Research pair suggest global warming almost completely natural (Update)

August 23, 2017 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org weblog
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Australian biologist and climate science denialist Jennifer Marohasy and computer scientist John Abbot have published a paper in the journal GeoResJ outlining their study of climate change using neural network technology—their results show that the climate changes the world is now experiencing are almost completely natural. Marohasy offers an additional explanation and outline of their work on her blog. Also, alt-right news site Breitbart offers a take on the work.

Most scientists around the world have reached a consensus on global warming—it is happening, and it is happening because humans have ejected so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But Marohasy and Abbot claim that this consensus is built on a faulty base, one decided upon almost a century ago, when work was done to learn about the heat absorption potential of carbon dioxide. They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures. For that reason, they began collecting data from prior studies that offered a means of temperature reading over the past 2000 years—tree rings, coral cores etc. They fed that data into a that Abbot has been using to predict rainfall patterns in Australia for the past several years. The network functions by looking at patterns and learning about given situations—in this case, patterns over the course of 2000 years, and then offers predictions.

The researchers report that the computer predicted temperatures rising in roughly the same way as they have based on real-world measures—in the absence of added carbon dioxide—which suggests that carbon dioxide is not the cause. They also note that there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period that ran from approximately 986 to 1234, when temperatures were roughly equal to those today. This, the two researchers suggest, offers evidence that the planet would have heated to the degree it has regardless of whether humans pumped into the atmosphere for a hundred years or not. They note that their results also showed global temperature averages declining after 1980, which coincides with the slowdown noted by other mainstream scientists, but not fully explained. They suggest the warming we are now experiencing is mostly naturally occurring and that it will likely abate just as it has done in the past.

The research was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. GeoResJ journal will be discontinued from January 2018 and is closed to new submissions.

Explore further: Human-caused warming likely led to recent streak of record-breaking temperatures: study

More information: John Abbot et al. The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change, GeoResJ (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2017.08.001

Related Stories

Energy chief: Carbon dioxide not prime driver of warming

June 19, 2017

Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus but in line with the head of the Environmental ...

Cutting carbon dioxide helps prevent drying

March 24, 2011

Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao ...

Recommended for you

Human influence detected in changing seasons

July 20, 2018

For the first time, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and five other organizations have shown that human influences significantly impact the size of the seasonal cycle of temperature in the lowest ...

269 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kujarvis
4.9 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
Had to check the URL twice after reading this.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 23, 2017
These researchers are clearly heretics, paid stooges of the oil and coal companies. These two have the temerity to suggest the democratically decided AGW is false? Off with their heads! And Phys.org published it? What is the world coming to...
First comment from the AGWites will point out these scientists aren't relevant to make these claims based on their computer models.
Castagir
4.3 / 5 (18) Aug 23, 2017
A biologist and a computer scientist stating that the consensus of climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. I had to check the URL twice myself to make sure I didn't end up at Breibart.

I wonder, how many climate researchers state that this biologist has cell theory wrong and the computer scientist misunderstands coding?

Stick to the folks who are trained in the field, not the folks who are ideologues and/or are paid and do not have the credentials to offer expert assessment. We will leave the "research" results to the climate folks to refute or accept based upon the data and facts.
Castagir
4 / 5 (21) Aug 23, 2017
First comment from the AGWites will point out these scientists aren't relevant to make these claims based on their computer models.


Yes, because that is the basis of rational thought and research that is valid. Just like you don't listen to a plumber when looking for a medical diagnosis (no insult to plumbers or doctors there).
bkgrimm
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2017
Castagir, I was about to say the same thing...biologist and computer scientist...you beat me to it. I'll rely on the climatologists.
bkgrimm
4.3 / 5 (18) Aug 23, 2017
I do need to ask though, why is this information on the woman's blog, and not in a peer reviewed journal? ...seems fishy.
Chris_Reeve
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2017
Many of the commenters here are known for their vitriolic distaste for computer models, so I expect them to not be hypocrites and decry the use of neural networks in this work. A neural network is, after all, a model that you allow to tweak itself.
venividivici
4.3 / 5 (22) Aug 23, 2017
GeoResJ is a 3 year old, discontinued journal launched by a Dutch publishing company.

Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian climate sceptic who abandoned research in 1997 to work for the Queensland sugar industry. Her involvement in a joint program of the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland was terminated due to objections from the Australian Federation of Scientists and Technologists (FASTS)

The article is marked as user-generated content (weblog). Phys.org/Science-X needs to get out of the business of disseminating obvious propaganda.
schultzy2012
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
I do need to ask though, why is this information on the woman's blog, and not in a peer reviewed journal? ...seems fishy.


It was published in GeoResJ, an open access journal (as mentioned at the beginning of the article). It may not be the Lancet, but it is peer reviewed and not a blog. For those who did not actually read the paper, their work did suggest that humans have had some impact on temperature increases. This is not mentioned in the article above. You can read the numbers and methods for yourself. It is only an 11 page paper. It might make for a more interesting conversation.
xponen
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2017
I think this is a social experiment. Neural network can indeed see correlation and pattern, but these 'researcher' made an excessively strong conclusion while the neurons can only make a fuzzy answer at best. This is a deliberate.. This article is a poor un-intuitive attempt at making fake news. Fake news is more 'real' than this.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
First comment from the AGWites will point out these scientists aren't relevant to make these claims based on their computer models.


Yes, because that is the basis of rational thought and research that is valid. Just like you don't listen to a plumber when looking for a medical diagnosis (no insult to plumbers or doctors there).

Ironically, my 100% accurate prediction did not involved a computer model.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
A number of points.
If the "official" "explanation" for climate change is so secure and certain, why is this only about the first time the "Medieval Warm Period" was mentioned? On a search engine, it's listed in some books and sites devoted to skepticism about the "official story" about climate change, but, except for a reference in The Independent, in England, it's not mentioned in any well known site! There is an evident initiative to keep this from the public!
Also, note the insipidity of such as Castagir and bkgrimm. Their tenet, that is it impossible for someone to know something unless an avowed "expert" said it first. The first climatologist did not go through an officially defined course in climatology! They learned it without official training! Just because someone did not have official training in an area does not mean they can't learn the truth!
And, again, it's not "fossil fuels" causing climate change, it's chemtrails.
Turgent
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
Red Meat

Surprising this is deemed newsworthy.

Paper is behind a paywall and is really needed to make any sense of it.
"suggest" is operate word like so many others premised on "may" and "could".

"showed global temperature averages declining after 1980" where is this data set coming from? Anyone experience the winter of 1977?

Would like to see the algorithm(s) created by ANN.

Note used proxy data back to 1 AD. Mann's 1998 paper deemed pre 1400 as to uncertain.

"then offers predictions." Well how well they stack up?

"greatest deviation .2 C". Over what interval?

"They note that their results also showed global temperature averages declining after 1980, which coincides with the slowdown noted by other mainstream scientists, but not fully explained." Is this in fact the case?

I don't want to dig through my CRC and try to figure IR absorption by CO2 and H2O. Anyone know a place where the equations can be found?
CognitiveEngineer
2 / 5 (21) Aug 23, 2017
Yes, this type of research should be outlawed unless you have the right credentials. Who told them they could use neural networks to look at data without the permission of high climate priests. How about critiquing the study based on real thought...like the input data is somewhat limited and throwing an additional data set into it could totally change the results. Oh, but that would involve thought and getting out of the echo chamber...better to attack credentials. Reminds me of that funny looking Jewish guy that worked in the patent office...how dare him contradict real physics.
Nero_Caesar
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
I do need to ask though, why is this information on the woman's blog, and not in a peer reviewed journal? ...seems fishy.


Additional explanation was on her blog. Journal here: http://www.scienc...a%3Dihub
Solon
1 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
Weather Channel founder denies climate change: so 'put me to death'
http://mynewsla.c...o-death/

Burning at the stake is the only way to deal with these heretics. As if a weather man knows anything about climate...
PTTG
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
By way of metaphor, this article essentially concludes the following: It is possible to imagine that, absent the iceberg, the Titanic would have sunk on its maiden voyage regardless.

The conclusion drawn from this by conservative commentators is: There was no iceberg, and the Titanic did not sink.
Thnder
3.9 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
For those who did not actually read the paper, their work did suggest that humans have had some impact on temperature increases. This is not mentioned in the article above.


Actually right off the bat the above article says:
their results show that the climate changes the world is now experiencing are almost completely natural.

That suggests some unnatural help via humans.
Zzzzzzzz
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
"Research Pair Suggest"......The problem with this website is that there is no threshold that must be cleared for any article to appear on here. It must just scour the web for keywords.
This article would never appear on a real science site.
Lino235
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2017
It's really simple, isn't it? Was there, or was there no, Medieval Warming? Was there, or was there no, Little Ice Age?

How can you have an Ice Age, unless temperatures were warmer presviously? It's simple logic.

What year had the most number of temperature highs? 1934.
Lino235
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2017
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz:

Zzzzzzzzzzz:

"Research Pair Suggest"......The problem with this website is that there is no threshold that must be cleared for any article to appear on here. It must just scour the web for keywords.
This article would never appear on a real science site.


Perhaps that simply proof that "real science" sites practice censorhip; so that the real problem is political bias masquerading as 'real science,' and NOT global warming. Or should we say Climate Change, since GWists keep getting frozen out of their conferences?
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2017
""Research Pair Suggest"......The problem with this website is that there is no threshold that must be cleared for any article to appear on here. It must just scour the web for keywords.
This article would never appear on a real science site."
I notice this article was moved pretty quickly off the recent topics list, had to search to find it again.
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
Solon

This is published in GeoResJ by Elsevier. They are very tight about who gets published. I must have adequate peer review.
Turgent
2.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
A better discussion of paper is at: http://jenniferma...natural/

Paper is at: https://authors.e...tTUKabVA

As best I can tell this the first use of this approach.

1. Machine learning here is the selection of climate models which best fit the data.

2. Fourier transforms are used to tease out natural cycles (sinusoidal).

Some of their predictive fits to proxy data are extremely tight. hmmmm

It does give a good means for explanation of the MWP.

Can't say I came away with a total understanding. It is hard to critique this paper without a better understanding of what artificial neural networks can do and with what. For the GW scientists it would seem a good idea to look at their work through this lens.
thisisminesothere
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2017
If she didnt already have an extensive denier background, and wasnt backed by a denier foundation, I'd probably take her more seriously. But, she, like the claims she makes about the other side, has an agenda. Or at the very least, appears to have one. Which makes it more difficult to take her work seriously.

https://www.desmo...nference

Articles dating back a few years showing where her funding has come from and who those funders are. Also a search of that foundation.

It would certainly be nice if there werent "sides" to this issue that were so hotly politicized.

Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
Dingbone

I agree that variability of solar and cosmic ray intensity is a consideration. The paper did not identify what kind of the cycles they were.

I've seen that there is a more recent paper dismissing the effect of solar wind. I didn't read it.

Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mannstein
not rated yet Aug 23, 2017
As far as I'm concerned i'll stick with the french saying "Apres moi le deluge".
ProfRaccoon
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2017
These Australian researchers are correct. The climate is always changing as long as the earth exists. However, chopping down all the trees and killing enough plant/animal species will endanger humanity anyway, so our fossil fuel addiction must be cured, regardless of the "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" fable (only fake physicists like "climatologists" believe in this falsified nonsense). Man made CO2 is the least of our problems, so these so called "climatologists" are not at all helpful pointing out the real dangers and problems we have to face, not to mention of solving these problems. There is also a huge danger of world war 3, by forcing nations to kick the fossil fuel addiction too quickly.
memekiller
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
Selection bias heavily at work here. Politicization of science is getting ridiculous. Nobody is more thrilled to see rigid assumptions or groupthink overturned than I am. But to equate Einstein with this woman's work is hogwash. Einstein was not pursuing a political agenda or donor money or personal prejudice. He was pursuing truth, and his models, while revolutionary, fit the data perfectly and had predictive power.

This woman is a biologist and has no background in statistics, climate science, or computer science. She is way out of her league.

A simple reading of her assumptions and logic, and what she chooses to hide, are telling. She is pursuing an agenda and has found deep-pocket sponsors who enable her nonsense. ANN's and AI are NOT the vehicle to use for making predictions about climate change. They attempt to model the physical brain function, and are a specialty of neuroscience. She is not a neuroscientist.
memekiller
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
Marohasy's embrace of AI is also off-base. She's fallen prey to weak AI masquerading as strong AI (known as the most over-hyped segment of software), and she's trying to hoodwink the world via mysterious concepts and big words and cherry-picked data. A basic read of Hofstadter or Jaynes shows how far off-track she is.

Getting to the truth means finding the fundamental variables (what were her variables? Unclear), loading data into those variables (her data is completely cherry-picked), getting the algorithms that match the real-world model (she will not divulge her algorithms), then using a Bayesian approach to the statistical model (if it ain't Bayesian, it ain't real), and finally performing some variation of Monte Carlo simulation to iterate over the entire model, such as Runge-Kutta methods. What she's doing is specious, just clever nonsense.
J Doug
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2017
memekiller needs to recall that a person who has made so much money from this hoax of agw, Al Gore is the spokesman for this scam. Al Gore, who studied law at Vanderbilt Law School and for sure didn't finish his divinity training there either. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist. "It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all, 80 percent of the IPCC membership has absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies." Another interesting point regarding this scam is why it has become a left-right issue. What ever happened to the days gone by when science was apolitical and stood on the merits of the research and that meant that the debate was never over.
J Doug
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
This is the education that Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then they criticize someone like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed their contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a "B.S. in Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {whatever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
"Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations." At least he has been exposed to science but is a long way from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC is an economist?


Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
Yeah, typical, Elsevier publishes an article that wouldn't pass peer review anywhere else in a journal that's shutting down operations in January of next year. This is an obvious ploy to monetize #climatedeniers. Which is amusing, but rather underhanded; I can't figure out whether to hope none of them buys it or all of them. Snicker.
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2017
How on earth did that crap get 'passed' by 'peer reviewers' (supposedly) involved?

It's OBVIOUSLY a totally FLAWED/SHAM 'exercise' from go to whoa!

Reminds of Bicep2 'team' maths/data analysts/interpreters/modelers who did that equally flawed 'exercise', claims, re 'primordial gravitational waves'!

Only THIS time it's AGW DENIERS rather than BIG BANG BELIEVERS that have come up with GIGO of equal 'stench'!

It was ALREADY KNOWN, long since, that NATURAL climate swings ARE transiently affected by volcanism, ocean/atmos currents, insolation etc variables; BUT OVER MILLENNIA/CENTURIES, NOT DECADES like recently!

THAT's the problem NOW with CO2-linked Climate Change.

If THIS 'duo' had consulted THE REAL WORLD, by asking multi-generational Australian FARMING FAMILIES, they would have learned that, NOW, swings are TRENDING WORSE BY THE YEAR, NOT by the centuries/millennia!

Totally BOGUS/GIGO 'work' by a HACK 'duo'.

DON'T FALL for it (a-la-Bicep2), guys; it's BOGUS. :)
Dingbone
Aug 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2017
This woman is a biologist and has no background in statistics, climate science, or computer science. She is way out of her league.


Didn't see any Al Gore criticisms in your posts. Why do you not cast him in the same light as this woman? After all, look at all the claims he made in his first book that have never come to pass, I mean you talk about a prophet of gloom & doom whose prophecies turned out to be a complete bust.......the reason he gets a pass is what?
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
@Benni.

From @memekiller:
This woman is a biologist and has no background in statistics, climate science, or computer science. She is way out of her league.


From you:
Didn't see any Al Gore criticisms in your posts. Why do you not cast him in the same light as this woman? After all, look at all the claims he made in his first book that have never come to pass, I mean you talk about a prophet of gloom & doom whose prophecies turned out to be a complete bust.......the reason he gets a pass is what?
Mate, there is a gulf of difference! Gore is basing his book/talks on REAL climate scientists' work/conclusions; whereas above 'author' is CLAIMING to BE QUALIFIED and/or CAPABLE of critiquing REAL climjate scientists' work OBJECTIVELY and/or HONESTLY.

I use "objectively", "honestly", ADVISEDLY, mate.

The TOBACCO Industry ALSO used HIDDEN FUNDING, MANIPULATION for/of DISHONEST/QUESTIONABLY 'qualified" so-called 'scientists', 'researchers'!

Beware such 'studies'! :)
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
"They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures" If the alarmist on here that think that such statements are next to being heretical to their religion of anthropological global warming, they need to take the type of action that Galileo was forced to take so long ago. Since the current pope has taken a stand on this issue, he needs to refresh himself on how things turned out for the church when Pope Paul V weighed in on what were really matters of science and not theological concerns. The church never really lived that down and now Pope Francis seems to be intent on making a mistake every bit as serious regarding something that he evidently knows nothing about; climate change.
J Doug
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith." Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo
To which Galileo replied: "The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still... I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615
http://www.freeth...leo.html
The basic issue may be different but the attitude of the alarmist is the same as the church's in 1615

RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
@J Doug.

Mate, it's becoming obvious you are some sort of 'zealot' beyond the reach of reality and reason based on same. Please pause for a moment and rethinkit about who is the religious believer in this matter and who is the realist. To help you reconsider and so dispel your 'zealotry' in favor of reality and reasoned discussion, I will put to you the following information:

The 'Foundation' funding Jennifer Marohasy AND John Abbot is a Western Australian 'Discretionary Investment Trust' which is linked to many INTEREST GROUPS in the water/irrigation/mining etc industries/developers etc who would benefit from muddying the waters and preventing proper govt action/policies which would help the environment/economy/society BUT be detrimental to the political/business interests/profits of those funding the above and other such BOGUS and BIASED 'studies'. The Tobacco and fosil interests in USA did this sort of thing too!

Don't be FOOLED by these political/business CONS. :)
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017


It was ALREADY KNOWN, long since, that NATURAL climate swings ARE transiently affected by volcanism, ocean/atmos currents, insolation etc variables; BUT OVER MILLENNIA/CENTURIES, NOT DECADES like recently!




To be real, RealityCheck for sure needs to get away from skeptical science and actually do some checking.
''We find that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 y occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the archaeological records of settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures, which suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted human civilization in the region. Temperature variations in West Greenland display an antiphased relationship to temperature changes in Ireland over centennial to millennial timescales, resembling the interannual to multidecadal temperature seesaw associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation. ''
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
Mate, there is a gulf of difference! Gore is basing his book/talks on REAL climate scientists' work/conclusions; whereas above 'author' is CLAIMING to BE QUALIFIED and/or CAPABLE of critiquing REAL climjate scientists' work OBJECTIVELY and/or HONESTLY.
..........exactly the same claim Al Gore has made, the analogies are parallel.

memekiller
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
Politicization of science is getting ridiculous. Nobody is more thrilled to see rigid assumptions or groupthink overturned than I am
The same can be said about cold fusion, room temperature superconductivity, EMDrive and so on. Similarly there are many alternative theories of global warming. Scientists already know about connection of climatic and solar cycles for example - after all, it's apparent statistical corelation. But nobody actually researches these connections.
So much misinformation here, don't know where to start. Cold fusion HAS been confirmed, trouble is, they can't reproduce consistently or falsify and the first guys went mainstream before journal. RT superconductivity is getting closer, not theoretically impossible. EMDrive is a total hoax. Lots of smart, unbiased experts have studied climate change correlation - 2 standard deviations of consensus! Conflation of unlikes is a mask for BS.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
@J Doug.
To be real, RealityCheck for sure needs to get away from skeptical science and actually do some checking.
''We find that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 y occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the archaeological records of settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures, which suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted human civilization iIN THE REGION. Temperature variations in West Greenland display an antiphased relationship to temperature changes in Ireland over centennial to millennial timescales, resembling the interannual to multidecadal temperature seesaw associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation. ''
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Your reading confirmation BIAS led you to miss that "IN THE REGION" qualifier, J Doug. Not good if you want to purport to be any 'objective' discourser on the subject of GLOBAL climate change. Do better. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
@Benni.
Mate, there is a gulf of difference! Gore is basing his book/talks on REAL climate scientists' work/conclusions; whereas above 'author' is CLAIMING to BE QUALIFIED and/or CAPABLE of critiquing REAL climate scientists' work OBJECTIVELY and/or HONESTLY.
..........exactly the same claim Al Gore has made, the analogies are parallel.

Please can you explain what these 'parallels' are, mate? Thanks. :)
memekiller
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2017
. ..........exactly the same claim Al Gore has made, the analogies are parallel.

Not quite. Al Gore is politicizing confirmed science. Perhaps overboard, maybe for pecuniary interest, even alarmist, whatever. That point can be argued. What can't be argued is the science behind his claims, which is solid; I don't take a political position on any of this. Mahorasy is doing the exact opposite, however - she starts with a political agenda, then uses bogus methods to try to fit the science to her agenda. It's a reverse analogy, and thus more insidious.
memekiller
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2017
...The basic issue may be different but the attitude of the alarmist is the same as the church's in 1615...


Trying not to be impolite, but logic isn't your strong suit. They are not at all the same. The position of the Catholic Church (which basically ran the political sphere on religious myths) and Galileo's role (scientific iconoclast AND political thorn in the side based in evidence and logic) are completely orthogonal to the position of Marohasy (powerless pope of the scientifically-ignorant crowd) and the scientific establishment (intellectual followers of Galileo). You've got it exactly opposite. What's more amusing is that you seem to be unaware that Pope Urban and the Jesuits were actually sympathetic to Galileo, and it was his butt-hurt scientific colleagues who ran to the Pope and urged him to force Galileo's hand. Pope Urban made a political decision, not the logical decision he and the Jesuits originally took.
Bongstar420
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
986 to 1234 was obviously caused by exxon
Derp

Also, humans are unnatural.

DoubleDerp
adave
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
Answer a few questions for yourself. How thick is the atmosphere? 14.7 pounds at the sea and 1 pound at 10 miles. What happens to the global production of oil, gas and coal? How much co and co2 gas volume is that per year? Eig.gov. ir absorbtion for co2 and water are about the same. The heat gain and loss between the earth and sun are at equilibrium untill you add slowly the extra heat absorbtion of pollution in our thin atmosphere. Carbon is out of equilibrium between life and the atmosphere. How thick is life on the land and ocean? Life is the only way to clean co2 from the air. Simple to see our future.
memekiller
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
memekiller needs to recall that a person who has made so much money from this hoax of agw, Al Gore ...


I have no need of recalling anything of the sort. Al Gore, nor any politician or groupie of any agenda, have zero influence on either the science or my position. I strongly oppose any policy based on ignorance, bad logic, lack of evidence, and bias. Matters not to me what political party or agenda you may have. It is sad to see that the national Republican Party has in recent years embraced the most ignorant part of society in its attack on science and truth, pushing us ever closer to a real-life version of Idiocracy. Eisenhower, Nixon (Republicans used to be smart!), even Reagan are rolling in their graves at the thought of such nonsense as Creationism (the stupid branch of Christianity) and climate change deniers (the dropouts from science class). I have no quarrel with you on Gore or the Bible, just don't conflate those with ignorant theories.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
Hey! Take a look at this, in 2015 the same pair of nobodies published a book with highly renowned nullities. https://www.amazo...0S5L5Y0W
memekiller
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2017
At home with climate-change deniers:

Police (entering the house): "Ma'am, where is your son? We have four dead bodies, and your son's fingerprints are all over the weapon, his shoes match those tracking the blood, we have his DNA on the victims, gunpowder residue on his hands, he shouted at the victims that he would kill them, and we have him on the security footage shooting the victims."

Climate-change denier mom: "You liars. You just need to make an arrest and picked on my son because he was at a Trump rally. He's not here (as she hustles him out the back door). He's totally innocent! I know him better than any of you, he could never do such a thing. Besides, he has an alibi - my astrologist and Sunday school teacher, both of whom have PhD's from Liberty University, will vouch that he was with them at the time of the shooting. You just hate us because of our politics!"
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
OK, so this makes three --THREE-- pieces of "journalism" pushing denierside pseudoscience published here on Porg, today.

Has Porg started taking funding from The Heritage Foundation or something?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2017
@Benni.
..........exactly the same claim Al Gore has made, the analogies are parallel.


Please can you explain what these 'parallels' are, mate? Thanks. :)


The parallels being neither one are qualified scientists while embracing what both believe to be settled science.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
@J Doug.

RealityCheck, without evidence, believes that a trace gas that is 1.5 times denser than the rest of the atmosphere, CO₂, in some magical manner can actually control something as complex as the earth's atmosphere can blurt out, with no logic behind the wild statement that I am, "some sort of 'zealot' beyond the reach of reality and reason based on same."
You sure don't have the capacity to understand that it was the church of Galileo's day who were like the alarmist today & would not look at and accept empirical evidence that the one they were persecuting was in fact right and that they were wrong and came out appearing to be close to insanely stupid by not being able to see what was the truth. I present you with more evidence that CO₂ had NOTHING to do with the MWP.
Climate change killed off Viking settlement on Greenland
http://www.eartht.../scitech
xponen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
OK, so this makes three --THREE-- pieces of "journalism" pushing denierside pseudoscience published here on Porg, today.

@Caliban,
Google-Talk (on YouTube) also did this as well, out of the blue, suddenly they posted a lecture titled: "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" .

I don't know what's going. All of the sudden mainstream channel is penetrated by anti-global-warming agenda. I'm pretty scared that they'll going to dominate soon.

You know this is true, we have seen rise of Nazism, I also heard of right of indigenous people being questioned at the UN. The negative ideology are fighting back.
J Doug
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
http://www.greenl...tory.htm
"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
http://www.ualber.../03.html

It is obvious that you alarmist try to claim that due to warming today, we will soon be totally flooded out and everyone will have to head for the hills. At least you acknowledge that if the temperatures get as high as during the MWP the sea level will rise to where the level was during far warmer times than what exist now.

CognitiveEngineer
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
"ANN's and AI are NOT the vehicle to use for making predictions about climate change. They attempt to model the physical brain function, and are a specialty of neuroscience."

"Marohasy's embrace of AI is also off-base. She's fallen prey to weak AI masquerading as strong AI (known as the most over-hyped segment of software), and she's trying to hoodwink the world via mysterious concepts and big words and cherry-picked data. A basic read of Hofstadter or Jaynes shows how far off-track she is."

Coursera offers a good course in anyone interested in learning about ANN. (don't even need a PhD in computer science to register...although if your math is a little rusty..good luck). These quotes show a lot of ignorance of the topic....using ANNs is to study problems like climate and weather prediction are certainly worthwhile areas to pursue....and ANNs are far from over hyped or a branch of neuroscience...LOL
J Doug
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
"Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today."
"An important turning point in British history occurred in 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is that, when William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2017
Not quite. Al Gore is politicizing confirmed science.

What can't be argued is the science behind his claims, which is solid;


Translation: "solid", "confirmed" ====> SETTLED SCIENCE

If that 0.04% trace gas we call CO2 were spread into a monolithic layer just inches above Earth's surface, do you know how thick a blanket that would create? I'll save you the trouble of googling it........1/10".

So you want to try to convince this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with many semesters of chemistry under his belt, that a meager trace gas has such magically mystical properties that a 1/10" blanket of it will drive the planet into runaway greenhouse oblivion? That's what you call "solid", "confirmed" science?

I'd suggest you undertake the study of some chemistry & thermodynamics courses and learn something about ENTROPY & apply it to the claims of Al Gore et al, then come back & talk science with me....capiche?
J Doug
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
on England's south coast. A draw bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown into this "Sea Gate," so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast – further proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago."
http://wattsupwit...-claims/
J Doug
2 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
Wait, here is another one from where I use to live for years, Alaska.
"2017 From 1865 to 1868 William Healy Dall's Western Union Telegraph Expedition explored Alaska's Interior and Yukon River. Dall's survey produced the map on the left. Note the dramatic physiographic changes since that time on the current map of the same area on the right. Dall noted the presence of a shallow shoal from Stuart Island to Capt Romanzof and termed this feature a "3 fathom curve." Today, much of this bathymetric contour, presumably Yukon River sediment outwash, is completely above tidewater."
http://www.alasko...mate.htm
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
on England's south coast. A draw bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown into this "Sea Gate," so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast – further proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago."
http://wattsupwit...-claims/


Also under the present day English channel are remains of pre-historic villages. Organic carbon dated remains of those now waterlogged villages show the English Channel was dry land about 8-10k years ago.
memekiller
4 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
Coursera offers a good course.... These quotes show a lot of ignorance of the topic....using ANNs is to study problems like climate and weather prediction are certainly worthwhile ....and ANNs are far from over hyped or a branch of neuroscience...LOL
Snarky, LOL, but reading comprehension problems a bit? Show me where I indicated ANNs are over-hyped. C'mon, pay attention. AI is over-hyped, not ANNs. ANNs are cool and terrific for modeling brain science. They've shown no predictive improvement as a tool over any of the classical tools for modeling dynamical systems, which HAVE proven their value in everything from rocket science to marketing to military planning. Read the papers - it's not the ANNs that provide the predictive power, it's the Poisson distributions and Bayesian statistics that are fed to the variables that render the value. Let me help you - here's some good starter material for you (don't even need a PhD!) https://www.isees...sources/

memekiller
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
*iseesystems.com/resources. Dynamical systems modeling has it all over empirical data when dealing with complex systems, soft variables and sparse data sets.
Phonic
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
When dealing with the multitude of variables (some known, likely many unkown) that arise from the interplay between many interacting systems, how can the science ever be settled? Are theories not revised and updated whenever new information is produced?
I have no personal opinions on whether current global warming trends are caused mainly due to man made CO2, I don't beleive enough balanced and un biased reseach has carried out to really have any thoughts on the matter. The opinion I do have, is that propper scientific methodology has been abbandoned when it comes to mainstream climate research. There are many studies supporting the IPCC's view on the issue, but there are also many that cast doubt. Utill we scruitinize all the findings equally with a holistic prespective, arguing either way is pointless if not counter productive.
greenonions1
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
bschott
I was just going to point out that the people who trust all the models and simulations implicitly had better be just as trusting of this one....
Even if it contradicts the models? Bit of dissonance for us there eh? And should all those who have disputed the the climate models - now dispute this paper? Typical sloppy thinking. I will listen to the body of science - and also watch to see what happens in the real world. So far the climate models are doing fine. It is getting hotter.
CognitiveEngineer
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2017
"C'mon, pay attention. AI is over-hyped, not ANNs. ANNs are cool and terrific for modeling brain science."

If you are separating AI from ANNs, then why are you even talking about AI...the article was about using an ANN and a large data set to gain insight and predictions. Just because you don't like the output, doesn't mean it is invalid approach. There have been very successful implementations of ANNs to predict weather. There has also been ANNs that have also been used prior to this for climate predictions that had different results. Sure if you understand all of the underlying mechanisms at work, dynamical systems modeling is the way to go. If climate science was at this level, we would not have have anything to talk about. By using Fourier analysis as the input into the ANN, they are modeling a dynamical system but using the ANN to look at the interaction between different dynamical subsystems. Nice work guys, the approach makes a lot of sense.
FM79
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2017
I think it's good scientists are challenging the Status Quo. I am not against the man made climate change hypothesis, but science requires that people investigate everything, even controversial ideas.

Of course it does not mean necessarily these guys are right.
jmlvu
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2017
Overnight millions of Republicans accept global warming now that they can say it isn't the fault of thier coal industry masters.
venividivici
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2017
If she didnt already have an extensive denier background, and wasnt backed by a denier foundation, I'd probably take her more seriously...

[link removed; SEE original comment]


Beautiful! Hat tip to thisisminesothere.

Anyone unsure whether the paper is sham science, or Marohasy an established shill, need only take a moment to follow your link.

Well done!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2017
@meme........
I strongly oppose any policy based on ignorance, bad logic, lack of evidence,


And so far all you've demonstrated is that you know nothing about chemistry or thermodynamics so that you can explain to us why you're so well educated as to how a monolithic 1/10" blanket of CO2 will create runaway greenhouse effects. I know, you could check will Al Gore & get back to us?

Did you know the Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2? Why isn't it steaming hot there, after all the entire planet is blanketed in CO2.
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2017
memekiller needs to recall that a person who has made so much money from this hoax of agw, Al Gore is the spokesman for this scam. Al Gore, who studied law at Vanderbilt Law School and for sure didn't finish his divinity training there either. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist. "It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all, 80 percent of the IPCC membership has absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies." Another interesting point regarding this scam is why it has become a left-right issue. What ever happened to the days gone by when science was apolitical and stood on the merits of the research and that meant that the debate was never over.


Fecal Regurgitation. Your puke hole STINKS.
J Doug
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2017
Zzzzzzzz: It has to be your ignorance and lack of knowledge that makes you appear to be so repugnant. All of that "quote" and no proof that anything that I had stated was not a fact. Did you go to the same school that Captain Stumpy also failed at?
Captain Stumpy was so proud of his main source of "scientific" information when he referenced "Zhao and Running 2010"
memekiller
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2017
Cognitive Engineer-why are you even talking about AI
Responding to the bigger article on her blog. It's her description of her method, not mine.
Just because you don't like the output...
Once again, Cognitive Engineer lacks cognition. Never said any such thing. Your bias is showing.
By using Fourier analysis as the input into the ANN, they are modeling a dynamical system but using the ANN to look at the interaction between different dynamical subsystems. Nice work guys, the approach makes a lot of sense.

Did you go to her site and actually read her methodology? Did you fully understand her methodology? Do you thus agree with her methodology? ANNs is a red herring. That's my point. You don't just "use Fourier analysis" and somehow the variables and algorithms magically create themselves. Simulating complex systems is hard work and starts with the model. Do you think her model is valid?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2017
@memekiller these individuals have no idea what a Fourier transform is, much less Fourier analysis. For that matter they can't understand DEs and are incapable of doing simultaneous DEs or understanding the difference between PDEs and ODEs. They are innumerate, and can't even do simultaneous algebraic equations; it's silly (though not necessarily on your part) to expect they'd understand simultaneous PDEs. They are incapable of understanding your criticisms; they are self-demonstrated as incompetent to even understand their own claims, or any of those who question results they desperately want to believe. They run about whining about others "believing the orthodoxy" when they are incapable of analyzing the very orthodoxy they try to support.

Your efforts are laudable; the response is risible. Do feel free to continue, but don't expect a rational response. You are totally out of their league.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2017

It is getting hotter.

That would depend on what hemisphere you live in...


Nope. Both hemispheres are warming, biscuit.

But you don't know that, because you inhabit the blogosphere, where facts don't, apparently, exist.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
@J Doug.

Your historical examples 'arguments' have one thing in common: your own reading confirmation BIASES lead you to OMIT important information/context.

In those regions you mention, there have been many centuries of extreme/persistent volcanic activity and storms/floodings etc which have caused LAND UPHEAVALS as well as EXTREME SILTATION at previous river mouths etc (not to mention many inland//littoral LANDSLIPS burying coastal and inland sites of old settlements sites/cities.

Really, J Doug, it's as if you are:

- naive/ignorant of the most important aspects involved when you 'conclude' and 'opine' things from your 'reading'...

...AND/OR...

- you are SHILL for fossil/nuclear/political LOBBIES and INTERESTS propaganda organizations trying to muddy the waters by parroting misleading half-truths, outright lies.

Your posting record so far indicates a bit of both. Please stop regurgitating stuff you don't comprehend and/or 'contrived' by shill-money/interests. :)
TNichols
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
I am amazed at the outrage and out right rejection. Science advancement depends on skepticism and constant testing, not by concurrence. Most climate change conclusions come from models. New factors are added to climate models all the time. This appears to be a different approach. Have a reason to discredit the model (not the authors) or learn something by reconciling the methodology and results.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
@bschott
That would depend on what hemisphere you live in...
I'm frankly surprised (and not a little disappointed) to see your glib (and plainly non-sequitur) 'comeback' to whomever it was.

You of all people should know when/where to draw the line between objective discourse and personal feuds. Many times I have come to your support when the matter is facts not feuds. Yes?

Is this how you repay my fairminded support of you when you deserved it?

Please in future be aware that BOTH hemispheres are having additional heat/energy introduced/retained in the 'systems'.

Any differences during present TRANSITIONAL PHASE depends on how many TRANSIENT BUFFERING/SINK features/processes exist in the TWO hemispheres which TEMPORARILY may swing more/less warming because the additional retained/introduced heat/energy is being CYCLED/DIRECTED via/into buffering and transient storage which will eventually exhuast/saturate and the full effects 'equilibrate'.

Do better, mate. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
@TNichols.
I am amazed at the outrage and out right rejection. Science advancement depends on skepticism and constant testing, not by concurrence. Most climate change conclusions come from models. New factors are added to climate models all the time. This appears to be a different approach. Have a reason to discredit the model (not the authors) or learn something by reconciling the methodology and results.
That's a laudable attitude, mate. HOWEVER, in THIS case (as in the cases of Tobacco, Asbestos, Exxon etc) the so called 'researchers' were/are OBVIOUSLY either incompetent hacks or political/mercenary stooges producing 'studies' and 'conclusions' which are 'paid for' by the very same lobbying/propaganda 'outfits' and 'surreptitious funding' that the Tobacco industry used for decades to subvert the science method and facts which the public needed to make proper decisions.

PS: I am just as 'hard' on 'mainstream science' crap too! See my Bicep2 comments! OK? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2017
@memekiller these individuals have no idea what a Fourier transform is, much less Fourier analysis. For that matter they can't understand DEs and are incapable of doing simultaneous DEs or understanding the difference between PDEs and ODEs.


Schneibo.......the last time you put up on this site what you claimed to be a Differential Equation, it wasn't, proving you're the one with a math identification problem.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
@Benni.
@Benni.
....exactly the same claim Al Gore has made, the analogies are parallel.
Please can you explain what these 'parallels' are, mate? Thanks. :)


The parallels being neither one are qualified scientists while embracing what both believe to be settled science.
Not so fast, mate. :)

One case is the above so called 'research duo', driven by politics/money from vested interests to DENY the science and using obviously flawed 'exercises' and 'studies' etc to somehow 'contrive' a 'conclusion' that is not tenable at all if looked at closely.

While the other case is Al Gore, who merely accepts/applies the body of climate science and conclusions in his own ways. He doesn't pretend to 'know better' or 'have different facts' like the above 'duo' have done.

PS: You already know how 'hard' I am on FLAWED CRAP, no matter if it's from the above 'duo' or the Bicep2 'team'. So you know I'm probably the most objective commenter on this/that. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
Again @Benni.
...how a monolithic 1/10" blanket of CO2 will create runaway greenhouse effects.
In past posts I pointed out how certain atmospheric constituents can be/vary in minuscule amounts, YET produce significant effects. An example is the OZONE LAYER which is wispy 'thin' yet BLOCKS A LOT of harmful Ultra Violet radiation incoming from the sun!

So it depends on constituent/effective function in atmosphere; as for CO2 quantity/distribution etc; and blocking/re-radiating/lagging etc of Infra Red radiation, yes?

....Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2? Why isn't it steaming hot there, after all the entire planet is blanketed in CO2.
You forget, there is little else to 'lag' heat/energy loss to space, mate!

If Mars had an Earth-like Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere with that amount of CO2, it WOULD have by now exhibited VERY much 'greenhouse' heat/energy lagging/retention, despite its insolation being much less than Earth's!

Consider ALL relevant factors, Benni. :)

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
@bschott.
I am not going to repost every link to falsified warming data, emails between climate scientists discussing how to bury an unfavorable trend that data is showing when it doesn't fit the narrative and just general instances where the observations don't fit the narrative in this thread to respond to you, but I am mildly concerned about the fact that you took that response personally when it had nothing to do with you.
Sorry I let you down I guess? I just suggested in another thread that you are one of the only people here who makes a concerted effort to keep it clean regardless of what the topic is or whom you are interacting with.
Lastly, the glib post was in response to the statement of total generality "it is getting hotter"...my response was simply to drive home the point that it is not getting hotter everywhere...
Cheers
I accept your reasons; but question your objectivity. It's NEVER 'personal' with me; it's expression/reminder re objectivity PER SE. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2017
If Mars had an Earth-like Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere with that amount of CO2, it WOULD have by now exhibited VERY much 'greenhouse' heat/energy lagging/retention, despite its insolation being much less than Earth's!


And here is the whole problem in comparing one gas to another: Diatomic oxygen absorbs the highest-energy UV, all radiation with wavelengths shorter than 240 nm. The UV between 240 nm and 290 nm that is not absorbed by O2 molecules is absorbed by O3 ozone, so be careful about using the 3/8" OZONE layer alone as a comparison of Ozone to CO2 as an insulating blanket of sorts, it is not only O3 that blocks UV but also O2 which blocks the most deadly form.

When all is totaled, there is a very thick unbroken blanket of 20% oxygen keeping us safe from UV, CO2 on Earth has no such unbroken insulating blanket as it does on Mars & certainly no such blanket in comparison to Earth's oxygen, apples & oranges RC, ever hear that terminology somewhere before?
greenonions1
4 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2017
bschott
I was making fun of someone else's sloppy thinking....I could do it to you now for your post if you want...
Is that like the "I know I am but what are you response?" Point is that the earth is warming. Your response to this factual piece of information - is to suggest that it depends on what hemisphere you live in. You are wrong - it does not depend on what hemisphere you live in. Both hemispheres are warming. How can people have such an ignorant understanding of a subject - and then want to argue on line as if they actually know something?
wchphoto
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2017
"The research was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation... "
That's all I needed to see. Same as the Heartland Foundation

J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
It appears that RealityCheck has never heard about the Samalas volcano that erupted 1257 with the single greatest stratospheric gas release of the Common Era. I have been to Lombok, Indonesia and you can find if you ever go there that the region is part of the Ring of Fire, that has produced some of the most deadly and powerful volcanic eruptions ever recorded.
Your new argument is as ludicrous as the one you people apply to the MWP, that it was only in the norther hemisphere and specifically in Europe.
Ikaite crystals incorporate ocean bottom water into their structure as they form. "We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica," Lu says. "More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes."
http://asnews.syr...ate.html

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
@Benni.

You missed the point(s) of my info that addressed your points; ie:

- even a minuscule proportion (of whatever has a certain effect) can cause significant effect despite its minuscule proportions of atmos;

- The Mars analogy/example re CO2 not 'complete' unless you also give it a Nitrogen-Oxygen atmos like Earth's so as to compare oranges with oranges (and not with apples).

The first point answers your first assertion re 'small proportion' of CO2 in atmos; the second answers your assertions re Mars not being similarly heated up.

As for layers/distributions of CO2, bear in mind that it disperses Upwards as well as Horizontally throughout atmos, according to 'partial pressure' as well as 'convection' physics; so...

- once ABOVE the stratospheric 'rain' cycles, and into the DRY altitudes, it PERSISTS a lot longer because it is not quickly dissolved in water and rained out as in lower altitudes.

Ie, CO2 is 'ubiquitously distributed' and 'always on'. OK? :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug.

Those reading me here/elsewhere over the years will know I already mentioned all the various volcanism 'eras'; the most recent being the one(s) which caused the Little Ice Age(s)' in Northern Hemisphere. So you may safely assume I already knew about all the volcanism eras long before you read up on same (I am 68 yrs old!).

Whatever effects further afield from ANY volcanism, it is always rebalanced eventually by natural equilibration processes. That is what I was alluding to re CO2 're-absorption/drawdown' by the same ejecta that carried it up into the atmos via volcanic emissions.

The pace of climate warming/change NOW is TOO FAST to be explained by such longterm natural processes which were ALWAYS taken as a 'given' in all models.

Temporary COOLING caused by dust/sulphur etc from extreme eruptions can CHANGE (disturb/redirect) air/ocean CURRENTS, triggering cooling/warming in other parts of the globe to varying degrees (as per your Ikaite crystals data).

OK? :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
appears that RealityCheck has never heard about the Samalas volcano that erupted 1257 with the single greatest stratospheric gas release of the Common Era. I have been to Lombok
Sorry but it really cracks me up when somebody says 'I've actually been there and so I know.' What an idiot way to try to win an argument.

It's like, right away you know somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.

Just a suggestion - instead of following THAT with ad lib facts, try links to real data.
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
TheGhostofOtto1923; I'm so happy that my mentioning that I had been to Lombok and many other places that you have also visited, I'm sure, that have volcanos that have altered the earth's climate in the past, as they do now "really cracks me[you] up." I know that you know all about the "Ring of Fire" that has had an influence on my life when I lived for 26 years in Alaska. I sure wondered what affect Kilimanjaro's eruption had on the earth when it and the volcanos around it were erupting when I climbed it a few years ago. You are probably way ahead of me because I'm sure that you have seen most of the Great African Rift that I have yet to see. I have seen ancient volcanoes in Arizona that are near Flagstaff that for sure had to have had an influence on the earth's climate when they were erupting. I well recall when Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980 because it caused delays in my getting to Ketchikan to meet my cousin who had his boat there so he could take us out fishing.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
CO2 is 'ubiquitously distributed' and 'always on'. OK?


....but not in a monolithic blanket when it is doing this:

As for layers/distributions of CO2, bear in mind that it disperses Upwards as well as Horizontally throughout atmos, according to 'partial pressure' as well as 'convection' physics
........yeah, and is precisely the reason CO2 never forms into a monolithic layer (blanket) so that entropic processes of thermodynamics can create a "greenhouse".

At the top of Mt Everest, how much CO2 as a percentage of atmosphere at that elevation do you think think exists? Certainly not 0.04%, I'd say there's a pretty large CO2 gap/hole at the top of Everest, maybe you can't even find any.

Jonseer
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
Where science has it wrong re Climate change is assuming it's bad based on a very religious like notion thatany activity on the part of humanity that alters the natural order is evil and wrong.

Based on geologic history, we are still at the end of an ice age. We never fully emerged from the last one.

During the warm periods lived thrived everywhere.

Today 40% of the land mass of the N. Hemisphere is off limits to all but those perfectly adapted to survive it.

Humanity can only endure with massive alterations. Thus the only purpose we see for it is to brutally exploit it for resources as we are doing in Siberia or Canada.

Geologic history tells us a much warmer world practically the entire planet becomes habitable from the equator to the poles.

The world adapts to the warming by shunting the vast majority to the arctic, and keeps the equator cool by dramatically increasing the rainfall in deserts and steppe climates.
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
When Redoubt erupted in 1989 and 2009 it sure cause me problems. Its eruption in 1989 spewed volcanic ash to a height of 45,000' & even though flights had been curtailed, a jet had a real emergency when all four engines of a KLM Boeing 747 temporarily shut down when the jet flew through a cloud of ash from the erupting Redoubt Volcano in Alaska. The crew managed to have them operating again for a landing in Anchorage.
When I was in Cost Rica, the visit to Arenal Volcano was great but it was covered in clouds. I spent over 10 years taking pack trips into the Teton Wilderness and many times we went into Yellowstone Park that has been the scene of massive volcanic eruptions in the past & is overdue for one now. In 2016, we spent a couple of nights on the flanks of Mt Fuji in Japan and we had a great view of the spectacular mountain that looks much like Mount Edgecumbe, that is over on Kruzof Island, that I use to marvel at when I lived in Sitka for about 8 years.
Jonseer
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2017

The world adapts to the warming by shunting the vast majority to the arctic, and keeps the equator cool by dramatically increasing the rainfall in deserts and steppe climates.

With such a dramatic increase in land area due to warming climate not only humans but the majority of animals species will have vast new areas they can live in.

Siberia with a temperate climate will more than compensate for the land lost to rising sea levels, and we could help stem the loss if major rivers were allowed to carry full silt loads to their deltas.

Yes some hi lat. species will be affected, but all have temperate closely related species to take their place (Polar bears and Grizzly produce fertile hybrids). Even penguins have temperate cousins that never see the Antarctic. So no species that is truly unique is threatened with complete elimination.

We have plenty of time to adapt, but as long as the goal is to stop it. We lose.
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
In 2006 when we rode the Trans-Siberian Rail road across Siberia, I don' think that I saw much evidence of the Siberian Traps that flooded Siberia with thick lava flows just before Earth's worst mass extinction almost 252 million years ago.
On each of my three trips to New Zealand I went to the Taupo volcanic region and visited the center where the 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera took place.
I have never been to Antarctica but I'm sure that you have; therefore, you can give me your view on what this below will have to do with the sea levels rising by 100' like you alarmist predict in 50 years.

Nearly 100 Volcanoes Discovered Beneath Antarctica's Ice
http://blogs.disc...AeCiGNPY
We are asked by folks to believe that this sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
"Mean Sea Level Trends
http://tidesandcu...=999-001


J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
I enjoy reading Benni comments to know that a person who demonstrate that they can think, using logic & experience, to let anyone who will listen to understand just how insane it is to believe that a trace gas, CO₂, that is essential for life on earth and is odorless & colorless, plus being 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, can drive something as complex as the earth's atmosphere. I have been over Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal that is 17,769′ & it is easy to know that at that altitude there is less than 50% of the atmosphere that one encounters at sea level. There is probably NO CO₂ at that altitude. It was obvious when I was going up Kilimanjaro on the Lemosho trail. On the first day we went from the Londorosi Gate the 3.7 miles it took to get to the Big Tree Camp that is an altitude gain of 1,795 ft. The Big Tree Camp is in a lush, green rain forest with large trees.

J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
While walking the five miles and gaining 2,725 ft to get to the Shira I camp that is at 11,420 ft the foliage went from the rain forest to no trees and little brush. I maintain the reason for this rapid change in foliage is the lack of CO₂ since there is no great difference in moisture or the temperature during this transitional phase.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty...-practic
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)
"Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry......
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg"
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug:
"this one time, in band camp..."

I have been to the north pole. The water was cold. Neat story, eh?
Porgie
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
I've know this for some time. When liberals start saying something is true you can count on it not be so.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
@ J Doug .....what is or was your profession? You a pilot? I'm an Electrical/Nuclear Engineer, spent six years in engineering school getting my degrees plus continuing education credits beyond that.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2017
J Doug

There are montane forests in Borneo at 11,000. Best guess would be that they have more stomata or the stomata are more efficient. Yes there is little CO2 beyond 8500 and same for air. The CO2 remains constant at .04%. Brownian motion keeps the ratio of gases constant at all altitudes right?

By "plus being 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere" you are meaning with regards to molecular weights 44-CO2, 18-H2O, 32-O2, and 28-N2, right?
J Doug
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
I have been to the north pole. The water was cold. Neat story, eh?


Thank you so much for the very informative post about your trip to the North Pole. Can I assume, 691Boat, due to your name, that when you were at the North Pole it was with the Skate 58 years ago.
I hope that 691Boat knows that this could not happen today at the North Pole.
"Not only did the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub's hull."
http://www.ihatet...ubmarine
"The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.'
http://www.navalh...th-pole/
I know how much the alarmist like to try to make people believe that soon there will be no ice in the arctic.
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
NOAA claims this below & I imagine that 691Boat would certainty want to believe them instead of looking more extensively into their claim.
The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing
December 13, 2016
https://www.clima...gly-rare
Like most information that NOAA puts out now since it became politicized and is no longer a scientific institution to be trusted
691Boat can compare this map to the ones that show today's conditions at the Pole.
Link to Brunnurs scans of DMI maps:
http://brunnur.ve...5_08.jpg

"Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.
http://news.inves...dels.htm


J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
BTW 691Boat, I spent 14 years 140 miles north of the arctic circle working and living at the Red Dog Mine. It is a one and one half hour flight from Anchorage to get there. When the Ice went out of the Chukchi Sea to allow the first supply barges in was always after the 4th of July and when it froze up was unpredictable. One year the last fuel barge was held back and the freeze up occurred and the mine had to fly in fuel for part of the season. It is great to be able to look to the south and see the northern lights.


snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
better link , J doug, thanks for your posts

https://allegedly...nt-data/
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
Turgent. I have been to both the mainland portion of Malaysia and to Borneo. In 2007, I spent 6 weeks in the Malaysian portion of Borneo in both Sarawak and Saba and the amount of old growth rain forest being destroyed is depressing and it is being done to grow palm oil trees for some irrational desire to produce bio-fuels that take more energy to produce than what it renders. Borneo is home to some or the earth's unique animals and their habituate is being destroyed to "save the planet." I was also in oil rich Brunei and their forest are basically protected and in existence. I understand the destruction is more sever in the Indonesian portion of Borneo. When I was in the "land below the winds"
I found out about the story of Sandakan and the death marches thatis one of the most tragic of World War II & most people don't even know that it happened.
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
When I was in Borneo and went to Ranau and then on to the port city of Sandakan that is about 160 miles from the small town of Ranau that is on the flanks of Mount Kinabalu that I, for some reason, climbed to the 13,438' top of. It is higher than any mountain in MT & only 349 feet lower than WY's Gannett Peak, and it is only about 35 miles from the ocean.
"plus being 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere". I mean that if you fill a balloon with CO₂, what do you believe that it will do? Could this be why fire extinguishers are filled with carbon dioxide? Since the CO₂ is nonflammable and is heavier than the atmosphere that contains O₂ the trace gas that plants must have displaces the O₂ & the fire goes out.
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake
http://www.neator...century/
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug:
when my boat went up there, it was middle of winter, so the ice was much too thick to surface through. Regarding the amount up there, I personally haven't seen the ice cap, so have no evidence of my own. From that, I would definitely tend to lean towards satellite data being the most accurate measure. If you don't want to believe the ice cap is in a decline, more power to ya.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
@J Doug.
Could this be why fire extinguishers are filled with carbon dioxide? Since the CO₂ is nonflammable and is heavier than the atmosphere that contains O₂ the trace gas that plants must have displaces the O₂ & the fire goes out.
I again (see other thread) point out you MISS the most relevant/crucial aspects with these MISLEADING/MISAPPLIED 'conclusions' you draw from CO2 'firefighting usage', 'sinking due to heavier than air' etc; I said, in part:
...the CO2 'firefighting' usage/effect depends on BULK LOCAL CLOUD of CO2 as a 'heavier body of gas! Once it DISPERSES it is NO LONGER 'sinking'; brownian-motion/partial-pressure etc physics re-distributes it!
PS: J Doug, may I ask how old you are? I ask because your zealotry is like youthful/religious belief in your own 'invincibility and superiority' etc; naively 'spreading the word' while not fully understanding its IMPLICATIONS and INCONSISTENCIES and INCOMPLETENESS etc. Chill, mate!


Connect ALL the dots. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
@Benni.
CO2 is 'ubiquitously distributed' and 'always on'. OK?
....but not in a monolithic blanket when it is doing this
Who said it was in a monolithic layer, not me. The VERTICAL COLUMN content/proportion effective coverage is what counts, not single layer per se.
As for layers/distributions of CO2, bear in mind that it disperses Upwards as well as Horizontally throughout atmos, according to 'partial pressure' as well as 'convection' physics
........yeah, and is precisely the reason CO2 never forms into a monolithic layer (blanket) so that entropic processes of thermodynamics can create a "greenhouse".
Please see above.
At the top of Mt Everest, how much CO2 as a percentage of atmosphere at that elevation do you think think exists? Certainly not 0.04%, I'd say there's a pretty large CO2 gap/hole at the top of Everest, maybe you can't even find any.
It's the CUMULATIVE content/effect up the whole 'column cross-section' that matters. OK? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
What I want to know is why anyone is listening to the Fartland Institute about anything claimed to be "science." The Fartland Institute rejects all science; they wouldn't know a "science" if it jumped up and bit them on the ass (and it generally does on a regular basis). They're not into science, they're into jebus.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
It's the CUMULATIVE content/effect up the whole 'column cross-section' that matters. OK?


No, not OK........you can't prove such thermodynamics co-exists within ALL CO2 molecules 100% of the time, and at a trace concentration of 0.04% it doesn't require very many " up the whole 'column cross-section" to use up the available volume of gas that can be used to function in the manner you describe.

There is a limited number of these molecules that can be gathered into the quantity of cross-sections you imagine can create a "greenhouse", and to get the quantity of cross-sections you need for your greenhouse means you have to rob it from some other geographical location on Earth, thereby starving plant life from growing on my property. This is the reason structures we call greenhouses are fully monolithically encased in glass, to keep heat inside them, there isn't nearly the quantity of CO2 available to create this kind of monolithic greenhouse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
TheGhostofOtto1923; I'm so happy that my mentioning that I had been to Lombok and many other places that you have also visited, I'm sure, that have volcanos that have altered the earth's climate in the past, as they do now "really cracks me[you] up."
Hey ira - looks like we got another one.

This one thinks he's that bear grylls guy. Hey 'Doug' - you sell knives as well? Ever eat snot soup? Ever rewire an SR71? Ever grow sweet sorghum? Ever have sex up against the microwave?
neiorah
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
Hey cantdrive15. it is not up to phys.org to publish only one school of thought but to report science even if it does not agree with what you think. Science is not supposed to have an ajenda but it follows where it goes without any interference from us. If they reported only what was in agreement with you then they would not be worth reading and supporting.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
What I want to know is why anyone is listening to the Fartland Institute about anything claimed to be "science." The Fartland Institute rejects all science; they wouldn't know a "science" if it jumped up and bit them on the ass (and it generally does on a regular basis). They're not into science, they're into jebus.


They equate it with listening to you, no difference.
Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
691Boat,

You mean Memphis, right?
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017


This one thinks he's that bear grylls guy. Hey 'Doug' - you sell knives as well? Ever eat snot soup? Ever rewire an SR71? Ever grow sweet sorghum? Ever have sex up against the microwave?


I'm sure that TheGhostofOtto1923 has done all of the things that asked me if I have ever done or why else would the questions ever come up? How stupid to suggest that the SR71 Blackbird airplane that I've seen at the Boeing museum at Boeing Field needed rewired. (I just as well go ahead and tell 1923 where that is because of his limited knowledge base they have no idea, Seattle, Washington) I can understand why this dog is not too thrilled to see him when he gets home if the microwave is unplugged.
jonjons
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES: Saying that climatologists by default may supply the only legitimate answer to the debate about climate change is like saying that an optometrist will not prescribe glasses to those who have cash and don't need really need them. Woe be it to a society that discredits scientific process of discovery based on rumor, politics, conspiracy theory and argumentum ad hominem. I hate the idea that this whole thing has become politicized and there is EXTREME profit motive FOR BOTH SIDES. On one side energy companies and on the other the Climate Exchange and numerous government mandated environmental companies. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2017
jonjons: If you follow the money on this issue of agw you will see that it is the alarmist who are in it for the money only.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community." The global warming establishment "has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
691Boat; I only believe valid information. "If you don't want to believe the ice cap is in a decline, more power to ya."
"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year." Sail-World Cruising on 30 Aug 2013
http://www.sail-w...t/113788
"Cooler conditions, slower melt
August 21, 2017
A cooler than average first half of the month kept ice loss at a sluggish pace with little change in the ice edge within the eastern Arctic. Retreat was mostly confined to the western Beaufort and northern Chukchi seas. Ice extent remains above that seen in 2012 and 2007."
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
J Doug
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
"This May, sea ice in the Chukchi Sea was at a record low for the satellite data record. The early retreat of ice in this region may partially be a result of unusually warm ocean temperatures in the region."
These poor prevaricators don't know what direction to turn. They lie and say the oceans are becoming acidic; but, if the oceans are warming, then they are giving up carbon dioxide. Alarmist need to know that they can't have it both ways.
The New American has reported extensively in recent months, despite NOAA's claims, its own data show that Antarctic sea-ice coverage hit record levels again in 2013. Sea-ice coverage globally on Dec. 31, 2013, meanwhile, was the highest since records began. Finally, snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere last year was the fourth highest on record,
http://www.thenew...-warming



Dingbone
Aug 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@jonjons, the Climate Exchange no longer exists. It ceased operations in 2010. https://en.wikipe...Exchange

Scientists' average salaries are under US$100,000. If you want the big bucks and want to be a scientist you can make a lot more money working in biological sciences than climate science. Climate and other environmental scientists are paid near the low end of the scale, closer to US$70,000 than the nearly US$100,000 their peers in the biological sciences make.

Scientists average under US$100,000/year, and are most highly paid in the US; in other countries their average salaries are under US$60,000. As a computer science professional working in the software industry I have to tell you I make well over 50% more than the US level and more than 3x more than the European level and 4x or more the level anywhere else. You won't get rich working as a scientist.

Does this information change your opinion?

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
[contd]
Salary survey from last year: http://www.the-sc...-Survey/

I wouldn't work as a scientist and I made that determination in the 1980s; I chose a more lucrative field.

There isn't anyone making money from global warming. You are unaware of the reality of work as a "climate scientist" (the correct terminology is "geophysicist" and it implies knowledge of general physics, including the entire regime of thermodynamics, gas physics, and atomic physics that is implied by evaluation of Earth's climate systems) and of the salaries earned by these individuals.

You have bought into the conspiracy theory, @jonjons. I suggest you examine your assumptions; I don't expect you actually will, but others reading this might and that would be a Good Thing.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@Benni.
you can't prove such thermodynamics co-exists within ALL CO2 molecules 100% of the time
It's the 'average' over regions/dynamical distributions, NOT a 'static' one-off state of density/distribution.
This is the reason structures we call greenhouses are fully monolithically encased in glass, to keep heat inside them, there isn't nearly the quantity of CO2 available to create this kind of monolithic greenhouse.
GLASS SHEET/LAYER greenhouse in NOT valid analogy for UBIQUITOUSLY DISTRIBUTED CO2 situation/dynamics; ie, the CO2 spreads out MORE and persists LONGER the MORE CO2 in atmos; 'diffuses' MORE CO2 upwards above rain-forming altitudes. And you still miss the point that 'ubiquitously distributed' means 'average densities' in columnar cross section of WHASTEVER CO2 *is* in atmos 'on average'. Whatever human-activity emitted amounts/rates that maintain/increase overall atmos CO2 portion, LOCAL variations at low altitudes/near sources is already a 'given'. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.

You are sounding more and more like a lobbyist-paid propagandist telling half-truths/lies to try and confuse unwary citizens/children. Your posts are full of 'facts' which are 'naked' and 'snapshot' based, but OMIT TRENDING IMPLICATIONS of the data.

Why are you spending so much time/effort regurgitating propaganda spiels from your 'sources' who're obviously paid to CON people by using half-truths/naked facts without trending and contextual 'connect-the-dots' INFORMATION which is CRUCIAL for any valid objective conclusions/opinions to be drawn.

Mate, I'm beginning to STRONGLY suspect you are yet another SHILL for the fossil/nuclear/republican lobby propaganda outfits (which have been emboldened and increased in funding) since CONMAN Trump's election.

In case you try to deflect by calling me 'conspiracy theorist', recall Tobacco and Asbestos industry did the same sort of thing FOR DECADES to fool/muddy the waters.

You're a SHILL, J Doug; or just a naive zealot? :)
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
RealityCheck; "Your posts are full of 'facts' which are 'naked' and 'snapshot' based, but OMIT TRENDING IMPLICATIONS of the data." Please, RealityCheck, take away some of the time you devote to issuing up the trite trash appraisals of what you consider me to be & give explicit examples where my "….posts are full of 'facts' which are 'naked' and 'snapshot' based, but OMIT TRENDING IMPLICATIONS of the data.". Now, since you can't do that, you desperately want to do what the alarmist always do when they run out of any valid facts, which for them are few and far between,
"Recall Tobacco and Asbestos industry did the same sort of thing FOR DECADES to fool/muddy the waters."

Please recall that asbestos was used by the government for decades, such as in the construction of Liberty ships and that the government still subsidizes the tobacco industry, as Al Gore well knows.
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017


'' CONMAN Trump's election.''

and you sound like a shill for '' postmodern /marxist intellectuals [sic] usefull idiots for the CIA/ DNC establishment you would rather be ruled by
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
RealityCheck; I have explained through examples to you several times how insignificant the essential for all life trace gas, CO₂, is especially when we consider that at 18,000' there is less than 1/2 of the atmosphere present than what one encounters at sea level. If you take 1/2 of the 400 ppm of the CO₂ that is found at sea level away, then at 18,000' the amount left in the atmosphere is only going to be less than 200 ppm. I'll use my example of the one ppm being one inch in 16 miles; or, for the not so swift with trying to conceptualize this example out, there are one million inches in 16 miles and at the altitude of 18,000' they are really, really, wide spread to be able to capture all of this outgoing heat and ship it back to the surface.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2017
Climate and other environmental scientists are paid near the low end of the scale, closer to US$70,000 than the nearly US$100,000 their peers in the biological sciences make.


This is because they can't do Differential Equations. Their kind of so-called science is biologically based stuff never requiring even the most basic course structure in Thermodynamics, they don't have a clue as to what ENTROPY is.

You pay people in accordance with the value of their education & biologists are a dime a dozen precisely due to their lack of math skills, Climatology is cluttered with biologists who can't find a job.
Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017

@Benni

Climate and other environmental scientists are paid near the low end of the scale, closer to US$70,000 than the nearly US$100,000 their peers in the biological sciences make.


This is because they can't do Differential Equations. Their kind of so-called science is biologically based stuff never requiring even the most basic course structure in Thermodynamics, they don't have a clue as to what ENTROPY is.

You pay people in accordance with the value of their education & biologists are a dime a dozen precisely due to their lack of math skills, Climatology is cluttered with biologists who can't find a job.


Like your comment. Gives me a good chuckle.
J Doug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
Everyone but the true believing alarmist who hides under their beds at night in fear that their boogey man in the sky, CO₂, is blessed with enough logic and just down right old fashion common sense to know that CO₂ does not drive the climate.
Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 90 % of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 10 % to the 0.04 volume percent CO₂. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO₂ as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO₂, such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
The question for you, RealityCheck; tell me what you have ever trapped with a gas.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
take away some of the time you devote to issuing up the trite trash appraisals of what you consider me to be & give explicit examples where my "….posts are full of 'facts' which are 'naked' and 'snapshot' based, but OMIT TRENDING IMPLICATIONS of the data.".
Your spam-spiel posts all along, and immediately prior to my response above, are filled with uncomprehended naked facts/half-truths SPAM. And "trash" is trash, whether it comes from mainstream scientists (eg, Bicep2 'team') OR from biased DENIERS (eg, your 'paymasters'). Hence my appraisal of your "trash" is self-demonstrably correct.
Please recall that asbestos was used by the government for decades...
Because the dangers were being downplayed by the vested interests. So you now prove my point re dangerous coal/oil emissions, which should be replaced by renewables wherever practicable; like Asbestos is now being removed/stored more safely, replaced where practicable.

Stop shill-ing/spamming, JD. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
I have explained through examples to you several times how insignificant the essential for all life trace gas, CO₂, is especially when we consider that at 18,000' there is less than 1/2 of the atmosphere present than what one encounters at sea level. If you take 1/2 of the 400 ppm of the CO₂ that is found at sea level away, then at 18,000' the amount left in the atmosphere is only going to be less than 200 ppm. I'll use my example of the one ppm being one inch in 16 miles; or, for the not so swift with trying to conceptualize this example out, there are one million inches in 16 miles and at the altitude of 18,000' they are really, really, wide spread to be able to capture all of this outgoing heat and ship it back to the surface.
And you've missed all the refutations of your naive, uncomprehended spam spiels, JD.

Read my exchange with @Benni on the CO2 proportion/distribution dynamics/physics which you patently have no clue about/or are avoiding. Obviously. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@snoosebaum.
'' CONMAN Trump's election.''


and you sound like a shill for '' postmodern /marxist intellectuals [sic] usefull idiots for the CIA/ DNC establishment you would rather be ruled by
Mate, you're in denial on more than one reality! Even those republicans who RELUCTANTLY had to back Trump admit he was/is a conman and sociopath ignoramus dangerous to the longterm stability of US society/nation/economy and security!

Anyhow, snoosebaum, I merely observe objectively and call it for what it is, no matter who it is, because I am scrupulously objective, unlike you deniers. What planet do you live on, mate! :)
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
RC, haha! , u just proved u are a nitwit ,

''Even those republicans who RELUCTANTLY had to back Trump admit he was/is a conman and sociopath ignoramus dangerous to the longterm stability of US society/nation/economy and security! ''

scrupulously objective '' MSM propaganda , LOL , man you are seriously deranged
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
RealityCheck; I have no pay master because the truth requires none and it will prevail in this instance with your hoax, anthropogenic global warming. Nature in this case is doing the validating. Are unworkable renewables were responsible for what follows?
June, 19 2013 "One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop." http://www.bbc.co...22956470

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@snoosebaum.
RC, haha! , u just proved u are a nitwit ,
'Even those republicans who RELUCTANTLY had to back Trump admit he was/is a conman and sociopath ignoramus dangerous to the longterm stability of US society/nation/economy and security!


scrupulously objective '' MSM propaganda , LOL , man you are seriously deranged
I said I AM the objective observer, of all the 'sides' involved, mate.

And while ever you are in denial and claiming Trump isn't the one "deranged", you prove MY point, snoosebaum. QED. :)
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
We can easily see now that RealityCheck has shown his true colors regarding this issue of agw that it has nothing to do with science but all to do with politics.

"Energy is fundamental to economic growth and environmental sustainability. Access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy is vital to ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. Modern energy services can help improve the quality of life for millions around the world and underpin progress in all areas of development.
Around 1.1 billion people worldwide still live without access to electricity – most of them in Africa and Asia -- which has an impact on children's education, public safety, services, and job creation. Another 2.8 billion rely on wood or other biomass for cooking and heating, resulting in indoor and outdoor air pollution that causes about 4.3 million deaths each year."
http://www.worldb...overview
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
"However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement."
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
http://www.unric....tionally
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
"One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely...
Fat chance! Mate, have you never heard of hidden/deferred costs? Much of the advances you tout have come at the price of polluted water/land/air and generations of ill populace living/depending on expensive medication rather than clean air/water/food. People are being bakrupted and dying becaus it costs too much to remedy what such UNCONTROLLED industrialization wrought. When NW combined with the COSTS of AGW related disasters, disease etc, you realize we are NOW PAYING THE PIPER because we DEFERRED/HID the costs in the pursuit of profits. Wise up, JD. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
We can easily see now that RealityCheck has shown his true colors regarding this issue of agw that it has nothing to do with science but all to do with politics.
Now you have 'outed' yourself as a spamming, shilling, stooge. You are not naive/ignorant, but a paid propagandist. You're too obvious now, mate! Your paymasters will NOT be pleased to see your incompetence has resulted in the opposite effect to what they intended.

I can almost see the Trump being called in to assess your 'performance'; and reluctantly cry: J Doug, YOU'RE FIRED!

"Energy is fundamental to economic growth and environmental sustainability. Access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy is vital to ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity.
Power is DEAR (if you can even get it) due to existing fossil/nuclear power monopolies/political control. Distributed affordable LOCAL renewables SOLVE that problem and free poorer people from that exploitative trap. :)
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
I see that RealityCheck has finally let the thinly veiled true nature of his meaningless and vociferous flood of fact less comments about what was the subject of this conversation, carbon dioxide and how some ill-informed folks thinks that it drives the earth's climate while offering up no proof that it does so.
I saw all of this when he made this one comment. "Mate, you're in denial on more than one reality! ….. ignoramus dangerous to the longterm stability of US society/nation/economy and security!"
How is one who can harbor so much irrational hatred because his candidate, Hillary, lost the election going to ever be able to discuss something as straight forward as why CO₂ has never in the past nor will in the future dictate what the climate does?
This is a control issue and nothing more than using this stupid global warming hoax for the governments to gain more control over people lives & through carbon taxes tax away their money.

J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017

Seeing this kind of a meltdown is something to witness because its shows a total lack of self-control and the ability to even think in rational terms. I had offered this up to poor old RealityCheck regarding his rant about "generations of ill populace" & will do so again with just the links that show that everything else he has carried on about, this 2 is also false.
Carbon based energy is what has produced the economy that allows folks like you to waste your time involved in this libelous campaign against it. It has caused 2% of the population to be able to feed the rest and it has also caused the life expectance to increase:
http://demog.berk...re2.html
http://www.infopl...148.html

Figures for the Russians, available in 1895, have the average male dead at 31.4 years and the average woman at 33.3."
http://www.fsmith...9soc.htm
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
You do not appear to be astute enough to realize that your religion of agw is not about saving humanity or the planet but over gaining control by those that assume that they have the right to exercise that control because they are just naturally better than the unwashed masses, in their minds.

"Warmists 'Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life': 'What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…'
'how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin's Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks'"
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
I see
It's become apparent that what you DON'T see would fill many tomes.
some ill-informed folks thinks that it drives the earth's climate while offering up no proof that it does so.
The CO2 connection was found/acknowledged last century! Long before it became a POLITICAL FOOTBALL due to republican, religious, mercenary denialism. So blame yourselves, not me, for bringing the politics into it, mate!
I saw all of this when he made this one comment. "Mate, you're in denial on more than one reality! ….ignoramus dangerous to the longterm stability of US society/nation/economy and security!"
How is one who can harbor so much irrational hatred because his candidate, Hillary,
You 'saw' what your bias/shilling wanted you to 'see', mate. And you are even ignorant about me and where my observations are coming from; I am Australian, scrupulously Independent researcher/observer; so I had NO 'candidate' in US elections.

Sayeth Trump: You're fired, J Doug! :)
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
''scrupulously Independent researcher/observer'' i recommend you read the NYT and watch CNN , should help ,,,
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
You do not appear to be astute enough
The "Irony Ore" from the "JD Shill Mine" is so rich!
to realize that your religion
I am Atheist, mate. :)
gaining control by those that assume that they have the right to exercise that control because they are just naturally better than the unwashed masses, in their minds.
You are (ironically) describing the propagandists who pay you and profit from "control through ignorance and confusion" which you/they still try to cause in what you called the "unwashed masses", J Doug.
"Warmists 'Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life': 'What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…'
Now your full-blown propaganda spiels are running away with you! Do you even 'listen' to yourself as you type out such POLITICAL SHILL crap? Do you also 'object/mistrust' SENSIBLE traffic, antipollution, medical etc Regulations? "Alarmist" much, JDoug? :)
J Doug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
snoosebaum; Thanks so much for finding that You Tube. If we were to apply Jordan Peterson's view on Trump's Intelligence to just how high that RealityCheck would be on that same scale it is not a fair thing to do. He is an Australian and that is evident by his "Mate" nonsense. Trump did what no one a year ago ever thought that he could do and that was to win the presidency defeating all comers. We hear the left in the US mention continually he lost the popular vote while being unable to overlook that the is the president. His team did what was needed to with the office and that was to win the electrical college votes and that is where they went to campaign, and why it is of any concern to "Mate", and they won the electoral votes and that makes him much smarter than a down under "mate" whose government has to try to send the invaders that they have locked up on Manus Island to the US because they can't control their own borders.


RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2017
@snoosebaum.
''scrupulously Independent researcher/observer'' i recommend you read the NYT and watch CNN , should help ,,,
Unfortunately for your attempts at humor at my expense, I listen to ALL 'sides' and 'sources'; and then test it all against the objective reality; before drawing conclusions. I bet that sort of thing isn't what fossil/nuclear/republican etc spammers, shills and their paymasters recommend to their 'flock of gullibles', hey snoosebaum! :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
snoosebaum; Thanks so much for finding that You Tube. If we were to apply Jordan Peterson's view on Trump's Intelligence to just how high that RealityCheck would be on that same scale it is not a fair thing to do. He is an Australian and that is evident by his "Mate" nonsense. Trump did what no one a year ago ever thought that he could do and that was to win the presidency defeating all comers.
Know your history, mate. This isn't the first time a CONMAN has hoodwinked greedy/gullible/self-interested people/interests. And as for them "doing what it took to get Trump elected": Yu mean the lies and fake news and propaganda ably assisted by Russian agents/spies etc planted in the Trump campaign personnel? Why do you think the ongoing Investigations/firings and shambles re Trump and associates are all about, JD? It's not the first time a PLANT has claimed to be a PATRIOT. Whoever said..
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the Scoundrel"
..was very astute! :)
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
Pravda on cap and trade
"That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course it's making the bombs that end that human life, but that's a different topic). Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self-imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry."
http://english.pr...ation-0/
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017

Abolition of the Carbon Tax
The carbon tax repeal legislation received the Royal Assent on Thursday, 17 July 2014 and the bills as part of this package are now law, with effect from 1 July 2014.
Abolishing the carbon tax will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households.
http://www.enviro...rbon-tax

'Wind farms key' to SA blackouts' March 28, 2017
A key report highlights the problems with South Australia's high level of renewable generation, finding that control settings on wind farm turbines led to last September's statewide blackout in South Australia.
http://www.theaus...d61b14bf

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
Pravda on cap and trade
"That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better....
You just quoted a Russian Govt 'fake new' site, JD! What were you thinking,,mate!

Oh, that's right, shill/bot spammers not paid to 'think'; just to regurgitate without comprehension. But you're too obvious about it, JD. You won't have that job for very long now Trump is assessing your 'shilling' performance.

Get wise, JD.

Putin/Oligarchs ALSO wants to SELL FOSSIL FUELS for PROFIT!

Hardly OBJECTIVE!

Anyway, it's NOT about stopping economic activity, it's about RE-directing to better activity/outcomes.

Haven't you heard, JD?

There's MORE safe/healthy/remunerative/secure JOBS and RETURNS in RENEWABLES than Fossil/Nuclear! :)
J Doug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
It appears that our "mate" here doesn't want to worry about his own country where I have been two different times & would rather concentrate on far-left politics in the U.S. Most of the Australians that I have met seemed to be logical and normal people. There is another element that RealityCheck I well imagine represents. They seem to operate out of the main stream and are easily recognized by the massive amount of junk that hangs off their pierced face, & where ever else one would be advised not to look. They love to cover their skin with bazar tattoos. I would guess that these strange things that they do is what prevents them from being productive members of society but a fringe group that is somewhat despised and feared by the good Australians who actually work for a living and provide for their families and produce a better life for all normal Australians.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
Abolition of the Carbon Tax
The carbon tax repeal legislation received the Royal Assent on Thursday, 17 July 2014 and the bills as part of this package are now law, with effect from 1 July 2014.
Abolishing the carbon tax will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households.
http://www.enviro...rbon-tax
Your ignorance knows no bounds, mate. Repealing the carbon Tax entrenched fossil monopolies, INCREASED power prices. And the South Australian blackouts were caused by SEVERE STORMS (you know, such as those climate change is making worse which took out the INTER-CONNECTOR system of the GRID per se; it had nothing to do with the renewable generators as such. The problem would have occurred regardless of what generation systems involved.

JD, you are still spamming copy-pasting without comprehending implications. Par for the course for a SHILL.

PS: Is Hurricane Harvey affecting you, JD?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
It appears that our "mate" here doesn't want to worry about his own country where I have been two different times & would rather concentrate on far-left politics in the U.S.
Mate, some people CAN "walk and chew gum" at the same time. And objective reality respects no 'political' borders, JD. :)
Most of the Australians that I have met seemed to be logical and normal people. There is another element that RealityCheck I well imagine represents. They seem to operate out of the main stream and are easily recognized by the massive amount of junk that hangs off their pierced face, & where ever else one would be advised not to look. They love to cover their skin with bazar tattoos.
JD, Maaaate, you've watched too many "Mad Max Movies"! I have no tattoos/other 'embellishments' such as your 'generalization fantasies' conjure up. I 'represent' REALITY around us ALL. Give it up, JD; you're incompetent at every turn/subject. Your 'shilling' days are numbered. :)
snoosebaum
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
''Yu mean the lies and fake news and propaganda ably assisted by Russian agents/spies etc planted in the Trump campaign personnel''

this is fun , but a waste of time as RC has a screw missing , better to spend time with some smart people

https://www.youtu...SXDxOoWQ

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@snoosebaum.
''Yu mean the lies and fake news and propaganda ably assisted by Russian agents/spies etc planted in the Trump campaign personnel''

this is fun , but a waste of time as RC has a screw missing , better to spend time with some smart people

https://www.youtu...SXDxOoWQ

You're still deep in denial, mate. And it's not a 'game', let alone a topic to 'have fun' over while the future of generations is at stake. Only insensible egotistical/religious/political sociopaths would try to deny the seriousness of the situation which faces us all....as Texas and other nearby Gulf State populations are finding out 'as we speak'. Anyway, mate, good luck to you/us all, regardless. :)
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
Since I'm about as far north of Texas as I need to be to not have any effect from this hurricane, the last big one, Ike, in 2008 did lots more damage but for sure not as much as the August 27 – September 15, 1900 Galveston that killed close to 12,000 people.

Anyway Mate, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while:
"The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 - 2006)"
http://www.wunder...adly.asp

The First Invasion, 1274
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters - straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon.
http://asianhisto...sion.htm]http://asianhisto...sion.htm[/url]

The Second Invasion, 1281:
On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan's 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
http://asianhisto...sion.htm]http://asianhisto...sion.htm[/url]


Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO₂ as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO₂, such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.


JD.....exactly dead on the money right.

The whole problem within the climatology debate is the gross lack of the sciences requiring deep math skills such as would be encountered taking undergrad Thermodynamics courses at the same levels we as Engineers are required to take.

It is an absolute pipedream of the most inane proportions that a process of energy distribution can be created such that heat is more than self replicating, other than through a process of mass to energy transformation. I wouldn't surprised to learn many climatologists believe in cold fusion, they almost have to because they all want a free energy lunch.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@J Doug.
Anyway Mate, it appears that Hurricanes have been around for a while:
"The 30 Deadliest US Hurricanes / Tropical Cyclones (1851 - 2006)"
http://www.wunder...adly.asp]http://asianhisto...sion.htm[/url]
More 'naked stats' while you have no sense of the wider picture and trending implications, mate. Do you even realize that those stats point to an increase in hurricane/Tropical storm SEVERITY and EXTENT and DWELL TIMES over the affected region? Unless you have some sense of what those stats MEAN in reality, you are just spamming lobbyist-shill-crap, JD. And amounts/intensity of RAIN which newer hurricanes are NOW producing is causing LONGER LASTING, MORE WIDESPREAD damage than ever. And the DEATH TOLLS are also indicators of PREPAREDNESS of populations and structures/infrastructure AS WELL AS the hurricane strengths/effects per se. Really, mate; why any lobbyist would employ such an incompetent shill/spammer is too silly. You're fired! :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
@Benni, @J Doug.
From J Doug: If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO₂ as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO₂, such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
From Benni: JD.....exactly dead on the money right.

The whole problem within the climatology debate is the gross lack of the sciences requiring deep math skills such as would be encountered taking undergrad Thermodynamics courses at the same levels we as Engineers are required to take.
Both of you should read the history re original finding CO2 connection/effects. It was discovered/recognized also via known CO2 lab data. So your late-comer claims to there being no lab data to support the CO2 effects is disingenuous (to be generous). Only fossil/political interests/lobbies denialist. :)
J Doug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
"In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. "….whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere."
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' – the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the Sun's energy is radiated as visible light. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing."
https://archive.i...-913.378
He did not say that CO2 drives the climate.

J Doug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
Knowing that RealityCheck is up on all things American because he knows what a great country it is soon going to be under the sterling leadership of Donald Trump, I know that he is aware that there was a recent total eclipse of the Sun. It was no total where I was but I have many friends in WY where it was a total eclipse. All of them offered up this independent observation of the event. Almost as soon as the total eclipse began, the temperature dropped by 20 ⁰F & they had to go get jackets to put on because it was long after the eclipse had occurred that it began to warm up. I need RealityCheck to tell me why this happened if it is CO₂ that is holding in all of that "trapped" heat.
J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
This valid observation would lead the sane, rational and free thinking person to know that it is the sun that controls the earth's temperature level as well as the climate. It will be interesting to get RealityCheck's, I'm sure well thought out response, to this rather basic question about the sun and heat.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2017
I need RealityCheck to tell me why this happened if it is CO₂ that is holding in all of that "trapped" heat.


OK RC, the ball's in your court, why was it in only a few minutes time temperature dropped? Do you think it might have happened in about 8 minutes time? Then how about lag time to recovery? Maybe about another 8 minutes time? Do you know why 8 minutes? Doesn't sound like the atmosphere has the CO2 insulation buffer climatologists claim, or maybe you think the CO2 buffer coincidentally matches the speed of light?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
"In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. "….whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere."
Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth's heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost' –
Why do you keep regurgitating what is already well known and already included in the analysis, JD? We know about the relative efficiency between WV and CO2. It's not 'new' info. The point is whatever the WV is doing, the CO2 is ALSO contributing/feedbacking. Read my previous posts re feedback/net atmos 'lag' effect whatever the 'inputs'. Read. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
Almost as soon as the total eclipse began, the temperature dropped by 20 ⁰F & they had to go get jackets to put on because it was long after the eclipse had occurred that it began to warm up. I need RealityCheck to tell me why this happened if it is CO₂ that is holding in all of that "trapped" heat.
Ha ha, now I know you are either kidding OR are actually this ignorant of physics as it relates to the Earth's atmospheric system at whatever level of inputs/losses and intermediate 'lagging' factors involved.

Mate, ask yourself: why did the REST of the planet not 'freeze' despite 'eclipse totality' moving across 'your patch' for a few minutes? It's the same as what causes WINTER in each Hemisphere, mate! LESS solar heat/energy or the respective durations! And the rest of the planet doesn't 'freeze' just because it's WINTER HERE in Southern Hemisphere, JD!

JD, how old ARE you? What IS your general, logics/science education/competency level? Do better, mate. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@Benni.
From J Doug: I need RealityCheck to tell me why this happened if it is CO₂ that is holding in all of that "trapped" heat.
From Benni: OK RC, the ball's in your court, why was it in only a few minutes time temperature dropped? Do you think it might have happened in about 8 minutes time? Then how about lag time to recovery? Maybe about another 8 minutes time? Do you know why 8 minutes? Doesn't sound like the atmosphere has the CO2 insulation buffer climatologists claim, or maybe you think the CO2 buffer coincidentally matches the speed of light?
You ARE joking, aren't you mate?! You're just going along with J Doug for the laughs his ignorance/naivety is providing you right? You must be, Benni; I can't think why else you would egg on such an obviously ill-informed/naive johnny-come-lately to this topic and the discussions which have gone on for years now. I KNOW you are not so naive/ignorant as JD is coming across as more with every new post, mate. :)
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
More 'naked stats' while you have no sense of the wider picture and trending implications, mate.


If you do not like the 'naked stats', tell me why & point out where they are not correct. Point that out to whomever issued the 'stats'. That is what a sane and normal person would do.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@Benni, @J Doug.
Both of you should read the history re original finding CO2 connection/effects. It was discovered/recognized also via known CO2 lab data. So your late-comer claims to there being no lab data to support the CO2 effects is disingenuous (to be generous). Only fossil/political interests/lobbies denialist. :)


Do have any idea the meaning of what you rage on about? It appears not: "In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than the rest of the atmosphere."
https://archive.i...-913.378
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
Do you even realize that those stats point to an increase in hurricane/Tropical storm SEVERITY and EXTENT and DWELL TIMES over the affected region?


That, Mate, is an out right lie; but, for you, that is as natural as your expelling CO₂ with each breath. Great hurricane of 1780, hurricane (tropical cyclone) of October 1780, one of the deadliest on record in the Atlantic Ocean. More than 20,000 people were killed
https://www.brita...-of-1780

1900: The Galveston Hurricane
https://www.lives...ina.html]https://www.lives...ina.html[/url]

1928: San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane This hurricane, the second deadliest in U.S. history, https://www.lives...ina.html]https://www.lives...ina.html[/url]
Mate, Please note the dates of these storms.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@Benni.
From J Doug:
You ARE joking, aren't you mate?! You're just going along with J Doug for the laughs his ignorance/naivety is providing you right? You must be, Benni; I can't think why else you would egg on such an obviously ill-informed/naive johnny-come-lately to this topic and the discussions which have gone on for years now. I KNOW you are not so naive/ignorant as JD is coming across as more with every new post, mate. :)


Why don't you just answer the Question? Tell me what you have or can "trap" with a gas.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
Why do you keep regurgitating what is already well known and already included in the analysis, JD? We know about the relative efficiency between WV and CO2. It's not 'new' info. The point is whatever the WV is doing, the CO2 is ALSO contributing/feedbacking. Read my previous posts re feedback/net atmos 'lag' effect whatever the 'inputs'. Read. :)

Why would I bother to read any thing that you have previously posted when it is obvious that you have no idea at all what you are babbling on about. You offer up no sources for you "information" and experience has shown that the one thing you can do is to lie, & your not even very good at that.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
Abolition of the Carbon Tax
The carbon tax repeal legislation received the Royal Assent on Thursday, 17 July 2014 and the bills as part of this package are now law, with effect from 1 July 2014.
Abolishing the carbon tax will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households.
http://www.enviro...rbon-tax
Your ignorance knows no bounds, mate. Repealing the carbon Tax entrenched fossil monopolies, INCREASED power prices.
PS: Is Hurricane Harvey affecting you, JD?


"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
Do you know anything about this, RealityCheck? No, of course you don't.
"Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson's route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON'S second expedition on SCOTT'S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before.
http://query.nyti...448385F9
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away
December 29, 2013 10:17
"The Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 scientists, tourists and crew members on board, has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist, who explored the Antarctic a century ago. The voyage was to visit Douglas Mawson's Antarctic huts, which previously couldn't be accessed because of an iceberg." 
http://rt.com/new...cue-935/

You, RealityCheck, and Chris Turney certainly have much in common.

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away
December 29, 2013 10:17
"The Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 scientists, tourists and crew members on board, has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist, who explored the Antarctic a century ago. The voyage was to visit Douglas Mawson's Antarctic huts, which previously couldn't be accessed because of an iceberg."
http://rt.com/new...cue-935/

You, RealityCheck, and Chris Turney certainly have much in common.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
"A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago."
[…]
Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
[…]
One hundred years after Mawson's journey, we still don't know much about the Antarctic.
[…]
RealityCheck; it looks like this person, Chris Turney, is as unable to see reality for what it is as you are & this is said after the idiot had to be rescued at great expense when the stupid bastard should have been put on an ice sheet and to try to figure things out for himself. I do not think that he would have fared as well as Ernest Shackleton did in 1914 when he and his crew faced terrible odds and yet survived.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
"As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic."

One can wonder if this ignorant charlatan, Chris Turney, gives any thought to what DID not happen in 1912.

[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death."
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
I think the most amusing thing about this is twofold:

1. These people can't say what's causing these "natural cycles." That is simply not available from their technique. All we get out of a neural network is a "just so" story, and that story is based on the reliability of their data (which is highly suspect given their demonstrated prejudices from past behavior, and that of their funders). There's no indication of a cause, no "natural cycle" actually implicated or even illuminated, and not even any indication of what we might do about it.

2. After decades of decrying "modeling" as inaccurate, here come the #climatecranks up to support their computer model, one that's based not on physics but on the least reliable kind of modeling.

So over here, I'm laughing.
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2017
J Doug, my previous comment about fecal regurgitation was spot on. You must eat a lot of it to puke it up at this rate. And your puke hole DOES STINK......
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
J Doug, my previous comment about fecal regurgitation was spot on. You must eat a lot of it to puke it up at this rate. And your puke hole DOES STINK......


It is readily apparent even from this blessed distance from your rancid and putrid carcass, that you must by deodorant by the barrel full but it is money wasted judging from the number of black blow flies that seem to follow you. Is this an example of your deep thought process Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz? ?AP, I don'y know about screening locations, but I saw this and subsequently bought a copy. It was a powerful presentation, for any viewer capable of independent thought.? Are you not aware that this happened to Al's first plunge into the world of science fiction film making?
British judge finds nine errors in Al Gore's "alarmist and exaggerated" Inconvenient Truth movie
http://britainand...e-f.html

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
J Doug, my previous comment about fecal regurgitation was spot on. You must eat a lot of it to puke it up at this rate. And your puke hole DOES STINK......


Have the swarm of flies around your putrid remains kept you from looking into this about your hero, Al Gore?
"Gore Attacked Over Ties to Occidental Oil for Environmental and Human Rights Violations"
https://www.democ...cidental

Al Gore Leaves Car Running, Pollutes Sweden
Sunday, 31 Oct 2010 08:54 PM
While there is no word on just how big a carbon footprint he left behind for the Swedes to clean up, the former vice president did ask his distinguished guests to take public transport to minimize their own CO2 emissions. http://www.newsma...2010/10/
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
I think the most amusing thing about this is twofold:
2. After decades of decrying "modeling" as inaccurate

So over here, I'm laughing.

To think that my tax dollars go to fund these charlatans and keep their billion dollar computers running is sickening
"Today's models are flexible tools that can answer a wide range of questions, but at a price: They can be almost as difficult to analyze and understand as the real world." and I might add, to tell the truth about what the findings are if that truth does not fit the political narrative of the day.
http://www.giss.n...midt_04/

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?
 http://blogs.scie...s-worse/

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2017
@J Spam, what, you think no one saw the other thread where you're spamming?

Again, as I often say, good luck with that.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Spam, what, you think no one saw the other thread where you're spamming?

Again, as I often say, good luck with that.


Thanks
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
You ARE joking, aren't you mate?!


......not about the entropic thermodynamic hurdles that exists to trap heat without a monolithic blanket to hold it in place. Sure, I know CO2 has unique properties for heat retention, which if it didn't photosynthesis would be impossible, but there does not exist a "trapping blanket" of this gas. On the other hand Mars does have a 95% atmospheric content creating a monolithic layer of CO2 but it traps no heat despite the claims you make for it's presence on Earth which has only 0.04% content.

So why don't people like you at least try to be consistent with your "science of CO2" ? Why does it work only on planet Earth?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
Why would I bother to read any thing that you have previously posted when it is obvious that you have no idea at all what you are babbling...
See, you are just like same other posters who failed to read/comprehend properly/objectively ALL the relevant info/analysis etc before opining and trolling/spamming from self-induced ignorance.

Mate, how can you stand there and claim others are "babbling" and/or "lying"? YOU'RE the ignoramus 'parroting' statistics without context/comprehension as to their meaning in reality!

The GREATEST danger to humanity comes from naive/ignorant/stupid people who are manipulable/corruptible by big business/politics/religions. And you, JD, fall into all those categories.

You FOOL of SHILL! STOP your stupidity. LOOK AROUND YOU at HURRICANE HARVEY effects/costs!

The $BILLIONS being lost could have ALREADY ENABLED all the renewablewe needed to control CO2 warming.

You mercenary TOOLS have set us back DECADES, you dangerous twit. :(
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
@Benni.
entropic thermodynamic hurdles that exists to trap heat without a monolithic blanket to hold it in place. Sure, I know CO2 has unique properties for heat retention, which if it didn't photosynthesis would be impossible, but there does not exist a "trapping blanket" of this gas. On the other hand Mars does have a 95% atmospheric content creating a monolithic layer of CO2 but it traps no heat....
Please pause to consider the meaning of the term "LAGGING', mate. OK? Understand the SUBTLE but CRUCIAL dynamical implication?

See? It's NOT about TRAPPING per se; it's about DELAYING the heat/energy LOSS to space for long enough to create an EQUILIBRATION temperature range applicable to whatever the inputs and outputs are; which results in the TRANSITIONAL BALANCE observed.

In MARS case, the OTHER, MAJORITY 'lagging effect' atmosphere (of Earth) is ABSENT.

It's CO2 cannot 'lag' enough ON ITS OWN there!

It's subtle/complex; not simplistic, Benni. Cheers. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.


Mate, how can you stand there and claim others are "babbling" and/or "lying"? YOU'RE the ignoramus 'parroting' statistics without context/comprehension as to their meaning in reality!

(


"The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.
The highest temperature recorded during the record spell was 47.5°C on 18 January 1924. There have been higher temperatures at Marble Bar, with the highest recorded being 49.2°C, on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922."


J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017


You FOOL of SHILL! STOP your stupidity. LOOK AROUND YOU at HURRICANE HARVEY effects/costs!

The $BILLIONS being lost could have ALREADY ENABLED all the renewablewe needed to control CO2 warming.

You mercenary TOOLS have set us back DECADES, you dangerous twit. :(


Read & do something different for yourself, learn.

"4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Wednesday of this week will mark 4,300 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger, 111-129 mph maximum sustained winds) made landfall in the U.S.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year."

http://www.drroys...-strike/
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
it's about DELAYING the heat/energy LOSS to space for long enough to create an EQUILIBRATION temperature range applicable to whatever the inputs and outputs are; which results in the TRANSITIONAL BALANCE observed. In the case of MARS then rest of the MAJORITY 'lagging' atmosphere as on Earth is ABSENT. CO2 cannot 'lag' enough ON ITS OWN there!


Nothing but delirious laughter here....

OK.......

Venus is 95% CO2, hot as hell there- closest approach to Earth is 24 million miles

Earth is 0.04% CO2, temperate,

Mars is 95% CO2, cold enough that it liquefies. closest approach to Earth as 34 million miles

Why so much variability in the effects of CO2 levels for three planets of similar size in such close proximity to one another? Explain to me how CO2 knows when to turn on & turn off in three different instances of similar proximity or re-create itself into a LAGGARD depending on what planet it's residing on?

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017


The $BILLIONS being lost could have ALREADY ENABLED all the renewablewe needed to control CO2 warming.


Here is another list of Obama's green failures: That's 27 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama's campaign donors.
The President is trying to claim in his first official campaign ad that he's created 2.7 million clean energy jobs. When you look at all the companies going bankrupt, some of those jobs might have been paid for by the stimulus, but they are gone now. You can't claim we're up 2.7 million jobs if so many of those jobs have been subsequently lost.
Keep this list in mind the next time the media pretends that Solyndra was the only failure.
http://heritageac...success/
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
@Benni.
it's about DELAYING the heat/energy LOSS to space for long enough to create an EQUILIBRATION temperature range applicable to whatever the inputs and outputs are; which results in the TRANSITIONAL BALANCE observed. In the case of MARS then rest of the MAJORITY 'lagging' atmosphere as on Earth is ABSENT. CO2 cannot 'lag' enough ON ITS OWN there!

OK.......

Venus is 95% CO2, hot as hell there- ---

Earth is 0.04% CO2, temperate, ---

Mars is 95% CO2, cold enough that it liquefies.---

Why so much variability in the effects of CO2 levels for three planets of similar size in such close proximity to one another? Explain to me how CO2 knows when to turn on & turn off in three different instances of similar proximity or re-create itself into a LAGGARD depending on what planet it's residing on?

You already know the answer; or should, mate. Now stop mucking about; this is no laughing matter, Benni! :(
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.

Unfortunately, the POLITICS/CROOKS are always 'there', on ALL 'sides', mate. :(

The point I made was: we are ALREADY LOSING MANY $BILLIONS, to increasingly extreme/widespread/persistent climate change-related disasters, which could have been used to ENABLE DOMESTIC renewables more quickly/integratedly in concerted effort (on the scale/urgency of MANHATTAN PROJECT).

The DELAYS have cost us dearly already; rising; with severe storms/droughts etc becoming 'the norm' (eg: Sandy, Ike, Katrina, Harvey etc).

The JOBS I spoke of are not only in construction phase but also longterm Repair & Maintenance & Recycling. Cleaner, safer, healthier, securer, more remunerative JOBS than coal/oil jobs. That is already acknowledged by all 'sides', so not at issue.

The issue is the will to resist crooks, political/religious opportunist, parasites who want to delay development/implementation of sensible, feasible integrated renewables to replace fossil/nuclear where practicable. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
[q

You FOOL of SHILL! STOP your stupidity. LOOK AROUND YOU at HURRICANE HARVEY effects/costs!



Take a look at this, Mate! This was before anyone ever heard of CO₂
"Great hurricane of 1780
STORM, CARIBBEAN SEA [1780]
Great hurricane of 1780, hurricane (tropical cyclone) of October 1780, one of the deadliest on record in the Atlantic Ocean. More than 20,000 people were killed as the storm swept through the eastern Caribbean Sea.
https://www.brita...-of-1780
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
which could have been used to ENABLE DOMESTIC renewables more quickly/integratedly in concerted effort (on the scale/urgency of MANHATTAN PROJECT).

The DELAYS have cost us dearly already; rising; with severe storms/droughts etc becoming 'the norm' (eg: Sandy, Ike, Katrina, Harvey etc).



"To understand the folly that drives too much of the nation's energy policies, consider these basic facts about wind energy.
After decades of federal subsidies—almost $24 billion according to a recent estimate by former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm—nowhere in the United States, or anywhere else, has an array of wind turbines replaced a single conventional power plant. Nowhere."
http://online.wsj...504.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017

The JOBS I spoke of are not only in construction phase but also longterm Repair & Maintenance & Recycling. Cleaner, safer, healthier, securer, more remunerative JOBS than coal/oil jobs. That is already acknowledged by all 'sides', so not at issue.



"More than 373,000 Americans worked part or full time in solar energy, and just over 260,000 of them – or about 70 percent – spent a majority of their time on solar projects."

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, solar accounts for 0.9% of the production of the nation's electricity.[2] The New York Times (NYT) states that: "The coal industry, which has shed jobs since 2012, primarily due to competition from cheap natural gas, employed just over 160,000 workers nationwide. About 54,000 coal jobs were in mining."
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
You FOOL of SHILL! STOP your stupidity. LOOK AROUND YOU at HURRICANE HARVEY effects/costs!
Take a look at this, Mate! This was before anyone ever heard of CO₂
"Great hurricane of 1780
STORM, CARIBBEAN SEA [1780]
Great hurricane of 1780, hurricane (tropical cyclone) of October 1780, one of the deadliest on record in the Atlantic Ocean. More than 20,000 people were killed as the storm swept through the eastern Caribbean Sea.
https://www.brita...-of-1780
The loss of life was greater due to the lack of warning, lack of escape/preparedness, flimsy structures and low-lying communities, lack of proper medical treatment of injuries which became infected and made victims more susceptible to complications from malaria, malnutrition etc, many vessels at sea inadequate to such storms and also the unusual strength of the hurricane itself.

Note EXTREME Hurricanes were RARE then; but are NOW becoming THE NEW NORM.

Get it now, JD? :)
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.

The JOBS I spoke of are not only in construction phase but also longterm.


It sure doesn't seem to me that if solar only produces 0.9% of America's electricity while needing 213,000 more people to do so than coal does, that produces 30.4% of the nation's electricity, that it is in the nation's best interest to TRY to have this flawed source of electricity expanded in the future, Paris Accord aside. Can it be assumed based on the above figures that for solar to produce the 29.5% that it would require making as much electricity as coal, it would require 6,283,500 people to do so? I know that there is economy of scale plus other factors to consider; but, figures are figures and someone can explain how solar can be as efficient as coal is, especially if the coal generating plants are in place and tied to the existing grid system.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.

The issue is the will to resist crooks, political/religious opportunist, parasites


It would be great if the jobs to build these kinds of wasted projects we see all over the nation now actually produced a return for the tax payer; but, they do not do so. I have gone by this abortion, the $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar thermal plant a couple of time and it is a disgrace to see, especially when one notices that they have an electrical line going to a Pizza Hut and a factory outlet 20 some miles from Vegas
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
It sure doesn't seem to me that if solar only produces 0.9% of America's electricity while needing 213,000 more people to do so than coal does, that produces 30.4% of the nation's electricity, that it is in the nation's best interest to TRY to have this flawed source of electricity expanded in the future, Paris Accord aside. Can it be assumed based on the above figures that for solar to produce the 29.5% that it would require making as much electricity as coal, it would require 6,283,500 people to do so?
This is a perfect example of your inability to digest and comprehend the actual implications of stats you yourself quote.

Consider: Cost of renewables declining; jobs PAID for by purchasers of their power generated at increasingly par cost to nuclear/fossil (if the latters' 'hidden' costs and 'social license' burdens is included)!

So THINK, JD: MORE, BETTER jobs from producing same power, at same price, less climate damage!

Do the maths/logics, mate. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.


Note EXTREME Hurricanes were RARE then; but are NOW becoming THE NEW NORM.

Get it now, JD? :)


Read & do something different for yourself, learn.

"4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Wednesday of this week will mark 4,300 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger, 111-129 mph maximum sustained winds) made landfall in the U.S.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year."

http://www.drroys...-strike/

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
It is stated that human activities may contribute about 0.2%-0.3% to earth's greenhouse effect. CO₂ is a nutrient and not a pollutant. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO₂ is an essential ingredient. I know that there are more pressing, real global problems that science should be devoting its efforts to than this unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Water vapor is the earth's most significant greenhouse substance because it makes up 95% of what causes the greenhouse effect. Taking this fact into consideration, total CO₂, both man made or naturally occurring, is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect. "Of the 186 billion tons of CO₂ that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2017
@J Doug.
Note EXTREME Hurricanes were RARE then; but are NOW becoming THE NEW NORM. Get it now, JD? :)
"4,300 Days Since Last U.S. Major Hurricane Strike
July 31st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Wednesday of this week will mark 4,300 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger, 111-129 mph maximum sustained winds) made landfall in the U.S.
That's almost 12 years.
The last major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. was Wilma striking Florida on October 24, 2005, one of several strong hurricanes to hit the U.S. that year."

http://www.drroys...-strike/
You just made my point. Note that the last couple of decades has seen many more extreme hurricanes/storms; and which never occurred in such back-to-back frequency; since Industrial Revolution started CO2 changes triggering the constant dangers we now face as 'the new norm'.

J Doug, you are manifestly out of your depth...while SHILLING. :(
EnricM
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2017

I was just going to point out that the people who trust all the models and simulations implicitly had better be just as trusting of this one....also, every single model and simulation requires manually inputted source data and is "tweaked". Guess the potential for hypocrisy is everywhere these days....


Sorry mate, but allow me to distrust a model build on cheap-ass hardware and set up by a random bloke against full scale supercomputers with a ton of hardware.

I'm not a scientist, but I certainly am a sysadmin. Sounds just as stupid as the guys who ran an simulation on a tablet a few years ago.

J Doug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2017
Note that the last couple of decades has seen many more extreme hurricanes/storms; and which never occurred in such back-to-back frequency; 'the new norm'.


The Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh was one of the deadliest cyclones in history. "1970 (Nov 12) Bay of Bengal 300,000 - 500,000"
Please recall that it was in the 1970s that your kind was warning of global freezing.

You are either too ignorant, or whatever, to know that hurricanes/cyclones are not a new phenonium In 1274, when Kublai Khan was trying to invade Japan, his whole force of ships & 13,000 of Kublai Khan's soldiers and sailors had drowned and the navy was destroyed. In 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu when Kublai Khan had launched his second invasion. Of the khan's 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds & Japan again was saved from the.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2017
@J Doug.
Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh was one of the deadliest cyclones in history.....Please recall that it was in the 1970s that your kind was warning of global freezing.
The "deadliest" because: Huge population; Warning system failures; unpreparedness; flimsy structures; low-lying mainland/islands etc.

Re ILL INFORMED 1970s SPECULATIONS of "cooling", the THEN relevant SCIENCE bodies stressed:
"…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
Now, almost FIVE DECADES ON, we DO HAVE that better understanding; I quote:
"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
Think, JD.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2017
What would be fascinating to see in article on this site are pictures of every piece of property Al Gore owns, his many houses a couple of which are mansion sized, his two private jets, and all the ICE vehicles he owns of which I hear that two of them are limos.

I nominate Schneibo as the perspective author.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2017
Think, JD.

To be admonished by the likes of RealityCheck who seems to believe that a trace gas, with NO proof, CO₂ is the driver of the climate and now in his befuddled mind, the weather, is truly astounding. These confused folks do not want to acknowledge that it is H₂O in the atmosphere that is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. They can't get their heads around the fact that the current hurricane that has struck Texas is now dumping feet of water on the area. These same clueless fools can never answer where was and is all of that H₂O if not in the sky. Be reminded it is not raining down bucket full of CO₂, it is H₂O that is now the problem but the idiots will try to talk about something they know nothing about, forcing, is now the problem. We also see how full of glee RealityCheck is over Texas being hard hit by this natural disaster. I hope that I never beco
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2017
@Benni, @J Doug.

@Benni:
What would be fascinating to see in article on this site are pictures of every piece of property Al Gore ....
I nominate Schneibo as the perspective author.
Now you're just as bad as Stumpy, DS et al, mate! They also tried to attack the person and ignore the implications of the science being presented for discussion on its merits irrespective of 'personal' issues. Try to be BETTER than them rather than as bad as them, Benni; stick to the objective science :)

@J Doug.
seems to believe
Silly JD, "belief" doesn't come into SCIENTIFIC arguments based on demonstrable facts.
that a trace gas, with NO proof, CO₂
You're in-denial of lab/extant reality proofs, silly.
confused folks do not want to acknowledge that it is H₂O in the atmosphere that is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Silly liar, I ALREADY posted AGREEING that Water Vapor HAS a great effect; made WORSE by CO2 effects FEEDBACK, remember? You're Trump-fired! :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2017
PS @J Doug:
We also see how full of glee RealityCheck is over Texas being hard hit by this natural disaster.
You're a real 'piece of work', mate. It's NOT "glee", you hypocritical looney denier, it's POINTING OUT the REALITY which you and your paymasters DENY for selfish motives from profit and politics/religion self-interests. You sit there denying the suffering and try to shift the BLAME on those who wanted to PREVENT/MINIMIZE it? You're really desperate now, JD; and gone totally insensible to reason. Not long now before Trump comes back from visiting the once-in-millennia DISASTER zone; then he'll see how incompetent and counter-effectual your paid-for shill posts have been; and then will come the cry: You're Trump-fired, JD! You have highlighted how LOONY and BANKRUPT is the Trump 'team' DENIER 'narrative' campaign. Not to mention you prompted my pointing out how YOUR 'god' is NOW PUNISHING Texas/USA for electing DENIERS and RUSSIAN MOLES to the White House! Bad.
DonGateley
not rated yet Aug 28, 2017
If Uncle Al is attending this pukefest, as I suspect, could you please re-post your long ago essay on the ratio of CO2 emitted by wild and not-so-wild fires worldwide to that emitted in toto by humans.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
@DonGately.
If Uncle Al is attending this pukefest, as I suspect, could you please re-post your long ago essay on the ratio of CO2 emitted by wild and not-so-wild fires worldwide to that emitted in toto by humans.
While you wait for "Uncle Al" to respond, can you please elaborate the point you are making, if any, mate? Thanks. :)
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2017
it is H₂O in the atmosphere that is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

H2O is not a problem since it's average remain time in the atmosphere is on the order of days. It doesn't contribute to the *increased* ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. CO2 has a remain time on the order of centuries. It accumulates. Big difference.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017

Silly JD, "belief" doesn't come into SCIENTIFIC arguments based on demonstrable facts.


Isn't it a shame that 155 years after Tyndall did his experiments that we have idiots that still cannot understand that H₂O is responsible for from 95-99% of the greenhouse effect & instead; for a variety of reasons, control being the main one, that somehow the trace gas, CO₂, that makes up a paltry .038-.04 % of the atmosphere is responsible for the climate of earth?

I will present some ludicrous "experiments" that only approximate Tyndall's experiment at the end of this. It would be easy to do a real, empirical experiment instead of the farces that the fools present in these examples but the results would not be what they would want the unwashed masses that they are trying to gain control over by limiting their supplies of energy by raising the prices to a degree that they will not be able to afford to buy fossil fuel produced energy and eat.

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
The two are tied together in a modern society since food production is without a doubt tied to fossil fuels in the growing of, the processing of, the transport and the marketing of. The experiment could be done in any laboratory using basic equipment and start out using the ambient air in the lab and, as these phony experiments show, there is no evidence of any heat absorption taking place. One must be aware that in the confines of a building, the percent of CO₂ in the air will be higher than in the outside ambient air because of animals expelling this harmless gas with each breath. All that now needs to be done is to increase the CO₂ in the enclosed apparatus that the experiment is conducted in and have a reliable measurement of the amount of CO₂ that must be added in ppm or percentage of the atmosphere in the test unit to get the heat source to be absorbed by the CO₂.

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
Honest and scientific people I do believe would report that it takes at least 4,000 to 5,000 ppm before this happens and this is not what charlatans such as James Hansen and others who call themselves "scientist" want people to know because that would prove that CO₂ has not one thing to do with the earth's climate.
Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2 http://www.youtub...n9m4whaw
Carbon Dioxide Trapping of Earth's Heat - A Laboratory Experiment
http://www.youtub...eOg2LaSY
This is RealityCheck kind of "science"
The Greenhouse Gas Demo
http://www.youtub...t51gvaJQ
RealityCheck is actually in this video
The Greenhouse Effect - Cool Science Experiment
https://www.youtu...jQNg9yUY
Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect
http://www.youtub...gLt6G5Kc
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
This one with the less than convincing Richard Alley also tries to make the weak-minded folks believe that there is some kind of "canopy" that traps the escaping heat and sends it back to the planet. At what altitude and just where is this "canopy" is something that the person fails to explain, as do the other fools who show this kind of nonsense. We know that at 18,000 feet there is only 1/2 of the atmosphere that is present at sea level, but to this person representing the National Science Foundation that is meaningless.
How Do We Know? Carbon Dioxide And Global Warming
National Science Foundation
http://www.youtub...D1Y886rI

Here are some more examples of RealityCheck's kind of "science".

A science experiment to get you all fired up.
Join Dr Yan for some fire-fighting fun.
http://www.bbc.co...er.shtml



J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
it is H₂O in the atmosphere that is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

H2O is not a problem since it's average remain time in the atmosphere is on the order of days. It doesn't contribute to the *increased* ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. CO2 has a remain time on the order of centuries. It accumulates. Big difference.


You need to go to Texas and spread your scientific logic around to those people about why "H2O is not a problem since it's average remain time in the atmosphere is on the order of days." I sure enjoy the alarmist thought process.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
PS @J Doug:
You have highlighted how LOONY and BANKRUPT is the Trump 'team' DENIER 'narrative' campaign. Not to mention you prompted my pointing out how YOUR 'god' is NOW PUNISHING Texas/USA for electing DENIERS and RUSSIAN MOLES to the White House! Bad.


Now RealityCheck is blaming Trump and I guess me for the hurricane in Texas. Can this be called a representative example of how the anthropogenic global warming zealots mind works?
humy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2017
from the link;
They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures.

That is simply a LIE. We have proof via observations of a unique CO2 warming signature (specifically consisting of relative cooling of the stratosphere compared to that of the troposphere just as predicted from CO2 warming) that cannot be explained by any other known natural cause (because no other such cause of warming has that same unique warming signature) and proves at least most of the recent warming MUST be coming from CO2.

I guess they are being paid well form the greedy oil companies.

They also say that the recent warming must have a mainly natural cause but notably FAIL to say what that natural cause is; because there is clearly none to say that could account for most of the recent warming.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
I guess they are being paid well form the greedy oil companies.


Prove that what I said is a LIE, humy. First, to your stupid remark about, "greedy oil companies."

"CRU was established in 1971 with funding from BP, Shell and others, according to author Michael Sanderson in his book "The History of East Anglia, Norwich." This is important because CRU research served as the basis for IPCC findings that were invoked in the mainstream press as proof of catastrophic human induced climate change.
CRU has its acknowledged a long list of funders, which includes BP. They are as follows:"
http://capitalres...-groups/

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017

That is simply a LIE.

I guess they are being paid well form the greedy oil companies.


What do oil companies do for me and I know that humy is too ill informed to have ever had any idea about what follows.
I'm reasonably sure that none of you far left type anthropogenic global warming/climate change people know just what all ExxonMobil does for your everyday life that you have no idea about, and never will because of your closed-minded approach to this issue.
"A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel."
http://www.ranken...leum.htm

Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
Jonseer1.7 /5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
"Where science has it wrong re Climate change is assuming it's bad based on a very religious like notion thatany activity on the part of humanity that alters the natural order is evil and wrong."

More fecal regurgitation. Enough of that going on to stink this place up.
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2017
J Doug5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

Sorry, J Doug..... I no longer have to smell your filthy puke - or the puke of Jonseer. I don't quite have the patience for delusional psychos that some other folks have.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2017
''At what altitude and just where is this "canopy" is something that the person fails to explain, ''

umm, thats supposed to be the tropopause,,
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
@J Doug.

Mate, as antialias pointed out, the water vapor factors are already known; and anyway its dangers are made WORSE by INCREASED CO2 effect/feedback, as I already pointed out to you (because CO2 spreads out ubiquitously and is 'always on' in effect; whilst water vapor is 'patchy' in distribution/dwell time in atmos).

As for the CO2 'proportion' along the VERTICAL COLUMN of atmos: I already explained to Benni that the OZONE LAYER (which is PRODUCED AT STATOSPHERE level) is also 'VERY 'rarefied' and is in the STRATOSPHERE ABOVE the 'rain'-forming zone.

So it's CLEAR that even rarefied gases CAN have significant effect on whatever wavelengths it DOES affect.

AND it WORKS 'PER MOLECULE' not as a 'BODY of gas'.

Moreover, CO2 produced at Earth's SURFACE; PERSISTS longer; distributed upwards/across BOTH troposphere AND stratosphere; hence has GLOBAL distribution.

Do you even TRY to read objectively, let alone understand, subtle/complex points made to you, JD? Try. :)
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
J Doug5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2017
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

Sorry, J Doug..... I no longer have to smell your filthy puke - or the puke of Jonseer. I don't quite have the patience for delusional psychos that some other folks have.


Great news, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz thzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, since you have never had anything of any scientific importance to contribute to any conversation. Could you be that you are so ignorant that you can not even dream up something that skeptical science has lead you to believe is the truth? Why would you think that anyone cares about just how much patience you have? I really worry about how you people think; but, regrettably you do not let me in on your most deep thought regarding this issue of anthropocentric global warming.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2017
Jonseer1.7 /5 (6) Aug 25, 2017
"Where science has it wrong re Climate change is assuming it's bad based on a very religious like notion thatany activity on the part of humanity that alters the natural order is evil and wrong."

More fecal regurgitation. Enough of that going on to stink this place up.


What Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, no thoughts about all of the benefits jerks like you get from petroleum?
leetennant
3 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2017
In today's breaking news, two people who are not climate scientists are wrong about something.

But for fun, somebody could dig down the rabbit hole that is Heartland, the IPA and the mysterious B. Macfie Family Foundation. And once you do, you may ask where this money is all coming from. It's ironic that all the crazy conspiracy theorists ranting about climate change haven't noticed that far more money is being funnelled from the fossil fuel companies to fund denial like this. Denial that is, frankly, sophomoric and slightly juvenile.

But then it's not meant to be taken seriously or even analysed (which is good because it's patently garbage). It's just supposed to be a link that somebody googling "is climate change real" can point to and go, "look, it's not!" without actually reading or understanding anything. So I guess it's money well spent.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
confused folks do not want to acknowledge that it is H₂O in the atmosphere that is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Silly liar, I ALREADY posted AGREEING that Water Vapor HAS a great effect; made WORSE by CO2 effects FEEDBACK, remember? You're Trump-fired! :)

The ability to logically analyze situations, such as the massive flooding caused by Harvey in Texas, seems to be beyond anyone who has been so brainwashed by this hoax of climate change being caused by CO₂ when they want logical folks to believe that the unimaginable amounts of H₂O that this tropical depression sucked into the atmosphere is some how because of a feedback caused a trace gas that makes up .04% of the atmosphere, CO₂. This clearly shows just how fortunate those of us who know better & have not been struck down by the same debilitating mental illness that RealityCheck is afflicted with.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
leetennant; The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.

Entity USD
Greenpeace: $300m, 2010 Annual Report
WWF: $700m, ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust: $360m, 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club: $56m, 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random Gov. example): $750m, NSW Gov. (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random Gov. example); $360m,UK Gov. (£234 m)
Heartland Institute: $7m, (actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology: $7,000m, "Climate Money" 2009
US government funding for "climate related appropriations": $1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets: $120,000m, 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy: $243,000m, 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
In today's breaking news, two people who are not climate scientists are wrong about something. /q]

Alarmism that is, frankly, sophomoric and demonstrates what happens when something such as "global warming" or now that there has been 19 years with no warming, climate change, is turned into a religion for some ignorant folks in search of an alternative for the void left by them being atheist. They certainly have invented a devil in the sky, CO₂, that they have ascribed all the qualities that other religions evil demons possess.
Their Devil, called carbon dioxide (CO₂), which they hate with all the passionate, religious fervor they can muster. This devil, CO₂, is responsible for all the evil in the world, and will cause the gods to rain down any manner of plagues, such as droughts, floods, heat waves, winters such as recently in Boston with record snow fall, locusts, acne, bad breath etc. if all of humanity does not rise at once to banish it.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
The Alarmist have a Prophet in the form of Al Gore; the Goracle, who has many mansions and travels the world in a big jet, spreading their Gospel; "Do as I say, not as I do". They have a Holy Book; the IPCC Report, which is infallible, even when it is proved wrong. Don't mention melting Himalayan glaciers to a Believer. It sends them into a religious frenzy.
They are driven by an all-consuming urge to erect tall monuments to their gods, in the form of windmills. These don't do very much at all, except imbue the Faithful with a sense of religious righteousness for having been erected. Nonetheless, construction of these useless religious artifacts has meant the diversion of vast amounts of finance, materials and labor from being employed elsewhere; for instance to build REAL power stations. This means many people are now going to die from exposure to the elements. Consider them human sacrifices to the gods. Just as is practiced by other pagan cults.

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
The alarmist has Holy Water in the form of biofuel. If only enough people used this sacred elixir, the devil CO₂ would be cast out and the world would be saved. One way or another, biofuel is manufactured at the expense of food. This means many people will now starve. More pagan cult human sacrifices.
They have holy places where they go to gain enlightenment from their Priests. Principal amongst these sacred sites is RealClimate, but there are many others.
Then we have some fools thinking that ethanol and bio diesel is the answer. I'm sure of that "green energy" some people want to believe is the salvation of the planet is as much of a waste of resources as windmills and solar.
"Science News: Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One" http://www.scienc...2436.htm
Ethanol fuel from corn faulted
http://www.news.c...ist-says

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
They believe in the dispensation of sin through monetary penance. One can gain forgiveness for the sin of invoking the Devil CO₂ by buying a dispensation in the form of a carbon credit. They are incensed that the heathen masses are somewhat reluctant to take up this practice. They quest endlessly for a "sign in the heavens" – their Holy Grail – the mythical "hotspot" in the troposphere over the equator. They hope for the melting of all the ice that exist at Antarctica so that their dire predictions can be proven correct; but, they see no co-operation because the ice doesn't melt & the sea level doesn't rise like they hope it will.

J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2017
I hope that leetennant will forgive me from doing something that the alarmist has no use for and that is presenting facts.
"At the end of the winter season last Saturday, Sept. 22, the Antarctic ice pack was at a near-record high level and still advancing like an ocean glacier towards Argentina and Chile. "
http://www.cdapre...3b3.html
Record Antarctica Ice Contradicts Global Warming Trend
http://www.newsma...d/458115
Aren't we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years."
http://tidesandcu...=999-001
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 http://www1.ncdc....aice.png

leetennant
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
I hope that leetennant will forgive me from doing something that the alarmist has no use for and that is presenting facts..... Aren't we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?

Not the sea ice. Sea ice melt doesn't result in sea level rise. Much like the link between increasing CO2 and rising temperatures, this is pretty basic physics.

You do know the difference between land & sea ice & the differing impacts of climate change across the Antarctic continent? I mean you're so violently opposed to the science that you post about it on websites. You do know it? I'd hate to think you have no basic understanding of the thing you're convinced is so completely wrong. That would be embarrassing.

Also, this paper claims that climate change is happening but your post says it isn't. That means you disagree with this research, right? You know this paper is wrong? I'd hate to accuse you of inconsistency
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2017
@J Doug.
Silly liar, I ALREADY posted AGREEING that Water Vapor HAS a great effect; made WORSE by CO2 effects FEEDBACK, remember? You're Trump-fired! :)
they want logical folks to believe that the unimaginable amounts of H₂O that this tropical depression sucked into the atmosphere is some how because of a feedback caused a trace gas that makes up .04% of the atmosphere, CO₂.
JD, the CO2-WV FEEDBACK subsists in the increasing global warming raising Ocean/Land surface TEMPS; causing MORE EVAPORATION to feed MORE WV, heat/energy into cyclonic dynamics; causing more unusual weather/wind 'patterns' resulting in more extreme/longdwelling/extensive AGW-related 'events' such as Hurricane Harvey. You dangerously-ignorant shill.
debilitating mental illness that RealityCheck is afflicted with.
JD, if OBJECTIVELY COMPREHENDING and APPLYING SCIENTIFIC METHOD is being "afflicted" by a "debilitating mental disease", THEN YOU are certainly NOT so "afflicted", SHILL. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2017
@J Doug.
They believe in the dispensation of sin through monetary penance. One can gain forgiveness for the sin of invoking the Devil CO₂ by buying a dispensation in the form of a carbon credit. They are incensed that the heathen masses are somewhat reluctant to take up this practice. They quest endlessly for a "sign in the heavens" – their Holy Grail – the mythical "hotspot" in the troposphere over the equator. They hope for the melting of all the ice that exist at Antarctica so that their dire predictions can be proven correct; but, they see no co-operation because the ice doesn't melt & the sea level doesn't rise like they hope it will.
Mate, now you're just shooting yourself/paymasters in the foot with every post! Your 'outstanding' insensibility/incompetence, even among trolling parroting ignoramus SHILLs in general, will SOON be 'rewarded' accordingly: You're Trump-fired!
JD, YOUR Christ-in-Heaven is SHAMED by you lying ignoramus 'followers'. Ashamed! :(
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
I know how folks like leetennant hate A. Watts because he tells the truth.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
There's no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.
http://wattsupwit...n-a-tie/
leetennant
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
There's no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.
http://wattsupwit...n-a-tie/


Thank you for accepting that the data clearly shows warming. Have fun with the mental gymnastics required to reject it. For the rest of us, we'll go with the actual science.

I noticed you conveniently ignored the point that this paper accepts warming. Are you defending it or contesting it? It's still not clear.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
Do not try to tell me what I know and do not know when you do not have the links to the conjecture that you put out and expect to be believed.

leetennant doesn't, because of not having the honesty or the curiosity to find the truth, Look at some FACTS for a change. "You do know the difference between land & sea ice & the differing impacts of climate change across the Antarctic continent?"
"Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on glacial isostatic adjustment
Abstract
[1] Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). "
http://onlinelibr...559/full

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
Here is a bonus for you, the Greenland ice sheet.
Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)
Journal of Climate 2012 ''We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.''
http://journals.a...-00373.1
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
Knowing your kind who never answer questions, you probably don't trust these sites. I'll run this by you again and I hope the other dud on here can enjoy the information also.

I'm sure that all of your research took you to this site for the mean temperature for Seattle from 1894 to 2017
http://cdiac.ornl...ear=2017

How about Plevna, Montana?
http://cdiac.ornl...ear=2014

leetennant
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2017
Do not try to tell me what I know and do not know


I apologise for using your own posts against you. I won't do it again in future. Remember, people, what J Doug actually says is no insight into what he thinks. Don't make my mistake! It's terribly unfair to the poor confused man.

Incidentally, since you haven't made it clear where you stand on the research this article is, you know, ACTUALLY ABOUT, here's an article about why it's bullshit.

https://www.thegu...e_btn_tw
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science?CMP=share_btn_tw

leetennant; I well understand now why and how you can have no understanding about the issue that you carry on about, how a trace gas, carbon dioxide, can drive the earth's climate and cause all of the unimaginable and horrible weather events that have ever occurred on the planet. Your kind has always had a real problem with the historically proven to have occurred Medieval Warm Period so the answer was to get a charlatan named Michael Mann to use two trees from Siberia to wipe out this pesky period in earth's history. It was a real problem to have to deal with because how could it have been warmer during this period than now with our the influence of you devil in the sky, CO₂?
Caliban
not rated yet Aug 31, 2017
CRIKEY.

Are you paid by-the-character J'dumb? I mean --margie?

That's about 70,000 characters of denierside screed in this thread alone.

Not so difficult, when it's all unattributed, "quoted" out of context, cherrypicked, or otherwise irrelevant.

The pay rate for this crap must, indeed, be cheap as shit, because that's all it is.

Put some of that cheap shite in your dumbpipe and suck it til you choke.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
@J Doug.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science?CMP=share_btn_tw

...how a trace gas, carbon dioxide, can drive the earth's climate and cause all of the unimaginable and horrible weather events that have ever occurred on the planet. Your kind has always had a real problem with the historically proven to have occurred Medieval Warm Period so the answer was to get a charlatan named Michael Mann to use two trees from Siberia to wipe out this pesky period in earth's history. It was a real problem to have to deal with because how could it have been warmer during this period than now with our the influence of you devil in the sky, CO₂?
Hey, JUDAS, you 'score" TOO HIGHLY on DENIER-STUPIDITY-INDEX. That record score may never be equalled by anyone else in that Troll Factory! So very soon the Trump/Troll Factory paymaster will TWEET: "J Doug, you're Fired!"
RealityCheck
Sep 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2017
That's about 70,000 characters of denierside screed in this thread alone.




It doesn't take long to count the characters that Caliban presented that have any significance and in any way pertain to this topic; "Research pair suggest global warming almost completely natural (Update)". That figure certainly would not be 70,000 characters but is ZERO. All of the sophomoric, idiotic, useless "information" that this wonderful individual submits has no value, at all. Somewhat like the dip shit submitting the shit present, there is no value to be found in any of the stupidity presented; but, I hope that it brings the individual joy because I find it indicative of the mentality of the standard "alarmist" & therefore it is of some obscure value.

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
@J Doug.

As @Turgent agrees, the time for your politicizing shilling and spamming Troll Factory JOB is OVER; as we ALL need to come together for working out sensible SOLUTIONS real fast.

Your JOB here is 'done', JD. You failed and actually had a counter-productive result from your shilling 'performance'. So be ready to receive a TWEET from the Trump/Troll Factory paymaster: "J Doug, you're fired, you incompetent troll!".

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.