that Landscheidt clearly shows between the solar cycle (namely torque perturbations of the Sun and solar eruptions). I'm not going to spoon feed you.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
*between the solar cycle and climate
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
http://www.zerohe...e-perhap

It seems that medical research is corrupt, why would climate science be any different?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
Scroofinator asks
Who cares about TSI?
Its quantifiable and the KEY input of energy, there is nothing like it is the primary driver to be scientific with appropriate discipline you have to be complete and address it.

Scroofinator claims
It's an insignificant way to quantify the energy the Sun delivers
No. Prove otherwise ?

Scroofinator claims
Even using AGW logic it's meaningless since it only varies .01% over the solar cycle
No its not "AGW logic" - dumb idea, its Science !

Its key input to the system, recent variation is small, as such suggests its stability in those time-frames illustrates a connection with climate inertia, by analyzing all comparative heat sources we can compare & contrast in respect of higher effect heat eg CO2 & H2O re level of change !

Scroofinator claims
It doesn't even account for ultraviolet and x-ray emissions, it just fits well with AGW predictions so it's the end all be all
No. It is TOTAL, includes UV & up !

cont
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
cont

Scroofinator claims[q I call BS Obviously, because you don't understand Sol's heat is primary & ANYTHING else is secondary including CO2/H2O but all according to degree of change which deals with the inertia of that change as the climate system has adapted (in a way) to such long stability of TSI, this may be one reason that Milankovitch cycles have the effect they do & perhaps why inertia might change chaotically.

I'm not claiming some effect of extraneous influence cannot occur but, correlation is NOT proof of causation, you have read the articles, so you would have focused on ONE key issue I hope,which is heat - how many Watts/m^2. Secondarily is nature of the causative Physics ?

Anything else small & local/not significant if there's no heat evidence !

Scroofinator states
I'm not going to spoon feed you
Keh ? You are prob paid like many in pockets of big oil. If you were genuine you would have read it through, focused on key issues, which are ?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2015
MR166 offered
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/editors-world%E2%80%99s-most-prestigious-medical-journals-%E2%80%9Cmuch-scientific-literature-perhap
Opinion but, have you actually read it with educated mind cognisant of peer review process - even a little itsy bitsy ?

MR166 asks
It seems that medical research is corrupt, why would climate science be any different?
For several obvious reasons you havent thought through before wasting all our times:-

1. Medicine is a very broad field
2. Not many experts in narrow niche fields of study
3. Complicated by psychological issues of many types
4. Complicated by reliance on sometimes unsuitably educated technicians
5. Flooded with immense commercial incentives to find a drug 'works' Eg Big Pharma ie Statins !
6. Employment tenure
etc

Comparatively Climate Science is based on narrow Physics, proven & irrefutable
https://en.wikipe...transfer
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2015
MR166, antigoracle et al.

The point of the above research/findings/conclusions is limited to the sea-surface temps (of Atlantic especially and local/far effects) and shifting of heat peaks/troughs therein from one decade-set to another....within the oscillation cycle in question. The wider big-picture implication is that the warming trend continues overall globally, and this oscillation occurs within an ever changing global system of such oscillations which is being slowly CHANGED in extent/timing etc by global warming trend during transition from recent/present global dynamics/patterns to future ones with more energy involved in the dynamics. Give your biased/selective interpretations/arguments 'propaganda strawmen' a rest, guys. You've already lost the battle to evolving climate warming reality. :)

HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2015
Antisciencegorilla trying harder each time but with every attempt sounding dumber than the last...

Instead of bringing science to the table, he thumps his monkeychest by giving answers whilst picking his nose...

Ooooohhh what an acer Mike, well done your replies are 1st class slamdunking this monkey into it's silly cage everytime :D

There's one thing that cannot be disputed Antisciencegorilacle monkey must be the first one to ever achieve over a thousand 1 out of 5 votings throughout the years by countless of scientists around the world...can't remember last when i had such a good time on a comment section, this is so much fun... :D
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2015
Aaaa i see antisciencegorilla's sockpuppet dogfart sticking his nose into the section again, c'mon lets have some more dumb comments from you as well ....i got some special treats for ya... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2015
So c'mon monkeys put in the spunk, you are well on your way to that 200 mark, antisciengorillakeep thumping that chest, and do the skew eyed look your so famous for... ;) people want to be entertained.. but remember the stakes are higher each time, so todays comments will need to be even more dumber from you the next time round.. (if it is at all possible...lol...)
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
TSI is a poor metric for two reasons: It is averaged from the top of the atmosphere and it doesn't include wavelengths smaller than 300nm (UV). The Sun/climate relationship is much more complex then some averaged 'constant'.

This is where spectral solar irradiance comes in.
Spectral Solar Irradiance (SSI) - the spectral distribution of the TSI - has been monitored since 2003 by the SORCE Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM). It has been found that SSI at UV (ultraviolet) wavelength corresponds in a less clear, and probably more complicated fashion, with Earth's climate responses than earlier assumed, fueling broad avenues of new research in "the connection of the Sun and stratosphere, troposphere, biosphere, ocean, and Earth's climate"


As for this trolltastic puke:
You are prob paid like many in pockets of big oil.

You may not know better, but others here do. Just ask Capn Stumpy.
You know when you point a finger at someone you have 3 pointing back at you
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
You are prob paid like many in pockets of big oil

The ignoRANT of the AGW Chicken Little idiot who pretends to know science.
What's the matter Muttering Mike, jealous that you are too stupid to get paid.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2015
Scroofinator claims
TSI is a poor metric for two reasons: It is averaged from the top of the atmosphere and it doesn't include wavelengths smaller than 300nm (UV)
Incomplete, simplistic, not your best guess, details (NB X-rays VERY low) @204nm its < 0.06W/m^2 ie negligible x-rays even lower !
http://en.wikiped...Sunlight

Scroofinator claims
The Sun/climate relationship is much more complex then some averaged 'constant'
Above, please understand core Physics; In order to affect climate, energy needs to be radiated through atmosphere to ground (short wave (SW) becomes long wave (LW), ie visible & up converted to infra red) for those portions NOT absorbed by atmosphere which is highly transparent to SW per this graph http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Scroofinator claims
This is where spectral solar irradiance comes in
Then quotes an unknown source with NIL quantification of energies at higher freqs (what was the source btw?)

cont
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2015
Ohooo, that's what i'm talking about, antisciencegoracle monkey rubbing himself an even dumber insult in the nuts,

As always Excellent comments from you Mike, these clowns have run out of words and now sound dumber and dumber by the post as they cannot provide any evidence you requested...c'mon gorilacle monkey let's have some more one liners i got some more bannanas for ya.... :D
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2015
Continued @Scroofinator & feeble antigoracle

Only way so far observed & demonstrated re Earth's energy source is Sol's Electromagnetic spectra

Higher UV to X-rays/ gamma rays & even (particulate) cosmic rays negligible, they become infra red (heat) & contribute so very little to heating Water let alone Air as these two masses are bulk BY FAR of dynamics creating climate ie They both MOVE & affect weather patterns which, when integrated over 30+yr period become our best gauge of climate
https://en.wikipe.../Climate

So far ONLY observed qty with enough energy to affect climate & experimentally confirmed
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

CO2's >1.5W/m^2 FAR exceeds ALL other Cumulative sources; Geo, Fossil Fuel consumption, Sol's UV -> X-rays etc, Nothing even close !

I said
You are prob paid like many in pockets of big oil
Because you always TRY to find anything else & completely ignore CO2. Please understand radiative heat transfer !
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2015
antigoracle FAILED with the very BEST he could do, claims
The ignoRANT of the AGW Chicken Little idiot who pretends to know science
What's the matter Muttering Mike, jealous that you are too stupid to get paid
No.Your posts here at phys.org since joining April 12, 2009 show immense evidence of all sorts of ugly obsessions, anger patterns, diatribe, misread links, faulty logic IOW a dogs breakfast of immense failures to propose ANY viable position, your immense negative focus on people & ignoring Science is testament to your lack of sensibility, impotence & point to your goal

Your tone Eg barks on # brain cells & the like with posters who go to the trouble to offer you educative points shows you have a large chip on your shoulder(s)

I'm sympathetic to the notion you are angry at yourself you never went to uni or even completed high school & thus jealous of those that can understand the Science ie Physics settled. You're either paid/suffer OCD or both

Physics !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Muttering Mike blabbers, while he pretends to know science. He actually claims Canada is a block of ice and is cooling the US while the rest of the world warms.
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
Oooohh.. monkey gorilla earns another bannana, his 2 braincells just froze into a block of ice, while the rest of the world is seeing every dumb post he makes... here monkey monkey.... keep going... :D
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
antigoracle FAILed with usual attempt to twist & purposefully misinterpret claims
Muttering Mike blabbers, while he pretends to know science. He actually claims Canada is a block of ice and is cooling the US while the rest of the world warms.
Prove it ?

I stated clearly that to the North of US is Canada with immense ice as is North Pole ice.

As always antigoracle barks snide comments to try to provoke, not intelligent :-(

After all these years on this forum antigoracle hasnt gained any education in Physics which is a the core of the AGW issue, antigoracle hasnt made any point supporting cooling or anything of even slight import to base a dialectic upon.

antigoracle FAILs in ALL respects, he STILL has NIL understanding of the key factor re AGW
https://en.wikipe...transfer

and

http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Evidence for global warming clear
http://images.rem...ies.html

ANY rationale from antigoracle ?
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2015
here monkey monkey.... :D
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
Muttering Mike pretends to know science, but is he pretending or blatantly lying. Muttering Mike, do you deny blabbering the following-
you do know US is only 2% of the globe so you must appreciate its stupid to rely on US as its adjacent to large ice masses ie Canada & North Pole


Now tell me Muttering Mike, if the North Pole is cooling the US, then what should be happening to the temperature of Canada?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2015
antigoracle FAILs again & impolitely
Now tell me Muttering Mike, if the North Pole is cooling the US, then what should be happening to the temperature of Canada?
My information is USA (as a whole) isnt cooling, appears a shift in last ~30 yrs, west hotter - east cooler all under the umbrella of radiative forcing & as you SHOULD know details essential.

As I said before & it seems you still FAIL to understand US is small at only 2% of the globe, I'm not interested in your small region, your Science impotence is indicated in all your questions, hmmm, small & impotent, what could that signify if not an intellectual endeavor you consistently fail at ?

Focus on averaged temperature & immensely averaged too is NOT helpful, you SHOULD know it but, have still FAILed to get any education in basic Physics despite being here since April, 2009 & STILL act as a robot.

What do you imagine you're achieving other than drawing attention to your incapacity ?

Study Enthalpy !
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
What do you imagine you're achieving other than drawing attention to your incapacity ?

Study Enthalpy !


He likes being the clown of the show, and we like letting the world see it lol... Well said Mike :)

Here monkey monkey
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
Muttering Mike, pretending to know science, blabbers-
Focus on averaged temperature & immensely averaged too is NOT helpful


Tell me Muttering Mike, what temperature is used to claim the globe is warming?

If it is an average, then is it better than that for the US and Canada?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
Muttering Mike, pretending to know science, blabbers-
My information is USA (as a whole) isn't cooling

http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2015
antigoracle FAILs religiously showing himself up again with that feeble intellect of his
Tell me Muttering Mike, what temperature is used to claim the globe is warming?
antigoracle you SHOULD already know this, been here since 2009 & STILL have to ask me, how impotent is that, fishing again LOL.

Trend antigoracle, over a climate period, obviously no specific static temperature, LOOK
http://images.rem...ies.html

antigoracle FAILS again having trouble yet again being able to frame a question & dealing with assumptions
If it is an average, then is it better than that for the US and Canada?
:-)

See above, its a trend, over climate periods & soundly based on the settled Physics here
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Derived from Physics/Maths & Experimentally verified
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Articulating the questions you need to craft to arrive at answer you desire isn't your strong point ;-)
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2015
antigoracle FAILs again with the implicaton
Muttering Mike, pretending to know science, blabbers-
My information is USA (as a whole) isn't cooling

http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
Yep we have heat waves all over the world, isolated weather events which demand averaging over climate periods of >=30yrs.

Correlation is a start & often substantive but, it requires a connection with a basis of causality, this is just why we have Physicists investigating properties of materials especially greenhouse gases as per
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

antigoracle asks me lots of questions and I answer them but, antigoracle cannot or refuses to ask mine at all over more than a couple of years.

antigoracle showing himself up again as antiscience, with an agenda, a mere robot, a paid flunky !
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2015
Lol... and what a show, monkey say monkey do, antiscience goracle monkey never failing to entertain with his dumb thumbsucked comments...atta monkey, have another bannana... ;)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
Muttering Mike who pretends to know science, dismisses the fact that the US has been cooling since the 1930s, claiming it's based on an average temperature. But then Muttering Mike believes the globe is warming but is too stupid to realize that it's based on an average temperature. Muttering Mike is too stupid to realize, on average, there are more thermometers accurately measuring US temperatures than there are measuring the temperature for the globe. Muttering Mike is too stupid to realize that the average temperature of the US is more accurate than the average of the globe. Muttering Mike is a two faced idiot who will blabber from one side of his mouth and then contradict himself from the other side. Muttering Mike when will you admit you are a fraud.

HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2015
No Monkey Mike knows science, not pretend, you on the other hand can't even pretend to know science, thumbsucking answers such as the above with yet again no evidence, the US has been heating up not cooling down, and the evidence have been given everytime... Now your 3 braincells still heating up again... ? it sure looks like it... here monkey monkey :D

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.