Retreating sea ice linked to changes in ocean circulation, could affect European climate

June 29, 2015
MODIS true-colour satellite image showing linear cloud patterns known as 'cloud streets' over the Greenland and Iceland Seas. These clouds are a signature of the transfer of heat and moisture that warms the atmosphere and cools the ocean resulting in a convective overturning of the water column, a process that plays an important role in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The island of Jan Mayen is in the center of the image and the flow around its topography results in the formation of spiraling cloud patterns known as 'von Karman vortices'. Credit: GWK Moore

Retreating sea ice in the Iceland and Greenland Seas may be changing the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic Ocean, and could ultimately impact the climate in Europe, says a new study by an atmospheric physicist from the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) and his colleagues in Great Britain, Norway and the United States.

"A warm western Europe requires a cold North Atlantic Ocean, and the warming that the North Atlantic is now experiencing has the potential to result in a cooling over western Europe," says professor G.W.K. Moore of UTM's Department of Chemical & Physical Sciences.

As global warming affects the earth and ocean, the retreat of the means there won't be as much cold, dense water, generated through a process known as oceanic convection, created to flow south and feed the Gulf Stream. If convection decreases, says Moore, the Gulf Stream may weaken, thereby reducing the warming of the atmosphere, in comparison to today.

Their research, published in Nature Climate Change on June 29, is the first attempt to examine and document these changes in the air-sea heat exchange in the region—brought about by global warming—and to consider its possible impact on oceanic circulation, including the climatologically important Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Previous studies have focused instead on the changing salinity of the northern seas and its effects on ocean .

Moore and his fellow researchers based their findings on wintertime data from 1958 to 2014 that was provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and model simulations.

Traditionally, the Gulf Stream moves warm water north toward western Europe, says Moore, where it loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere, acting to moderate the climate in this region. The resulting colder, denser water sinks and returns south at a great depth eventually rising to the surface in the tropics, where the cycle, known as the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation, begins all over again.

The Iceland and Greenland Seas are among the only places worldwide where conditions are right and this heat exchange is able to change the ocean's density enough to cause the surface waters to sink. The largest air-sea heat exchange in these seas occurs at the edge of the sea ice.

In the past, this region of maximum heat exchange has coincided with the location where oceanic conditions are optimal for convection to occur. However, in recent years, the sea ice has retreated and with it the region of maximum heat exchange. As a result, there has been a reduction in the heat exchange over the locations where sinking occurs in the ocean. This has the potential to weaken oceanic convection in the Greenland and Iceland Seas.

"The heat exchange is weaker—it's like turning the stove down 20 percent," says Moore. "We believe the weakening will continue and eventually cause changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Gulf Stream, which can impact the climate of Europe."

The paper's other authors are Kjetil V?ge from the University of Bergen, Robert Pickart from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Ian Renfrew from the University of East Anglia.

Explore further: Interruption of the Gulf Stream may lead to large cooling in Europe

More information: Decreasing intensity of open-ocean convection in the Greenland and Iceland seas, Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2688

Related Stories

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 ...

Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change

May 28, 2015

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.

Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

June 12, 2014

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during winter.

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, ...

Tides stir up deep Atlantic heat in the Arctic Ocean

February 17, 2015

Researchers have identified how warm Atlantic water that is flowing deep into the Arctic Ocean is mixing with colder waters above to contribute to sea-ice loss in the Arctic. The results, published this week in the journal ...

Recommended for you

Scientists determine source of world's largest mud eruption

October 17, 2017

On May 29, 2006, mud started erupting from several sites on the Indonesian island of Java. Boiling mud, water, rocks and gas poured from newly-created vents in the ground, burying entire towns and compelling many Indonesians ...

143 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.9 / 5 (31) Jun 29, 2015
If the Gulf Stream slows or stops and Europe is covered in ice, will the Deniers admit error?

No. It is a matter of character.
LariAnn
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2015
No, because a Europe covered in ice is proof that there is no global warming - how can ice form when the globe is warming? /sarc
denglish
2 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2015
If the Gulf Stream slows or stops and Europe is covered in ice, will the Deniers admit error?

Wait, if the continent cools, then aren't the AGW'ers wrong?

"slows or stops". Ridiculous.

It is a matter of character.

Tell us more about your Stolen Valor and false real life persona again.

"It is a matter of character"
gkam
2 / 5 (29) Jun 29, 2015
"Tell us more about your Stolen Valor and false real life persona again."
---------------------------------------

Sure, Toots. I earned Airman of the Month at the Air Force Flight Test Center, which included Edwards AFB, Special Projects, Test Pilot School, NASA, Rocket Site, and our auxiliary airfields such as Cuddeback and Groom Lake, known to goobers as Area 51.

I got selected to help put together, test, deploy and operate the Electronic Battlefield in Southeast Asia, a special project of Sec/Def McNamara.

Want some proof?

Now, what did YOU do?
denglish
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 29, 2015
Read about the Gulf-Stream myth. Written by AGW scientists:

http://www.ldeo.c.../ocp/gs/
gkam
1.9 / 5 (30) Jun 29, 2015
What did YOU do, denglish?

You owe me an answer.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 29, 2015
Now, what did YOU do?

I'll tell you what I don't do. I don't lie about real life in order to gain internet credibility. That is just flat-out sad.

How do I know you lie? Your posts show that you live your life in the lowest common denominator; where only self-deceit and hatred thrive. I'm not the only here who has figured you out. Tragically, you are so invested that you cannot back out of it, though that would be the wisest choice. Internet anonymity protects you.

"It is a matter of character"

Here's a very good article talking about the Gulf Stream, and a bunch of other stuff:
http://www.scient...winters/
denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) Jun 29, 2015
Here's another good break down on the Gulf Stream. It is a mixture of peer-reviewed research using ADCP measurements, and analysis of competing theories. Filter out the political grandstanding, and there is stuff to be learned:

http://wattsupwit...herwise/

More peer-reviewed stuff:
Drivers of and Processes behind the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation:
http://wattsupwit...llation/

Perhaps the note that we should all light our hair on fire was premature.

For anyone mildly interested in internet psychology: Those that talk don't know. Those that know don't talk.
gkam
2 / 5 (31) Jun 29, 2015
denglish, you owe me an apology.

it is not a good idea to go throwing accusations around, unless you have a basis other than emotion with which you cannot deal.

denglish can go the 1stwave.com and other sites for the 553rd Reconnaissance Wing, and see my picture. I suggest he/she do so before committing any more acts of ignorance and emotion.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2015
denglish, you owe me an apology.

it is not a good idea to go throwing accusations around, unless you have a basis other than emotion with which you cannot deal.

denglish can go the 1stwave.com and other sites for the 553rd Reconnaissance Wing, and see my picture. I suggest he/she do so before committing any more acts of ignorance and emotion.

Stop. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself. The sooner you face your true reality (no matter how ugly), the sooner you'll be on the road to contentment via real value...not internet value.

I'll give you one prop though. The self-destructive Red-Herring diversions regarding your character is similar to self immolation. I suppose it takes a bit of courage to do that, but at what price? I mean, I realize you're a human being...I guess that's why I'm pointing it out. Not in the name of pity, but hope.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (30) Jun 29, 2015
Ah, another big mouth in anonymous internet-space. Hiding behind a pseudonym, he takes shots at others, but has insufficient character to apologize when caught lying about others and smearing them.

I'm real. Who are you?
denglish
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 29, 2015
Ah, another big mouth in anonymous internet-space. Hiding behind a pseudonym, he takes shots at others, but has insufficient character to apologize when caught lying about others and smearing them.

I'm real. Who are you?

Imitation is a form of flattery, but unwanted. Stop it. Look at what you're doing to yourself.

Here's another good read regarding the Gulf Stream:
http://wattsupwit...0-years/
Water_Prophet
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2015
Ah, how many times have I said this?

The biggest indicator of climate change is NOT temperature, it's melting ice.

Another triumph for a simple modeling of the Earth with a bowl, ice, near Solar equilibrium, and a candle representing mankind's contributions from HEAT.

Well just what does happen to the ~20% of the Sun's equilibrium energy that mankind contributes?

It does...nothing?

Now melting ice-the number 1 prediction, has impacts, also foreseeable. Is this really so complicated...
Because it is complicated?
or because people throw random nonsense into the mix?
denglish
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2015
The biggest indicator of climate change is NOT temperature, it's melting ice.

Yep. Look at how regularly it fluxes:
https://wattsupwi...end1.jpg

Climate changes. No doubt about it. It goes up, it goes down, it goes all around.

Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
Denglish,
wattsup is a propaganda site, the opposite side of skepticalscience. Two sides of the same propaganda coin, that ironically accomplish the same objectives:

Indecision and inaction.

Respectfully,
denglish
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2015
Denglish,
wattsup is a propaganda site, the opposite side of skepticalscience. Two sides of the same propaganda coin, that ironically accomplish the same objectives:

Indecision and inaction.

Respectfully,

Valid point! tbh, I dislike the political rhetoric.

But, what do we then do with the data? I do my best to look past the "nananana" stuff, and go straight to the numbers.

If the site is politically motivated, does that mean that the data gathered in good faith and under oversight (ostensibly) is voided?

Totally agree with the quagmire. Perhaps for no other reason, we must refrain from instituting destructive measures on either side, until we know more, and know better. In the meantime, we're set out to eat each other, and the bureaucrats get rich. Who is most destructive at this point? Who knows for sure. I only know what I can see, and in CA, AB32 is a disaster for everyone but the politicians and the dependents.
ettubrute
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 29, 2015
Read about the Gulf-Stream myth. Written by AGW scientists:

http://www.ldeo.c.../ocp/gs/


Perhaps you should have read more of the study that you linked?
" The Gulf Stream and future climate change
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change (via melting glaciers and increased water vapor transport into high latitudes) or simply by warming, would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency. This would leave the temperature contrast across the Atlantic unchanged and not plunge Europe back into the ice age or anything like it. In fact the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases."

Also, take a look at how large bodies of water will moderate the local climate.
ettubrute
3.3 / 5 (19) Jun 29, 2015
Here's another good break down on the Gulf Stream. It is a mixture of peer-reviewed research using ADCP measurements, and analysis of competing theories. Filter out the political grandstanding, and there is stuff to be learned:

http://wattsupwit...herwise/

Perhaps the note that we should all light our hair on fire was premature.

For anyone mildly interested in internet psychology: Those that talk don't know. Those that know don't talk.


Anyone that uses Anthony Watts' website as a source of scientific evidence has only shown that they have no clue as to what scientific evidence actually is.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2015
Oh well, let the REALLY Younger Dry-Ass period start with the glaciation of England...but first let all my Scotch and Irish friends an cousins however distant...(in other words all of them) go colonize ice free Greenland for a while before moving the the American Southwest which will get wet and heavily forested.
OdinsAcolyte
1 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2015
Guess you better run, Chicken Little.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2015
Perhaps you should have read more of the study that you linked?

No, you should have. Unlike your predilection, I am hoping for both sides; one is right, the other must be proven wrong.

Anyone that uses Anthony Watts' website as a source of scientific evidence has only shown that they have no clue as to what scientific evidence actually is.

You're going to have to show that the peer-reviewed data is false. You'll then need to file libel. Otherwise, you're like your buddy gkam; posting nonsense under the cover of internet anonymity. While you're at it, let's see your college degree in climatology/meteorology. Be careful, gkam's (tried to mute me but couldn't bear the void of free rent with no-one there) Stolen Valor is weighing you down; not to mention Stumpy's MIT degree (and everything else...notice how that person doesn't engage anymore?) and GreenOnion's (another MIA) Master's in sign language.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
What I love best: Global Warming is causing it to get colder. Ok, got it...huh? Aw hell no! What? Oh, ok.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
Great paper it has unequivocally proven that increasing Co2 levels will cause colder winters or warmer winters or no change at all. Finally a paper that 100% of scientists can agree upon. For the longest time we were stuck at that miserable 97%.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2015
I think denglish is really otto. otto bragged about how he assumes various identities here to play his "games" with the rest of us.

This nonsense from denglish is obviously the game of a wannabe or a neverwas.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (28) Jun 29, 2015
"Global Warming is causing it to get colder. Ok, got it...huh? Aw hell no! What? Oh, ok."
----------------------------

Yes, this reality stuff is all so confusing, . . cause-and-effect. Not at all like the easy stuff you get from Fox. Having to think is not easy if you are just used to being fed pap and being emotionally-manipulated.

Look up cause and effect.

"Bring 'em on!".
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
Global warming is

a) not causing it to get colder and
b) that's not even what the article says.

Or are the terms "global" and "average" just too complex for everyone to grasp.

The weather over Western Europe will be impacted because it's WARMING. That's what the article is about. That's clearly what it says.

This is right up there with "global warming isn't real because I live in Boston and I'm cold right now".

Incidentally, the record cold and blizzards over Europe and Nth America caused by the ice melt was a well-documented prediction of climate science over 20 years ago. So what was predicted to happen, is happening. Funny that.
verkle
Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gclub_slotgold
1 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2015
so excited! it be showing anxiety.

Gclub
Earthman
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2015
The small research group I was in felt that this type of effect was a somewhat likely consequence of accumulating atmospheric carbon back in 1980 at RPI. My personal feeling was and is that it is a very likely outcome for Western Europe to cool dramatically, and over a short period of time. Some other members of our group felt that a more gradual changeover would take place, but I've always felt that if a major changeover to a new steady state is going to happen, it will happen relatively quickly. It should be interesting to see what happens over the next two or three years.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2015
Just as surely as the Earth changes regardless of the impact to its parasites, and just as surely as the most intelligent parasites will try to convince the other intelligent parasites that it is their fault and they must pay taxes for it...I am not Otto.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2015
This is the great thing about climate science. One can always point to a paper and prove that a particular effect was "Predicted" since virtually every possible scenario has been connected with increasing Co2 levels.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2015
What an absolute joke.
Where comedy meets science meets ignorance, you find the AGW Cult.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2015
I think denglish is really otto. otto bragged about how he assumes various identities here to play his "games" with the rest of us.

Possibly, but I guess otto didn't come across as someone who would just make things up (and admit that he felt it was ok for him to do it) like denglish has.

This nonsense from denglish is obviously the game of a wannabe or a neverwas.

This, I suspect, is true. Denglish has exhibited an astounding level of naivety. He (or she) has indicated over and over again that he believes that politics is able to dictate what reality is and that anything that violates his personal politics must not be real. He gives all the impression of someone who's either still in school or who's been supported by his parents all his life (the same thing, I guess). He seems amazingly gullible - he'll fall for any nonsense if the politics is right.

I could be wrong, though. He could just be a fool or a Poe. ;)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (27) Jun 30, 2015
You just got to love the consistent wording of warming scientists:

"could affect...."
"may be changing...."
"could ultimately impact....."
"has the potential...."
"may weaken...."

Sorry guys, this is not science.

Of course it is. Only religionists like yourself are completely certain of anything. Uncertainty and doubt are virtues.

For all your time here you havent learned even this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (23) Jun 30, 2015
Sure, Toots. I earned Airman of the Month at the Air Force Flight Test Center, which included Edwards AFB, Special Projects, Test Pilot School, NASA, Rocket Site, and our auxiliary airfields such as Cuddeback and Groom Lake, known to goobers as Area 51
-And this means you are an authority on AGW? Im confused.

I thought that you were a lowly 20yo noncom tech who was busy soldering circuit boards at the time, although you DID do this directly for macnamara as you have stated.

Maybe you learned something about the wind from standing on hangar roofs and watching spy planes crash.
howhot2
5 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2015
Let me help out the deniers by fixing the title of the article; "Retreating sea ice linked to changes in ocean circulation, WILL affect European climate". There now that's better isn't it?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
I earned Airman of the Month at ..blah...blah...blah.. Area 51.

Uh huh. Was that the month the aliens probed you?
It sure would explain a lot.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 30, 2015
Possibly, but I guess otto didn't come across as someone who would just make things up (and admit that he felt it was ok for him to do it) like denglish has.

re: Making things up, lets start with this. Temperature predictions vs reality:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Let's make up disaster on our artic poles too:
https://www.youtu...Bjhi0n2s

Denglish has exhibited an astounding level of naivety. ... he believes that politics is able to dictate what reality is and that anything that violates his personal politics must not be real.

IPCC deceit seems to be real:
"They would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible." – Adam Markham, WWF
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." – Kevin Trenberth

he'll fall for any nonsense
TehDog
5 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2015
Earthman said;
" but I've always felt that if a major changeover to a new steady state is going to happen, it will happen relatively quickly."
I was going to agree with you, but I found this;
http://www.eoeart.../150290/
Which suggests it may be more robust than we feared. (crosses fingers)
(I live in southern UK, I have a vested interest in the local climate :)
Speaking of weather, I hear the rumble of distant thunder, hope we get a light show :)
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2015
http://iceagenow....eliable/

The temperature data put out by the US agencies is useless. A corrupt government puts out corrupt data period.
Shabs42
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2015
For anyone mildly interested in internet psychology: Those that talk don't know. Those that know don't talk.


Anyone else see the irony of the person with the most posts on this thread typing that out?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (28) Jul 01, 2015
"The temperature data put out by the US agencies is useless. A corrupt government puts out corrupt data period."
---------------------------------

Why would you think that?

Is that what you would do?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2015
Denglish-I appreciate your question, my answer:

Look at the things you can prove, have faith in your ability to process data.
What effect are you looking for-what can cause it?

For me burning fossil fuels generates enough heat to change the climate indisputably.
To me, you need to have >>(400-280)ppm of a weak GHG gas to change climate...

etc..
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2015
http://iceagenow....eliable/

The temperature data put out by the US agencies is useless. A corrupt government puts out corrupt data period.


How about the data put out by every meteorological organisation in the world?

Wait, that's right... it's a corrupt WORLD government putting out corrupt data because of the global conspiracy involving almost every scientist everywhere for the last 200 years. Got it. Thanks for clearing that right up.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2015
Sorry the satellite data is diverging so much from the data that NOAA and NASA are publishing that it is impossible to come to any other reasonable conclusion.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
http://iceagenow....eliable/

The temperature data put out by the US agencies is useless. A corrupt government puts out corrupt data period.


@mri66

Your choice of a link to a crank web site says a lot about you, none of it good.

http://iceagenow....-author/
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2015
Yup any website that is not approved by the Ministry of Truth may not be referenced. Violators will be severely punished.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
@MR666 says;
Yup any website that is not approved by the Ministry of Truth...
From a famous movie by a famous actor, "TRUTH, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH...". In the case of @MR666 I think it's true.

Truth, like atmospheric CO2 reached 403.70ppm in May 2015, continuing it's exponential climb into the stratosphere. A fact the @MR666 can't handle (the loser like all the deniers).

http://co2now.org/

leetennant
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 01, 2015
Sorry the satellite data is diverging so much from the data that NOAA and NASA are publishing that it is impossible to come to any other reasonable conclusion.


Do you make this easily-disprovable stuff up yourself? Or do you rely on a third party to make it up for you? The latter means you get a link to use, I suppose. I guess it's that.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
not to mention Stumpy's MIT degree
@d-TROLL
by all means show me where i have posted that i have a degree from MIT
post the quote and link the conversation so that everyone can see my folly, please
notice how that person doesn't engage anymore?
1- don't assume my vacation means i am not here
2- i engage the science, something that you have refused to do... you link unsubstantiated conjecture as though it is equivalent to peer reviewed validated studies which match observation and measurement... so there is no need to continue to re-post evidence to you when you ignore evidence and you think OPINION is equivalent to evidence, especially when you've not answered anything YET

i will, however, continue to ask you:
Where is the evidence that refutes the numerous studies i've linked to you?

I've given you empirical evidence and validated studies... you've offered opinion and conjecture substantiated only by your insistence it is legit...
Why?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2015
re: Making things up, lets start with this
@d-TROLL
another random pic with no attached study posted to your dr roy site who claims to be an authority but doesn't actually PUBLISH the "refutes" to AGW in reputable peer reviewed journals who require evidence?
like zz said above
... as someone who would just make things up (and admit that he felt it was ok for him to do it) like denglish has
IOW- you are making it up based upon the conviction that someone else who DID make it up is correct without any evidence at all except his appeal to authority argument
nice

..
.

Anyone else see the irony of the person with the most posts on this thread typing that out?
@Shabs42
NICE catch!
thanks for the great laugh!
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2015
Thank you for the civil response Prophet:
To me, you need to have >>(400-280)ppm of a weak GHG gas to change climate...

I'm assuming you're referring to CO2. We have reached that. According to a guy with a Climatology PhD, CO2 is a weak forcing agent, and that there are other factors that need to be considered in conjunction with CO2.

you link unsubstantiated conjecture as though it is equivalent to peer reviewed validated studies

Peer reviewed (and published) studies:
http://www.drroys...rticles/


i will, however, continue to ask you:
Where is the evidence that refutes the numerous studies i've linked to you?

Theories are falsified by observation:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

no attached study

doesn't actually PUBLISH

See above.

without any evidence at all except his appeal to authority

Your MIT degrees trump a PhD.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jul 02, 2015
denglish, you keep on harping on a lie of yours. We all know it is you who are lying. There was no claim of an MIT degree.

So why continue to lie? Are you just another pseudonym of you-know-who?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2015
denglish, you keep on harping on a lie of yours. We all know it is you who are lying. There was no claim of an MIT degree.

So why continue to lie? Are you just another pseudonym of you-know-who?

Red-Herring is red.

Argumentum ad hominem nobilem infirmitatem meam abscondis noluerit.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2015

Red-Herring is red.
nice to see you are still incapable of providing any evidence to support your argument... this is called a distraction (AKA Red Herring) so that you can build a strawman argument (attempted in the next sentence you posted) which failed epically
Argumentum ad hominem nobilem infirmitatem meam abscondis noluerit
i think your logic is skewed

especially since you seem to think it is perfectly OK to use ad hominem in your own arguments, like this one
I wonder if you came off as an entitled, victimized cunt.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...ian.html

perhaps you should not post about things you don't understand, like climate science and logic?

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
nice to see you are still incapable of providing any evidence to support your argument

Falsified theories are not actionable:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

especially since you seem to think it is perfectly OK to use ad hominem in your own arguments

Red Herring is red, nor understands latin.

perhaps you should not post about things you don't understand

It must have really hurt when I told you not to post things you don't understand.

The lack of originality is sad. This person is using all of the successful dictums used to reveal them as weak in argumentative foundation against their tormentor. It is evidently the second line of defense after falsities in real life persona fail to establish internet credibility. One reads it and thinks...how can they possibly be coming from a position worth supporting?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
I took a look back; introspection and such. Guess what I found? This person agreed with my statement. This person is spinning in a forum where they are 10 times smarter than they should be:

You weren't hired because you failed the interview. I wonder if you came off as an entitled, victimized cunt.

@denglish
Given his meltdowns here on PO alone, this is most likely the cause!

i think you hit the nail on the head!
or the returner on the head? LOL

Emotion never leads to good decisions. Pair it with a hater attitude, and one observes unpredictable and contradictory behavior.

To berate a position that one once supported is a sign of weak character, and forlorn hope re: populist credibility. One must ask themselves: is a position that such a person endorses one worth having? What type of people are in this camp, and if this person is one of them, do I want to wear that jacket?

gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Jul 02, 2015
"I took a look back; introspection and such. Guess what I found?"
-------------------------------

AGW??
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
So, a 1/1365th fluxuation in the Sun's energy changes the climate on its 11 year cycle.
Mankind contributes an additional 2/5th of that energy.

That's right, 20% of a Schwabe Cycle:
https://en.wikipe...ar_cycle

and that energy is released on Earth, in the mostly Northern Hemisphere, and as waste heat, so thermodynamically speaking, unlike the Sun's broad spectrum energy, this is all absorbed into the Earth system, until it goes someplace where it can be absorbed...

The poles.

What are we seeing in terms of climate change? Just what you'd expect from above.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2015
Argumentum ad hominem nobilem infirmitatem meam abscondis noluerit

Pointing out that you have admitted that you have made up at least some of your arguments against science is not an ad hominem, especially when you refuse to provide any science to back up your arguments.
Peer reviewed (and published) studies:
http://www.drroys...rticles/

Linking to a list of articles that includes one that appears to demonstrate fraud on the part of the authors doesn't lend credence to your arguments.
Falsified theories are not actionable:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

It's not possible to falsify the theories of climate science with that graph - even if that graph had not been manipulated to deceive those with no knowledge of the science. That you're not competent enough to understand the deception on the part of Spencer doesn't stop it from being deception. But even if the graph wasn't fraudulent, nothing in it points to an error in the science, as you well know.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
@d
and to fill in a little more for zz5555...
Guess what I found? This person agreed with my statement.
just because someone agrees with a statement doesn't change the fact that you seem to think it is perfectly OK to use ad hominem in your own argument, but berate others for using ad hominem in arguments, which is the point of my post above...

the rest of my point is in zz5555's post.... not that i expect you to understand it. few deniers of science and haters of intelligence actually grasp that point: you are too wrapped up in your hate, denial, pseudoscience, conspiracy and religious delusions to comprehend anything

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
Pointing out that you have admitted that you have made up at least some of your arguments against science is not an ad hominem

Ok, another one that got the phrase wrong.

especially when you refuse to provide any science to back up your arguments.

Let's start with the most basic science: Theories that do not lead up to expected observation are falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Linking to a list of articles that includes one that appears to demonstrate fraud on the part of the authors doesn't lend credence to your arguments.

Fraud is a strong accusation. You should be specific. What is fraudulent?

But even if the graph wasn't fraudulent, nothing in it points to an error in the science, as you well know.

Except for the theories being false.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
just because someone agrees with a statement doesn't change the fact that you seem to think it is perfectly OK to use ad hominem in your own argument, but berate others for using ad hominem in arguments, which is the point of my post above...

Red Herring is red.

few deniers of science and haters of intelligence actually grasp that point

Falsified theories are false.

you are too wrapped up in your hate

denial

pseudoscience

conspiracy

religious delusions

Emotion in motion.

denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
Mankind contributes an additional 2/5th of that energy.

What do you mean by this?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
another one that got the phrase wrong
no, he didn't- neither did google
Let's start with the most basic science: Theories that do not lead up to expected observation are falsified
actually, the basic science here would be that opinion is not equivalent to studies validated giving empirical evidence. your assumption that dr roy is legit is argument from authority as well as pseudoscience: if dr roy had a legitimate argument to falsify the studies, they would be altered, changed or retracted and dr roy would publish in a reputable journal with peer review- none of which happened. what you are linking is a blog opinion being promoted to obfuscate science for a purpose (which is likely based upon financial gain)
See this study for more information: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
Fraud is a strong accusation. You should be specific. What is fraudulent?
starting with the facts: linking to a graph that is out of context and not supported by empirical evidence is considered fraudulent... as well as posting an *opinion* which is written up specifically in a manner to imply that it was a scientific study (see your link here: http://www.drroys...esponse/ ) whereas it is NOT peer reviewed, nor is it published in a reputable journal...very fraudulent... very "aether" or "zephir" as well
Except for the theories being false
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, nor does it validate your use of a lie, especially when the empirical evidence refutes your lie
Red Herring is red
attempted distraction from your hypocrisy and lie
Falsified theories are false
repetitious lie again

tell us all: what specifically is wrong with the all studies i've linked to you?

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
linking to a graph that is out of context

Falsified theories are not actionable. Proof of falsity is in context.

not supported by empirical evidence

Are you saying that HadCRUT4 and UAH temperature records are false?

as well as posting an *opinion* which is written up specifically in a manner to imply that it was a scientific study

This is why I have told you not to post or refer to things you don't understand.

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

Don't like the data? Think its a lie? Show the real thing then.

attempted distraction from your hypocrisy and lie

Multaque sibi vult anima mea ut parvulus.

tell us all

No-one is reading this anymore.

what specifically is wrong with the all studies i've linked to you?

Observations do not match them. Therefore, they are falsified.

Stop using the first-person singular nominative in lower-case. It makes you look ridiculous right out of the chute.

denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
no, he didn't- neither did google

You'll need to rely on your MIT education to translate Latin, not google translator. It doesn't even get close. Wait. You didn't learn Latin? What kind of education did you get anyway?

See this study for more information

How many times do you have to be told not to refer to what you don't understand? I looked at it aynway. It is a paper written to convince you that AGW theories are falsified in order to achieve financial gain. It does nothing to counter the position that the theories are false. In other words, the paper is the equivalent of jumping up and down and holding one's breath. The bad man is simply proving a point. It doesn't need to be liked but it does need to be recognized.

Looking at the paper closer, I wish I had enough interest in that kind of stuff to give it the proper service it deserves. It is a good example of political drivel, and is clearly your muse. I understand now.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Denglish,
If you convert the amount of energy released by fossil fuels and compare it to the amount of energy provided by the Sun, (realizing the Sun shines on half the planet...) you find that in terms of the equilibrium energy required to maintain the climate: temperature, ice, weather patterns and currents, etc., mankind releases 40% of that energy.

It's a huge sum. And arguments either way-it is change in excess of normal, it is always positive, unlike the Sun that cycles, it is quantitative and must have SOME effect, however it is argued, and unlike CO2, which people have been arguing about for 40 years sans quantitative obvious conclusion, energy released is obvious and demonstrable.

Thanks again.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
"Looking at the paper closer, I wish I had enough interest in that kind of stuff to give it the proper service it deserves. It is a good example of political drivel, and is clearly your muse. I understand now."

Good Point Denglish. It infers that the quality and truthfulness of a paper and the science behind it depends on the source of funding. Wait a minute there I just might agree with that premise! Anything funded by a corrupt government is subject much deserved doubt.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
it is quantitative and must have SOME effect

Thanks for the breakdown Prophet.

I don't think anyone argues that there is "SOME" quantitative effect. I am not convinced that there is enough to justify demonizing the energy systems that has got us this far.

We all want a clean planet. Ham-stringing the very thing that will lead us to better energy alternatives seems to me to be a poor choice. The path of socialism (which is very much what AGW solutions look like) will lead us to what they want for us. The path of capitalism (which employs the best currently known power sources) will lead us to something that will work for us...and the Earth.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
Falsified theories are not actionable. Proof of falsity is in context
@d
linking a graph out of context and making a claim that it falsifies something is not proof of anything but cherry-picking and out-of-context hopeful distraction (red herring and strawman)
Are you saying that HadCRUT4 and UAH temperature records are false?
my LINK that falsified your graph as well as your claim of "no warming in the past ~18 yrs" (here: http://phys.org/n...eft.html ) uses both, therefore your red herring and strawman are also proven false with your graph as well as your attempt to distract with known pseudoscience and political BS
(as well as blatant fraudulent claims)
IOW - you are lying again and i've just proven it (again)

Don't like the data? Think its a lie? Show the real thing the
i did. i have. you ignored it: where is the validated studies which refute the studies i've historically linked to you?

2Bcont'd
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
@d

Stop using the first-person singular nominative in lower-case. It makes you look ridiculous right out of the chute.

The constant referrals to argumentative terms is tedious. Use your MIT education to say something original.

Falsified theories are falsified.

Good luck pursuing your masters' socialist agendas.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
@d cont'd
No-one is reading this anymore
you are/did
Observations do not match them. Therefore, they are falsified
and yet i proved that wrong here: http://phys.org/n...eft.html as well as elsewhere...
the best you've provided is someone's opinion and you hoped it was equivalent to actual validated studies (like Lacis et al and so many more)
perhaps it is you who is invapable of understanding what is being posted? after all, you are the one who things opinion is equivalent to validated empirical evidence
Stop using the first-person singular nominative in lower-case
why does that bother you so much?
you are obviously not scientifically literate, and we've seen that you've not an english major either by your inability to comprehend basic literature given or the difference between empirical evidence and opinion... so just ignore it!

or is that simply another red herring distraction for you?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
What is it with the awful punctuation? Man, that's hard to read.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
@d
How many times do you have to be told not to refer to what you don't understand? I looked at it aynway. It is a paper written to convince you that AGW theories are falsified in order to achieve financial gain
Oh,well then... since you've been so accurate with your personal conjectures so far... no wait... you've been a JVK so far: pretty much completely inaccurate with your "interpretations"...
by all means, please show evidence of your claims! be specific, so i can forward it to the journal and peers who reviewed the data and get it retracted (hyperbole/satire/sarcasm)

Looking at the paper closer, I wish I had enough interest in that kind of stuff to give it the proper service it deserves. It is a good example of political drivel, and is clearly your muse
so basically you didn't understand any of it
imagine that

again: present the evidence so i can forward it to the journal!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
The constant referrals to argumentative terms is tedious. Use your MIT education to say something original
@d
you mean something original and not "argumentative terms" like this?
Falsified theories are not actionable. Proof of falsity is in context
Observations do not match them. Therefore, they are falsified
Emotion in motion
Red Herring is red
Falsified theories are false
as for this
Good luck pursuing your masters' socialist agendas
all scientists are socialist now?
imagine that! i never knew!
What is it with the awful punctuation? Man, that's hard to read.
perhaps you should try "Hooked on Phonics"?
the problem isn't the punctuation, it is your illiteracy as well as choice of dogma to follow (politics/religion) which make it hard to read or understand. here is one explanation for your behaviour.

See: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
You argue for the sake of argument. It is tedious, and uninteresting.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Well, fossil fuels producing a huge amount of waste heat is quantifiable, and a huge amount.

The change in CO2 is a small change (no not in %-that's a stupid metric, that means 1 ppm vs 2 pmm will be significant), that people say without any good quantification or even simple chemistry to approximate is a huge effect.

Using laws of dilute formulae the increase should by proportional to difference in concentration squared, right?

Using thermodynamics, that amount of heat retained from fossil fuels should have effects, but since they are a magnitude lower than the primary, subtle ones.

Exactly what "we" are seeing and arguing about.

Pretty elegant, huh?
denglish
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Sorry prophet, I think the syntax is a bit off. After several readings, I cannot detect the forwarding of a point.

I'll take a shot though, and feedback that it sounds like you're saying that while AGW contributors cannot be ignored, they are not the primary drivers in climate change.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Well, you can ignore CO2 contributions.

400-280 ppm = 120ppm or 0.000120 change. 0.012% incurs what kind of change? A pretty small one.

While addition of heat is a large one, compared to background heat.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2015
Well, you can ignore CO2 contributions.

400-280 ppm = 120ppm or 0.000120 change. 0.012% incurs what kind of change? A pretty small one.

While addition of heat is a large one, compared to background heat.

So I did get it right, and agreed. Everything I'm reading says CO2, despite being the poster-child of AGW, is as insignificant a greenhouse gas as it is a significant life-giving gas.

Not to hijack your great point, but it is suspicious that so much emphasis is placed on CO2. Its as if they don't/won't look at anything else, or they're completely focused on a by-product of modern society; wanting to eliminate it and therefore eliminating modern society.

Something stinks here.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
" Its as if they don't/won't look at anything else, or they're completely focused on a by-product of modern society; wanting to eliminate it and therefore eliminating modern society."

!!!BINGO!!!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
Denglish, it's like the controversy over smoking. They put so much doubt around the obvious, that it causes indecision.

Then point fingers at something that if push ever did come to shove, they can whip out proof that CO2 is a wild goose. Probably while in the Supreme Court, or analogies to it.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Jul 03, 2015
" Its as if they don't/won't look at anything else, or they're completely focused on a by-product of modern society; wanting to eliminate it and therefore eliminating modern society."
----------------------------------------

Please outgrow this juvenile tendency toward gross exaggeration. There is no conspiracy.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
There is no conspiracy.

Stolen IPCC emails say otherwise. Climategate. Climategate 2.0.

If the media weren't liberal, AGW would have never lived this long.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
There is definitely a conspiracy:

1. The answer is simple and demonstrably simple.
2. Therefor there is a conspiracy on one side or the other to obfuscate. Or both.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
The @Dinglick say "Climategate 2.0.". Haha, Lol. What a maron. When all the crap happens 10 to 20 years out, come talk to me then about your supposed climategate 2.0 BS. We all like to BS and joke around, but total IGMO's like the @denglberry blows the cake wide open! There are not many like him, that mold is taken! I will bet the fart likes Trump.

denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
The @Dinglick say "Climategate 2.0.". Haha, Lol. What a maron. When all the crap happens 10 to 20 years out, come talk to me then about your supposed climategate 2.0 BS. We all like to BS and joke around, but total IGMO's like the @denglberry blows the cake wide open! There are not many like him, that mold is taken! I will bet the fart likes Trump.

Exhibit A.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
Exhibit A.

Right wing fruit reply, Exhibit 0.01A.
Bongstar420
2 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
Cancer is the result of DNA issues, not the environment per se..Everyone gets "cancer" all their life.

Its a correlationary phenomena, and not a cause and effect phenomena.

Denglish, it's like the controversy over smoking. They put so much doubt around the obvious, that it causes indecision.

Then point fingers at something that if push ever did come to shove, they can whip out proof that CO2 is a wild goose. Probably while in the Supreme Court, or analogies to it.

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
"2. Therefor there is a conspiracy on one side or the other to obfuscate. Or both."

Water I really don't see how the scientists that doubt that Co2 plays an important role in climate are trying to obfuscate the truth. You, I and most everyone believe that there has been warming. You, I and a fair amount of scientists beleive that man's Co2 emissions are of negligible concern. Climate Science's position has been to blame Co2 for any changes. You have to ask yourself why they are doing this. My guess is that Co2 emissions are being used as a tool to justify draconian government changes and redistribute political and economic power to friends of the movement.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
deng said
There is no conspiracy.

Stolen IPCC emails say otherwise. Climategate. Climategate 2.0.

If the media weren't liberal, AGW would have never lived this long.
ALCHIE said
There is definitely a conspiracy:

well that proved my point here
http://phys.org/n...eft.html

it also proved my point about ALCHIE/profit/prophet stultitiae

also reinforces this study
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2015
Please outgrow this juvenile tendency toward gross exaggeration
Ahaahaaaaa you mean like how you think it's OK to double the magnitude and number of earthquakes in CA on a given day, or how doing validation on a reactor component off-site makes you an expert on nukes?

Perhaps you both suffer from compulsive neurosis. It's obvious you do.

And maggnus and barakn should be ashamed of themselves for encouraging your participation here.
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Aaaah DONGlish and his clown waterMONKEY doing what they do best Monkeybusiness ! !
Still getting kicks out of self insults eh...

So do those exposing you clowns for what you are everytime, papa oil still paying you peanuts to burn that midnight oil hard at night commenting dumbness on every climate topic that airs.... breaking their reputation's never been that much fun.

Continued idiotic exposure, lasting consistency, man that must be the worst job ever, but make for the most laughing comedy however.... time to pop the popcorn the 1s out of 5 shining sprightly :D.. well said Captain as always.. it's been fun seeing you humiliate these clowns Everytime ;)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Jul 04, 2015
are you just another synonym of you-know-who
I don't participate in your AGW slapfests because I know very little about it and have no problem admitting the fact.

You assert that your MS in environmental aesthetics allows you to claim that Pu is raining down on Idaho and that dried manure dust, which you laughingly refer to as volatile solids, is a major component of 'high atmosphere' pollution in the central valley, when it's at the very bottom of the list.

Obviously your degree is bullshit because you use it to legitimize the obvious bullshit you post. And because of your mental problems it is impossible for you to admit this.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 04, 2015
Oh, is otto back? Mommy had him in a corner for a few days, because he still cannot hit the toilet. She makes him sit now.

Well, that was fun, but it did nothing to advance the issue, did it? I do not read the posts of the sniper who calls himself otto. He already bragged about using his pseudonyms to play his "games" with the rest of us, who are here for debate. I ticked him/her (we still do not know), and he/she never forgave me for it, and follows me around like Willie, giving "ones" to "hurt" me.

Now, when I see one of his blank spaces from "ignore", I just assume I got to him/her again.

MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 04, 2015
"If the media weren't liberal, AGW would have never lived this long."
-----------------------------------------

Oh, . . does that mean if we did not report it, the oceans would not be acidifying? Really? All those 400 ppm of CO2 are from the media? Tropical diseases in Alaskan birds are from the media?

Tell those with Chikungunya it is all in their heads, or they got it from the newspaper??

Conservative logic?
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
Professing allegiance to a primer empowering the rationalization of prejudiced positions should allow the reader the necessary insight to properly assess this person's general condition.

One cannot help but being reminded of Chamberlain, Halifax, and Henderson.

Aaaah DONGlish and his clown waterMONKEY

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

the oceans would not be acidifying

I did a little bit of research on this. The more correct phrase is that the Ocean is growing less alkaline. But... that's not scary enough to allow you to rationalize your hatred of the socially successful, so you choose "growing in acidity".

400 ppm of CO2

Insignificant to warming. Actually, a result of warming, and good for living things.

Tropical diseases in Alaskan birds

That disease is in the world must be a real shocker to you.

Chikungunya

You jumped the shark with this one. I'm really curious to see how you top it.

MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
I heard that acid ocean nonsense before. I it is just like all of the other tipping points.

http://news.heart...fication
denglish
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
I just assume I got to him/her again.

You're wrong. You took your ball and went home because you found out that the rules you play by aren't the real rules. Tucked into the basement, you imagine the game in your own head, while something entirely different is actually happening. The game cares nothing for non-players.

Assuming success may be a big part of your overall problem. Success isn't assumed; it is earned.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2015
"Heartland"?

Really?

Do you expect ANYBODY to accept their stuff as "science"? It is a Denier site.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2015
Professing allegiance to a primer empowering the rationalization of prejudiced positions should allow the reader the necessary insight to properly assess this person's general condition.

One cannot help but being reminded of Chamberlain, Halifax, and Henderson.

Aaaah DONGlish and his clown waterMONKEY
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


Nope, years of un intelligent persitent replies from you and your puppets are (and it not only shows, it propagates throughout the news as you keep banging your head against that brick wall, keeping up that numb skull intellect reputation you pride yourself of ;)

"Heartland"?

Really?

Do you expect ANYBODY to accept their stuff as "science"? It is a Denier site.

lol... rubbing it in some more... :)
denglish
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
Nope, years of un intelligent persitent replies from you and your puppets are (and it not only shows, it propagates throughout the news as you keep banging your head against that brick wall, keeping up that numb skull intellect reputation you pride yourself of ;)

Nonsense is nonsense.

Posts like these are indicative of a mind-set. Would the reader want to ally themselves with such people? As they expose themselves more, it becomes clear that public opposition is necessary in order to show that there are alternatives. If no opposition is shown, these people are appeased and we step closer to this being a norm instead of a spectacle of extremism.

Discourse should be encouraged. But when the contents add up to nil, why produce it in the first place?
denglish
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
"Heartland"?

Really?

Do you expect ANYBODY to accept their stuff as "science"? It is a Denier site.

Wrong. It is a conservative site, with many topics.

I never heard of it before, and a 30 second perusal showed me that.

Assuming again...got you no-where but closer to your own mind.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2015
"Assuming again...got you no-where but closer to your own mind."
----------------------------------

I didn't assume you went to "Heartland", . . . you used it as a reference!
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2015
I didn't assume you went to "Heartland", . . . you used it as a reference!

No, MR166 did.

Again, you assumed. I suspect that assuming is a big problem for you. Assumption of correctness does not usurp the importance of ensuring correctness via diligence.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2015
Babble on, . . but keep on looking outside: The changes you want to deny are occurring outside your window.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
Yup Gkam I am well aware the Heartland is not on the list of the Ministry of Truth approved information sources but you will just have to deal with it.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2015
The changes you want to deny are occurring outside your window.

Like the AGW theories being proven true, CO2 being conclusively shown to be a major forcing agent, artic ice being totally gone, or the temperature increasing.

You are a sad, sad person. Looking for a reason to hate a world you can't succeed in, and not performing the necessary research to chose the right one.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Oh dear!!!!!

The 97% is reduced to 50%

http://iceagenow....nsensus/

Oh I know,,,, Iceagnow is not among the Ministry of Truths approved websites.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 04, 2015
"Yup Gkam I am well aware the Heartland is not on the list of the Ministry of Truth approved information sources but you will just have to deal with it."
-----------------------------------------

No, I don't. Those with educations ignore it.
FritzVonDago
2 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
There is a direct relationship to the amount of global warmest hogwash that the public is forced to swallow and the amount of grant money we are forced to pay you through government grant funds. The worse the news is on your part the greater your grant funds. You people are pathetic over educated losers if you ask me. You people need to get real jobs and stop living off the hind tit of the government hog!
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jul 04, 2015
Its actually quite significant that of 65 Nobel Laureate attendees, only about 50% signed the paper.

One would think that with such a serious and settled subject as AGW, they would all realize the importance of urging the world to abandon its wealth and economy so that things may continue to live on the earth. Perhaps they know that no-matter how serious it is, there is nothing humanity can do to stop the earth in doing what it is going to do, and they also know that the science is not well enough understood to cause moral and economic chaos: particularly in the destruction of the energy source sustaining the technology that will eventually lead us to viable alternatives.

Just under 50% of Nobel Laureates would not sign the paper.

No. It is a matter of character.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 04, 2015
"You people need to get real jobs and stop living off the hind tit of the government hog!"
------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that wonderful example of ignorance in action.

Look up what Goethe said about it.

And yes, it is a matter of character. Got any?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Like the AGW theories being proven true, CO2 being conclusively shown to be a major forcing agent, artic ice being totally gone, or the temperature increasing.
You are a sad, sad person. Looking for a reason to hate a world you can't succeed in, and not performing the necessary research to chose the right one
no... what is sad is watching someone cling tenaciously to a lie and calling it evidence in the face of overwhelming defeat..

you have YET to provide the same level of evidence equivalent to the peer reviewed studies in reputable journals as i have provided to refute a single item. to date, you've only provided opinion and blatant lies (which include your intentionally fraudulent attempts to look scientific with dr roy's non-peer reviewed "study" - called "Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)" this is called fraud/opinion & argument from authority & ignorance)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Folks, you all know about the theatrically named "Dead Zones," by now. Named so that people make analogies to horror flicks rather than scientific observations.

But look at it: The oceans are full of plant-life. That plant life is primarily near the shores. Man-kind kills it with fertilizer (blooms really, look it up, I don't have space to explain), this causes an increase in CO2.

So what are we left with? An increase in CO2, ocean acidification from CO2, and no one acknowledging the cause.

Now, I've been claiming CO2 didn't change temperature for a while, but this ocean acidification, hmmm.

The CO2 wild goose chase was propaganda-ed in a time when it was inconceivable mankind could damage the oceans that much.

But we showed Mother Nature, didn't we boys?
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
If the Gulf Stream slows or stops and Europe is covered in ice, will the Deniers admit error?

No. It is a matter of character.


No one denies the climate changes. Nothing in the world is static.
Egleton
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
I can't believe I read all that drivel..
On one side we have the Over cautious IPCC, and on the other we have professional disinformation propagandist for giant multinational corporate interest, supported by unthinking Capitalists.

What on earth makes you think you Yanks live in a Capitalists Shangrila? You don't. You live in a Fascist society. Your sacred "Constitution" is a laugh. Do you think it is on the agenda when Big Business tells their bought Congress what laws to write?

At least climate scientists have a stab at representing reality in good faith. To Corporations the truth is a play thing in their quest for world domination.

The deniers had better identify their real enemy, And it is not their servants, the scientists.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Egleton your thinking that the climate scientists are immune to all this admitted corruption shows a great amount of denial on your part. Do you really think that the UN is providing the world with unbiased science? Do you really think that NOAA and NASA are not biasing the data in order to further an agenda?
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
And yes, it is a matter of character.

Stolen Valor, false claims of education and experience in order to gain anonymous credibility.

What on earth makes you think you Yanks live in a Capitalists Shangrila? You don't. You live in a Fascist society. Your sacred "Constitution" is a laugh. Do you think it is on the agenda when Big Business tells their bought Congress what laws to write?

Transparent hatred is transparent.

At least climate scientists have a stab at representing reality in good faith.

Google Climategate and Climategate 2.0. Go past the apologists, and go straight to the quotes taken from the hacked emails.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2015
Nope, years of un intelligent persitent replies from you and your puppets are (and it not only shows, it propagates throughout the news as you keep banging your head against that brick wall, keeping up that numb skull intellect reputation you pride yourself of ;)

Nonsense is nonsense.

Posts like these are indicative of a mind-set. Would the reader want to ally themselves with such people?

The reader wants to ally themselves with the truth, and the truth has been given and proven countless of times thats why the scientists providing emperical proof always prevail on this site and the opposition won't, not many people likes being fooled, and they are quick to catch on in this day and age, political bs is exposed and explained for all to see on a dime, especially seeing the same clowns posting denier bs almost before the article gets posted, the world catches on... ;)
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
The reader wants to ally themselves with the truth, and the truth has been given and proven countless of times thats why the scientists providing emperical proof always prevail on this site and the opposition won't, not many people likes being fooled, and they are quick to catch on in this day and age, political bs is exposed and explained for all to see on a dime, especially seeing the same clowns posting denier bs almost before the article gets posted, the world catches on... ;)

Nonsense is nonsense.

Posts like these are indicative of a mind-set. Would the reader want to ally themselves with such people?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2015
"Stolen Valor, false claims of education and experience in order to gain anonymous credibility."
-------------------------------------------

Yeah, that's it, except you can find my name and picture on at least two military websites, and my name on a third, for classified assistance.

Valor? It was just WORK!!

Look us up, the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White, the Electronic Battlefield. I want you to do it. Then, I'll send you to find out what I did at Edwards AFB.

Now you can tell us your education and experience.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Babble on, . . but keep on looking outside: The changes you want to deny are occurring outside your window.

That's my line!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Do you really think that the UN is providing the world with unbiased science?
@MrTROLL
so, you really think that a world which cannot get together and agree on peace or a breakfast food somehow came together to misinform the entire planet about science and the evidence it presents? really?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Google Climategate and Climategate 2.0
@dTROLL
i would repeat the above for you, but considering your adherence to conspiracy theory, you would only use it as evidence that the world is out to get you... see also:
http://phys.org/n...ies.html
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Stumpy no one is doubting that the planet has warmed and that man has contributed to that. The question really is the amount and the long term effects of the contribution. None of that has been proven. The models are nothing but pure supposition. The UN basically wants the power to force western nations to pay reparations to non western nations for any temperature increases. THAT is the motivating force behind their so called science. The western world wants to use this same temperature increase to raise taxes and support the crony capitalism called renewable energy.

That is the driving force behind climate science today.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Captian just look at the EPA. Congress asked the to provide a scientific basis for their newest energy rulings AND THEY REFUSED.

Yet you expect me to trust the government figures that they will ultimately use to tax me and strip me of my rights.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Stumpy no one is doubting that the planet has warmed and that man has contributed to that. The question really is the amount and the long term effects of the contribution. None of that has been proven.
@Mr
and again, i point out that i've linked validated studies which indicate you are wrong... the point is NOT about "amount" etc... it is about what to do about it.
the only debate raging really is what to do about the problem... which is why political and business entities want to skew the ignorant (and scientifically illiterate) in their favor by flooding with pseudoscience
(want me to link that study again supporting the behind the scenes push for pseudoscience? it is far more valid than simple assumption and conjecture, you know! just ask for it)

an old and tired argument from way back, you know

2Bcont'd
gkam
1.6 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2015
"Yet you expect me to trust the government figures that they will ultimately use to tax me and strip me of my rights."
------------------------------------

The "right" to pollute my air and water?

You are hung up on money. We can survive without it.

Try surviving without an environment conducive to making your Oxygen, cleaning your water, and providing you with food.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
@mr cont'd
The UN basically wants the power to force western nations to pay reparations to non western nations for any temperature increases. THAT is the motivating force behind their so called science
oh, right! because there is a worldwide conspiracy... i forgot!
there is a huge problem with your "UN" argument: there are NON UN nations also validating the studies and experiments being promoted around the world... how does that world wide conspiracy of US work if non US countries are also involved? are they pushing for membership and power in the UN? or is it a money making scam?
That is the driving force behind climate science today.
so you CALIM

where is the evidence?
and by that, i do NOT mean blogs, conjecture or speculations... but validated peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals! there must... MUST... be a common ground to establish realitty... and conjecture is NOT it... EVIDENCE must be source and valid!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
"calim" = "CLAIM" above-typo-big fingers
Captian just look at the EPA
@mr
ok
Congress asked the to provide a scientific basis for their newest energy rulings AND THEY REFUSED
again - you make the claim, but where is the evidence?
the preponderance of evidence out there in the form of STUDIES in peer reviewed journals supports the claims i've been making... that is not "argument from populus" or "consensus" ... it is a plain simple fact that the WORLD scientists trying to find answers keep tripping over the same data and finding the same conclusions... there is no vote to oust the koch's... they are simply not viable nor reputable or providing scientific evidence!
Yet you expect me to trust the government figures...
i have NEVER ONCE made this claim! (personally, i don't like gov't much myself)

my claim has always been to TRUST THE SCIENCE and follow the evidence!
NOT THE GOV'T!

get it right if you are going to argue that point with me
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
You don't trust the government figures yet you trust the papers that use these figures to model the future.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
You don't trust the government figures yet ....
@MR
WTF? can't you read?
the gov't doesn't make the figures, the science does

there is a HUGE difference between scientific evidence presented in studies & the "numbers" you are trying to refer to... starting with this:

1- the "numbers" you vaguely refer to are being cherry picked from certain studies and utilised by politicians to gain power. it doesn't mean anything other than politicians lie - NOT VICE VERSA as you claimed in your quote

2- the gov't figures do NOT contain all the studies out there (again- see politics and lying)

3- the only person who can refute the "gov't figures" will be one versed in the literature and validated studies who is also capable of standing before congress and proving a point (which has been done- see Dr Tyson, and many more... and notice they are scientists, NOT politicians)

i don't trust anything that can't be validated.period
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
MR166,
Here's the thing about proven.
Nothing ever is or is not.

I say time and time again, based on the heat released by fossil fuels that this is the driver of manmade climate change.

It is about 20% of the amount of Sunlight (in terms of energy) required to change the climate.

You can do the calculations yourself.

Is this proof?

It should be.

Now is a good time of year to show the power of water vapor vs CO2. Compare values of temperature, humidity, CO2 and apparent heat in your own home. Set temperature inside = outside. CO2 is 3-4x more concentrated inside with the windows closed, your AC control humidity.

From here you, yourself can demo effects.

Is this proof?
It should be.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
WP the good thing about the heat man adds to the earth is that it probably has a half life of a day or so vs the 10s if not hundreds of years that some climate scientists claim Co2 lasts. Thus if there really was a problem the solution would juts take a matter of weeks to implement.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Interesting observation MR, but I hope I can shed some intuition on your statement about the half-life of days. Which, is a good one, don't get me wrong.

The Earth takes heat from the Equator and ferries it to the poles.
Additional heat, especially background heat is transported more efficiently, as it contributes to the low end of the energy spectrum.

So, this additional heat is efficiently entered into the ice and polar weather systems, is a way that Solar energy is not.

Because of the character of Black Body radiation, it is more or less 1:1, with somekind of % of radiated efficiency.

But you are also right, as anyone can see, Earth temperature fluctuates very closely/linearly with economic change, and Solar Radiation, and does not increase with any strong relation to CO2.

Respectfully
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
WP along with solar radiation you have to include the internal heat of the earth which makes it to the surface in the heat balance equations. The gradient is something like 100 degrees F for every 2K feet if I am not mistaken. I do not know the "R" rating of 2000 feet of rock though. Also when you consider the huge difference between day and night temperatures it is apparent that earths heat radiates back out to space relatively quickly. I doubt that polar ice and ocean currents are a big influence on the retention of human generated heat.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2015
Make that "The earths land heat radiates back into space quickly." The heat that enters the oceans is another matter. That of course is subject to currents and polar ice.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
Before the news clouds it over, I want everyone to examine Northern Hemisphere temperatures for July.

You'll see it is "cold" for July everywhere.
Educated people, understand that temperature does not carry momentum. Therefore if the Earth is cold (this is the second year like this-but check out this year NOW) all the energy that supposedly has been stored up is gone.

Except of course for that energy "stored" by melted ice, warmed oceans, permafrost changes, and physical effects of these things. But temperature is gone.

So, measurable heat from burning fuels, conclusive.
Melting icecaps/poles, conclusive.
Temperatures fluctuating with the Sun and heat from fossil fuels, conclusive.
Climate change directly correlated to burning fuels, conclusive.

Weak non-linear relation to CO2, meh, conclusive.
No concise science relating CO2 and climate change over 40++ years, conclusive.

MR166-excellent point again, I'd not considered Earth's internal heat.
denglish
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
Yeah, that's it, except you can find my name and picture on at least two military websites, and my name on a third, for classified assistance.

Valor? It was just WORK!!

Look us up, the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White, the Electronic Battlefield. I want you to do it. Then, I'll send you to find out what I did at Edwards AFB.

Now you can tell us your education and experience.

Still floundering in your fantasy world! Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
"Stolen Valor, false claims of education and experience in order to gain anonymous credibility."
-------------------------------------------

Yeah, that's it, except you can find my name and picture on at least two military websites, and my name on a third, for classified assistance.

Valor? It was just WORK!!

Look us up, the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White, the Electronic Battlefield. I want you to do it. Then, I'll send you to find out what I did at Edwards AFB.

Now you can tell us your education and experience.
But youve never explained what this has to do with AGW, or anything else for that matter.

Or the fact that you are too cowardly to admit it when people here prove that you make up facts and lie through your teeth.

Yeah, it takes a man to own up to that. One with a relatively sound and sober brain that is.

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.