Carbon dioxide levels lower than thought during super greenhouse period

October 12, 2017, Dartmouth College
Ball-and-stick model of carbon dioxide. Credit: Wikipedia

Concentration of carbon dioxide during an intense period of global warmth may have been as low as half the level previously suggested by scientists, according to a new Dartmouth College study.

The study found that dioxide may have been less than 1000 parts per million, or ppm, during the Earth's early Eocene period. This runs counter to thinking that concentration levels were as high as 2000 ppm in the same time frame.

By comparison, current levels of carbon dioxide observed at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory are around 400 ppm.

"This research provides important information about the planet's climate past and adds an important chapter to the Earth's history book," said Ying Cui, Obering Postdoctoral Fellow at Dartmouth College.

Climate researchers focus on the early Eocene, a so-called "super greenhouse" period, to better understand how the Earth historically responds to changes in carbon dioxide levels, and to help make better climate projections. Both the Arctic and Antarctic were ice-free in this time period as temperatures averaged about 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present day.

The early Eocene was also characterized by five periods of extreme warmth—known as hyperthermals—that occurred between 52-56 million years ago when the Earth warmed an additional 2 C - 8 C above the already higher temperatures.

Although there were no cars or power plants 56 million years ago, the same carbon rich in the isotope carbon-12 was released into the atmosphere. Up until now, researchers have grappled with where that carbon came from, what triggered its release, and to what extent carbon dioxide accounted for warming relative to other greenhouse gases.

Unable to access information on carbon dioxide from ice cores that only date back approximately 800,000 years, the research team used a new method to reconstruct levels of carbon dioxide associated with the temperature spikes within the early Eocene.

The Dartmouth research result was derived by assessing past carbon dioxide concentrations using sediment samples found in terrestrial and deep-sea drilling sites. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 isotopes in those samples helped the team determine that the most likely source of the carbon came from thawing permafrost during the period studied.

"This changes our understanding of what the concentration of carbon dioxide should be in relationship to global temperature as well as how we should revisit climate models in order to better project future climate change," Cui said.

While the Dartmouth research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, finds that the carbon was most likely released by permafrost thaw, there is still question as to what triggered the warming that caused the release of extra carbon into the atmosphere. Separate research points to the roles of extreme volcanic activity and water vapor during Earth's earlier warming periods.

"The challenge is to reconstruct what the past is and to utilize these geochemistry proxies the best we can - essentially, how can we best interpret these records using geological archives," said Cui.

Although focusing on a timeframe that is over 50 million years ago, Cui says the research relates directly to efforts to understand the Earth's current warming trend, and to project how human activities and other natural dynamics could impact future warming.

"The geologic past can provide a useful insight into our understanding of current and future environmental change," said Cui. "Policy makers, economists and others who study projections on temperature can utilize this information to see how ecosystems recover after rapid change of climate and use it as lessons for the future."

The research team hopes to use the new technique to broaden understanding of the role of for a longer stretch of Earth's history.

Explore further: Tundra loses carbon with rapid permafrost thaw

More information: Ying Cui et al, Atmospheric p CO 2 reconstructed across five early Eocene global warming events, Earth and Planetary Science Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.08.038

Related Stories

Tundra loses carbon with rapid permafrost thaw

September 7, 2017

Frozen in permafrost soil, northern latitudes store almost twice as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere. Rapid Arctic warming is expected to expose previously frozen soil carbon to microbial decomposition and increase ...

Scientists investigate what breaks down permafrost carbon

February 14, 2017

A Florida State University researcher is delving into the complexities of exactly how permafrost thawing in the Earth's most northern regions is cycling back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and further fueling climate ...

Extreme global warming in the ancient past

November 10, 2010

Variations in atmosphere carbon dioxide around 40 million years ago were tightly coupled to changes in global temperature, according to new findings published in the journal Science. The study was led by scientists at Utrecht ...

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

Study tracks Hurricane Harvey stormwater with GPS

September 20, 2018

Hurricane Harvey dumped more than 5 feet (1.5 meters) of water on southeast Texas in late August 2017, making it the wettest recorded hurricane in U.S. history. But after the storm passed, where did all that water go?

Unprecedented ice loss in Russian ice cap

September 19, 2018

In the last few years, the Vavilov Ice Cap in the Russian High Arctic has dramatically accelerated, sliding as much as 82 feet a day in 2015, according to a new multi-national, multi-institute study led by CIRES Fellow Mike ...

330 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

katesisco
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2017
How can scientists differentiate from CO and CO2 as CO degrades into CO2? OR does it matter?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Paulw789
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2017
The Cretaceous Hothouse, the Permian Hothouse, the Devonian warm period, the Cambrian warm period were all much warmer than the Eocene.

The climate people have some unhealthy fascination for the Eocene and the PETM event.

There were many other periods which were warmer and the Eocene was not that high really.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2017
At the end of the Cambrian and during the Devonian much of the landmass was gathered into Gondwana. During the Permian, most of the land mass was Pangaea. Even during the late Cretaceous, the continents were all quite close together and the Atlantic was a baby with not enough space for massive circulation. So the obvious answer to the "unhealthy fascination for the Eocene and the PETM event" is that it's the only such event where the landmass distribution and thus atmospheric and oceanic circulation are similar to today. It is simply more relevant.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2017
So the PETM happened when there was only around 1000 ppmv, not 2000 as previously thought. They're right, this will require some adjustments to our models, and not in a good direction. We're already nearly irrevocably headed for 500 ppmv, which means only one doubling gets us to the PETM, instead of two doublings.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
(cont'd)

"Curt Teichert was honest enough to admit that 'attempts to explain rapid climatic changes throughout the Tertiary have been 'especially vexing and unsatisfactory'.' [55] As D H Campbell wrote: 'It is difficult to imagine any possible conditions of climate in which these plants could grow so near the pole, deprived of sunlight for many months of the year.' [56] Or, as David Mech was forced to conclude, the causes behind such a radical different climate 'remain a mystery.'" [57]

(cont'd)

Geez, Chris...
That was quite the litany of comments not your own... Yet, I am assuming you agree with all you cut and copied, more or less...

Took me forever to read and really taxed my adult ADHD limits....
Thewise
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2017
Geez Chris, where on the planet was the arctic region in those periods. Continents do moves around a bit, did you take that into account?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
Geez Chris, where on the planet was the arctic region in those periods. Continents do moves around a bit, did you take that into account?

Not to mention, Earth axial wobble...
Shootist
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
Super greenhouse events like the Roman Climate Optimum and the Medieval Climate Optimum? Those "super greenhouse" events? You know? When it was (much) warmer than it is today.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.

Mate, to be frank/objective, I see that you've just engaged in the same sort of gish-gallop of 'disjoint facts' barrage which @J Doug has been engaging in at thread...

https://phys.org/...ery.html

He too presented a list of 'facts' which on their own, without proper analysis and connecting of dots in the greater temporal/geographical CONTEXT, gives GIGO....a partial picture not whole picture. Or as I just pointed out to JD the truth about the well known 'problem' with gish-galloping lists of disjoint 'facts':
Disjoint 'facts' make HALF-TRUTH. :)


To get the bigger picture, you must also consider:

- Ocean Currents (Britain has MUCH WARMER CLIMATE that its LATITUDE would normally imply, due to the WARM OCEAN CURRENT going past Britain).

- Air Currents (Atmospheric Mid-Lati/Polar vortices can cause 'stagnating regions' which can be colder/hotter depending on situation).

- And more (as alluded to by Whyde et al).

Ok? :)

Chris_Reeve
Oct 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2017
'So far as past climates can be interpreted from the record of fossil vertebrates, it would appear that during much of Earth history the world has enjoyed uniformly warm, equable climate over most of its surface ... the general picture of past vertebrate life is that of warmth-loving animals living over wide ranges of latitude, from the southern tips of the continental land masses through the middle latitudes to regions as far north as the Arctic Circle.' [74]"

That an equitable warmth permeated the majority of the globe is all well and good. But, what about light?
Could vegetation photosynthesize (and fauna have grown to the sizes found) without generous levels of light?
What it suggests to me is we have an incomplete understanding of tectonic activity (continental drift)
warmonger
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
Chris, this is not a dumping ground for homeless articles. Feel free to paste a link, like a sane person. Feel free to add your commentary, like a sane person.

Only a deranged madman would post the freaking references, are you kidding me.
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
Chris, this is not a dumping ground for homeless articles. Feel free to paste a link, like a sane person. Feel free to add your commentary, like a sane person.

Only a deranged madman would post the freaking references, are you kidding me.


THIS CHRIS!
TrollBane
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
The moderators have left the building.
(It could be to have a fit of laughter at CR's balderdash without disturbing their coworkers, but that's just speculation. )
Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PTTG
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
Reeve, why not just get yourself a blog instead of spamming random comment threads?
dustywells
not rated yet Oct 14, 2017
"It is a rare occasion when a person, even a scientist, is able to really look at a picture without forcing it into a frame of prior reference."

"What it suggests to me is we have an incomplete understanding of tectonic activity (continental drift)"

Now we're getting somewhere! The current ice age began about 2.5 - 3 million years ago - co-incident with the joining of North and South America. Prior to this many million years without major glaciation. This implies that ocean currents have more influence on climate than we understand.

We tend to ignore the position of land masses and depths of ocean currents when trying to understand paleoclimate. At best, this only creates a distorted image; but more likely, it leads to trying to prove wrong-headed hypotheses.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2017
He too presented a list of 'facts' which on their own, without proper analysis and connecting of dots in the greater temporal/geographical CONTEXT, gives GIGO....a partial picture not whole picture.


There is no way that someone as dense and unable to learn as RealityCheck has proven its self to be could ever connect any dots. By babbling this bit of irrelevant "information", such as, "Air Currents (Atmospheric Mid-Lati/Polar vortices can cause 'stagnating regions' which can be colder/hotter depending on situation)." Is the fool trying to make some sort of a case for or against higher levels of CO₂ than the scant 400 ppm level of today's atmosphere?
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2017
To get the bigger picture, you must also consider:

- Ocean Currents (Britain has MUCH WARMER CLIMATE that its LATITUDE would normally imply, due to the WARM OCEAN CURRENT going past Britain).

RealityCheck comes up with this disjointed comment above which implies that he/it, whatever, didn't even read the article.

Although focusing on a timeframe that is over 50 million years ago, Cui says the research relates directly to efforts to understand the Earth's current warming trend, and to project how human activities and other natural dynamics could impact future warming.
"The geologic past can provide a useful insight into our understanding of current and future environmental change," said Cui. "Policy makers, economists and others who study projections on temperature can utilize this information to see how ecosystems recover after rapid chan
J Doug
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2017
This information below runs counter to the wild eyed, foaming at the mouth alarmist who say that the planet & humanity is doomed because of CO₂. These alarmist seem to not understand that all life on earth is dependent on CO₂.

"Similarly, we can now examine the processes behind the extraordinary greening of the Earth over recent decades as CO₂ levels have climbed. Up to 50% of vegetated land is now greener than it was 30 years ago. The increasing human-driven CO2 fertilization effect on vegetation was estimated to be the dominant driver."
https://phys.org/...bon.html
J Doug
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2017
"It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."


This comment by Halton Arp leads to one questing the nonsense about the 97% of scientist believing that any and all climate change is the result of human activity as well as the stupid remark that alarmist like to throw out about the "debate is over".
J Doug
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2017
Something to think about for those few that can do so.
"The Younger Dryas is one of the most well known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions. This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and that became common in Europe during this time. The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000(link is external)). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts."
https://www.ncdc....%20Dryas

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2017
It is beyond reason to hope that RealityCheck can ever come to understand that these proven climatic events occurred WITH OUT the influence of his devil in the sky, CO₂.

''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
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2017
@J Doug.

You remind of a toddler playing on the floor with 'disjoint' pieces of a picture puzzle which have fallen from a table out of reach. The toddler has no idea of what the 'picture' may be; nor does the toddler know what to make of each piece due to its 'disconnection' from the whole.

So the toddler blithely manipulates, sucks, chews, throws disjoint pieces willy nilly, never having even an inkling of the whole picture shown on the puzzle box lid tantalizingly out of its reach and ken on the table.

Do you even realize the reality around you now, let alone over the eras of continental plate techtonics and changes in ocean/air currents which if put together as a whole picture will give the 'trending picture' for climate evolution NOW, mate?

Probably not. You seem to enjoy shilling and spamming disjoint pieces of OLD and UNCONNECTED 'facts' which only give you half-truths if you have no clue where or how the pieces fit to make the whole picture.

Grow up, JD.. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2017
The toddler has no idea of what the 'picture' may be; nor does the toddler know what to make of each piece due to its 'disconnection' from the whole.
RealityCheck has finally come to understand why he is what he is.

Instead of wasting your time on meaningless bullshit, why didn't you consider this link that I furnished you with?
"The Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas is one of the most well known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state."
https://www.ncdc....%20Dryas

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2017
Reeve, why not just get yourself a blog instead of spamming random comment threads?
@PTTG
he has one

no one visits it unless he links it here

it's where he gets all the above gish-gallop from to copy/paste it here

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2017
@J Doug.

You're as self-aware/cogent as that toddler (or a shill/spam-bot paid by a Troll Factory). You haven't even bothered to check out past discussion threads re 'items' you keep spamming as if they are 'new arguments/facts'. Whyde has even given you clues as to the MANY cataclysmic/sudden historic/prehistoric NATURAL causes of Global Climate Changes already well recognized and included in the discussions/models for years now. You trying to pretend it's all 'new' stuff is childish (toddler-ish/bot-ish?); showing you aren't capable of being objective/holistic in considerations/discussions. Plate tectonics, volcanism, changes in ocean/air currents, asteroid impacts and changes in Earth's rotational aspect re insolation etc are already allowed for in past Natural factors; what is NOW being ADDED is HUMANITY FACTOR re CO2/other atmospheric changes that can vary NET effect of ALL the known heat/energy inputs. You're incompetent johnny-come-latest shill-spam-bot-troll, JD.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2017
I want to know, is it fair play to poke the coal troll? So why is the "Young Dryas" so important to you? How do you think it's relevant to this article or even the debate on global warming? You won't answer because your just a trump coal troll with a website of useless links for cut and paste.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
So why is the "Young Dryas" so important to you?


You poor uninformed, non-thinking fool. You can't understand that if the proven "Young Dryas" occurred, and then ended so long ago with no influence from your devil in the sky, carbon dioxide, then prove your stupid contention that now CO₂ is driving the earth's climate. Can't do so, can you?
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
MANY cataclysmic/sudden historic/prehistoric NATURAL causes of Global Climate Changes already well recognized


Why don't you present evidence of this? "NOW being ADDED is HUMANITY FACTOR re CO2/other atmospheric changes that can vary NET effect of ALL the known heat/energy inputs." Yea, sure, it would take a total fool to believe that a trace gas, CO₂ is driving the earth's climate. Evidently when you write something you have exactly NO idea about what you are TRYING to say. "MANY cataclysmic/sudden historic/prehistoric NATURAL causes of Global Climate Changes already well recognized and included in the discussions/models for years now……… Plate tectonics, volcanism, changes in ocean/air currents, asteroid impacts and changes in Earth's rotational aspect re insolation etc are already allowed for in past Natural factors" yet you are trying to blame a trace gas, CO₂, on everything from hang nails to earth quakes, you are so sad and ignorant, it seems.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2017
no one visits it unless he links it here


At least Chris_Reeve presented something of substance while you have never done so. Just your same stupid, uninformative bull shit that takes no effort what so ever to blabber.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
@J Coal or maybe @J Spam seem appropriate for the time being.

Got black lung?

Spam much?

Just askin'.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
J_D coal troll; Your slinging a lot of BS around, trying to dodge a simple question about something you state is important to the debate on CO2 and global warming. Specifically what is the "Young Dryas"? Your the expert on the "Young Dryas", so what is it? How is it important to everyone or anyone? Lastly what is it's relevance to carbon dioxide being super greenhouse gas?

I understand your just a layman, a nub at environmental issues, a trump supporter, but I would like to hear your sincere answers to the above questions. We are all here to be entertained.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Your the expert on the "Young Dryas", so what is it? How is it important to everyone or anyone? Lastly what is it's relevance to carbon dioxide being super greenhouse gas?


I thank you so much for your comment, howhot3, when you ask: "Specifically what is the "Young Dryas"?" With that question you demonstrate why you are so ignorant to believe that a trace gas, CO₂, could possibly drive something as complex as the earth's climate. You also demonstrate how unable you are to answer your own questions because had you had enough interest in this issue you would have opened the link that I provided on Oct 15, 2017.
This is what you would have encounter but I doubt that you are able to understand what the message is.
I realize that howhot3 is too dense to realize that CO₂ is not mentioned regarding The Younger Dryas because, like with today's climate, it plays absolutely NO part in what is happening.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
"The Younger Dryas is one of the most well known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions. This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and that became common in Europe during this time. The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000(link is external)). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts."
https://www.ncdc....%20Dryas

Are you able to get your mind around these facts? Probably not.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
The Younger Dryas is currently thought to have been caused by an interruption in the AMOC; no one has credibly suggested that it has anything to do with CO2.

But claiming this "proves" CO2 has nothing to do with climate is like claiming that people can't die of starvation because people die from being shot in the head. Complete non-sequitur, which is about what we expect from J Spam.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
The Younger Dryas is currently thought to have been caused by an interruption in the AMOC


Da Schneib offers up this bazar & meaningless analogy "claiming that people can't die of starvation because people die from being shot in the head."

I'm sure that Da Schneib will fail to notice that CO₂ had nothing to do with what happened to the Viking settlers in Greenland. He was too involved or more than likely didn't know what the AMOC or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is & therefore offered up nothing but "AMOC".

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
"The farm under the sand"
Researcher challenges conventional thinking on disappearance of Viking community
"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.
"The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world," said Schweger. "Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?"

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
Apparently J Spam doesn't know what a non sequitur is.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off Birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren't poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. "At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years," says Schweger. "If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming."
https://sites.ual.../03.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Apparently J Spam doesn't know what a non sequitur is.


Nor does he give a shit!
Why don't you point out how this is applicable to CO₂ or the Younger Dryas.
Definition of non sequitur
1 :an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically :a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Since Da Schneib had no idea of what "AMOC" stood for, I'll try to educate him some on the subject.

"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.na...r-cycle/

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2017
@J Doug.

So, now you have 'grown' on from your Toddler days of chewing/sucking 'disjoint fact' jigsaw pieces, and started to fiddle with 'semantical tantrums', hey mate? Are you so juvenilely insensible that you don't realize you just admonished DS about something to do with OCEAN CIRCULATION (current patterns) changing? That was what I TOLD YOU was already KNOWN factors that could cause climate changes in the past, silly. You ignored it and then 'chewed' that 'piece' as if it was 'news' which no-one knew before Johnny-came-too-late-to-the-discussion-JUDAS (you) mentioned it. How silly are you; as well as just plain stupid, dishonest shill-spam-troll, hey? You had no clue; and still have none, JD. All you have is your johnny-come-lately Troll Factory 'spiels' and 'tantrums' which care NOT about the reality around us NOW that humanity is in peril of while you earn a dishonest living. Those regular installments of 'thirty pieces of silver' will choke you eventually, mate!
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2017
PS @J Doug.

As for this stupidity from you:
...warm is preferable to cold any day
That's what plague pests and disease organisms say too, you fool. The point is to keep to a manageable/tolerable 'middle-ground' temps/range when it comes to seasons /extremes as a global/annual pattern. It is the unsettling of the previously established pattern during the present transition we have entered because of human activity/CO2 variation that is so worrisome for humanity (agriculture, infrastructure, health and cost recovery etc). It is happening around the globe as we speak. I already pointed this out to you but you are so toddlerishly-bottishly-trollishly unselfaware that you keep making noises which only confirm you ARE really so crooked and/or insensible that you cannot do otherwise than drool like a toddler all over the forum floors here, JD. Grow up and get an honest honorable job that doesn't require you to betray your intellect, family, friends and humanity, JD.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
As for this stupidity from you:
...warm is preferable to cold any day
That's what plague pests and disease organisms say too, you fool.


As usual, I only skimmed over RealityCheck's in-comprehensible garbage that he seems to think shows everyone how "scientific" he is. Ad Hominem attacks on me only demonstrates how shallow minded this poor creature, RealityCheck, is. The poor fool has no idea what he is talking about when he says: "That's what plague pests and disease organisms say too, you fool. The point is to keep to a manageable/tolerable 'middle-ground' temps/range when it comes to seasons /extremes as a global/annual pattern."

I'm sure that the fictional book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson is unknown to you. It is responsible for perhaps causing more human deaths than all of the wars combined have.

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
Karl Popper

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Thank you RealityCheck for reaffirming what Karl Popper stated in so few words. You, like the rest of the ignorant folks who have your devil in the sky, CO₂, to distract you from issues that really matter and can be dealt with today, such as the deadly scourge of malaria that this stupid book, "Silent Spring", that was gobbled up by stupid people such as you and Al Gore, who claimed that this book that was read to him by his mother, is what made him into the idiotic anthropogenic global warming hypocrite that the is today. That Al had his mother read him this book is perhaps the only truthful thing that he has ever said.
The book came out on 27 September, 1962 & Gore was born March 31, 1948 which would have made Al 14 years old when sitting on his mother's knee as she read this book to him.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
"Why do we need to worry about malaria in eliminating DDT?
Malaria is responsible for about 500 million clinical cases of disease and about 2.7 million deaths a year, mostly those of children under five and pregnant women. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria destroys 70% more years of life than do all cancers in all developed countries combined. It therefore follows that even a tiny loss in the efficiency of a national malaria control program, occasioned by the loss of DDT or otherwise, would result in a tremendous number of additional deaths from the disease.
Malaria is a serious infection of Plasmodium parasites, which are spread by the bite of Anopheles mosquitoes. As a result, there is no single prescription, not even DDT, which can successfully control malaria in all locales."
http://www.malari...pen.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Now, RealityCheck, & this below is to address your beyond stupid attempt to blame disease on CO₂. It shows just how mistaken, as usual, you and your kind of similar thinking idiots are.
"Despite this remarkably cold period, perhaps the coldest since the last major Ice Age, malaria was what we would today call a "serious public health problem" in many parts of the British Isles, and was endemic, sometimes common throughout Europe as far north as the Baltic and northern Russia. It began to disappear from many regions of Europe, Canada and the United States as a result of multiple changes in agriculture and lifestyle that affected the breeding of the mosquito and its contact with people, but it persisted in less developed regions until the mid-20th century.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
In fact, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths due to falciparum infection (the most deadly malaria parasite) in Archangel, close to the Arctic Circle. Malaria persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. One of the last malarious countries in Europe was Holland: the WHO finally declared it malaria-free in 1970."
http://www.public...we21.htm

What was the level of CO₂ when this documented out break of malaria occurred,RealityCheck? It sure was below 400 ppm, don't you think? Sorry, I was assuming that you can think & that you constantly prove that you are incapable of doing.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2017
@J Doug.

Why repeat your spam when I already answered your 'challenge' re Siberia/Malaria in the thread...

https://phys.org/...ure.html

Read my post therein of 27 August 2017.

JD, if you won't even check the prior discussion/answers of only a couple months ago, then ask yourself: JD, what have you been OBLIVIOUS of that has already been covered over the past few YEARS here in many relevant PO threads/discussions on Climate Change matters/factors/consequences etc?

I urge you, JD, to research past discussions/threads and you will see your 'Johnny-come-lately' shill-spam has already been covered and debunked.

JD, you exhibit all the sad signs of being a dupe and/or juvenile and/or mercenary 'judas' accepting Troll Factory 'silver' for betraying your family and humanity in general; by lying/trolling at the behest of vested interests who don't give a damn about you, your family or humanity's future.

Research and RETHINK, JD. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2017
Why repeat your spam when I already answered your 'challenge' re Siberia/Malaria in the thread...
https://phys.org/...ure.html


Do you actual think that I would such out something that an idiot like you posted to a piece that makes this absurd claim: "The sun has no influence on the current global temperature increase, study says"
How can you be so stupid to believe something like this? All one needs to do is to read any of your meaningless post where you have nothing to back up your fabrications to get the answer to that. It was widely reported that when there was a total eclipse of the sun on Monday, August 21, 2017, when all of North America was treated to an eclipse of the sun. If the sun has nothing to do with the earth's temperature, then why did this happen?
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2017
"There are also a few temperature traces posted for select locations along the path of totality in the NWS St. Louis county warning area. You can really see how the temperature dropped anywhere from 3 to 9 degrees during the total eclipse of the sun!"
http://www.weathe..._21_2017
You are so incredibly brainwashed into believing this hoax about CO₂ driving the earth's climate that it makes you so stupid that I'm sure you have to wear slip on shoes because there is no way you could tie a shoe lace.

What did anything that you babbled about have to do with your nonsense about: "That's what plague pests and disease organisms say too, you fool. The point is to keep to a manageable/tolerable 'middle-ground' temps/range when it comes to seasons /extremes as a global/annual pattern."?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2017
@J Doug.
Why repeat your spam when I already answered your 'challenge' re Siberia/Malaria in the thread...
https://phys.org/...ure.html
Do you actual think that I would such out something that an idiot like you posted to a piece that makes this absurd claim: "The sun has no influence on the current global temperature increase, study says"
How can you be so stupid to believe something like this?
The article/thread was what it was 'as reported' by PO as a science news item'. At no stage did anyone tell you you had to 'beieve' what that author wrote.

The point of RESEARCH is to FIND the relevant material/exchanges which would inform YOU of what you missed. It is what you miss that demonstrates your spammed 'items' were already covered/debunked.

Hence my urging you to research RELEVANT Climate discussions BEFORE spamming further 'challenges' which have long been answered/debunked by me/others long before you came along. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2017
@J Doug.
"There are also a few temperature traces posted for select locations along the path of totality in the NWS St. Louis county warning area. You can really see how the temperature dropped anywhere from 3 to 9 degrees during the total eclipse of the sun!"
http://www.weathe..._21_2017
Have you any idea of the HOLISTIC system/set of factors/variables at play in Earth's Climate dynamics; and NET consequences of whatever inputs are involved from sun, interior, and 'lagging effects' from ATMOSPHERE (including CO2 variations)?

CONSIDER: what would have happened if Earth did NOT have an atmosphere to 'lag' heat loss to space (eg, planet Mercury); the TEMP DROP during an ECLIPSE (or at night) would be EXTREME (not bgy 3-9 degrees, but to CRYOGENICALLY LOW temps)!

See? TRANSIENT NET effect of WHATEVER insolation DOES fall into Earth's energy inputs 'budget' is affected by transient variations in INsolation AND ALSO by variations to atmos 'lagging' by CO2 etc. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
The point of RESEARCH is to FIND the relevant material/exchanges which would inform YOU of what you missed.


You are one stupid, brainwashed person who demonstrates that you are unable to actually think, even about crap that you want me to believe in your stupid links about the sun.
"The sun had just such a break in activity during the second half of the 17th century, for example: between 1645 and 1715 its engine began to falter. During this period, referred to as the Maunder Minimum, Europe, North America and China recorded much colder winters. And even the summer was substantially cooler in some regions during this "Little Ice Age." Paintings were made at the time, showing ice skaters on the frozen Thames, for example." So, am I to believe that the sun has no influence on the earth's temperature?
https://phys.org/...ure.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
CONSIDER: what would have happened if Earth did NOT have an atmosphere to 'lag' heat loss to space (eg, planet Mercury); the TEMP DROP during an ECLIPSE (or at night) would be EXTREME (not bgy 3-9 degrees, but to CRYOGENICALLY LOW temps)!


It would be outlandish to what would happen if you could ever actually THINK.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
Please, you ignorant fool, take note of what follows and explain how any of it is wrong.

Solar Cycles causing global warming:
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: "During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core."
http://www.nature...1a0.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: "Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries"
http://www.scienc...46/1431b
 
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
Have you any idea of the HOLISTIC system/set of factors/variables at play in Earth's Climate dynamics; and NET consequences of whatever inputs are involved from sun, interior, and 'lagging effects' from ATMOSPHERE (including CO2 variations)?

Note this, you clueless uninformed individual who calls himself RealityCheck. Solar Cycles causing global warming: SUN & it would take someone who has never opened their eyes and seen it for what it is to say that it did not have anything to do with the climate.

"Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
[…]The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions."
http://news.bbc.c...6456.stm

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017

Here is something else for you to not understand,RealityCheck.
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
http://www.nature...121.html

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: "Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate."
http://geology.ge...30/5/455
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
I know that this about wheat prices is totally beyond your ability to understand.
Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Abstract: "The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.
http://xxx.lanl.g...312244v1

This explains why you know nothing about the sun because this is where you get your "scientific" information from.
The sun has no influence on the current global temperature increase, study says

https://phys.org/...ure.html
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
J Dooshy... So you say,
The sun has no influence on the current global temperature increase, study says
So is that your last final decision? Or are you agreeing with
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
What is your point Dooshy?

You are one stupid, brainwashed person who demonstrates that you are unable to actually think,
You know a lot of times, people project them selves when name calling. Sound like you just did.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
Actually, I want to apologize to our Russian propagandist trump supporting coal troll. He's getting paid to spread his BS. It doesn't matter that what he says contradicts itself. I'm guessing it's like a 9-5 job there in Moscow? Isn't it? So, you don't like snopes.com? Why, the seem to have many of the same facts that you have.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
What is your point Dooshy?


I realize due to being so overwhelmed by your flawed, idiotic view that the trace gas, CO₂, drives the earth's climate when that has not happened in the past, as the ice ages and coming out of ice ages demonstrates, for anyone with a brain & that rules you out of the debate. The point that you will never be able to understand is that it is the sun that drives the climate, now as it always has. Please allow me to confuse you something that you do not know anything about, FACTS.
The Sun is by far the largest object in the solar system. It contains more than 99.8% of the total mass of the Solar System (Jupiter contains most of the rest).
http://nineplanet...sol.html
It is inconceivable that there actually could be idiots who do not believe that it is the SUN that drives earth's climate.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
"We even have tantalizing hints that the Earth's climate may be linked to sunspots. The "Little Ice Age" corresponded with a 70-year period, 1645-1715, when sunspots were sparse in number, the Maunder minimum. Also, there are strong statistical associations linking current trends in climate (surface temperatures) to trends in solar activity, as outlined in another paper by Wilson for the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres)."
http://science.na...apr98_1/

More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. http://www.nature...504.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2017
What is your point Dooshy?

"J Dooshy... So you say,
The sun has no influence on the current global temperature increase, study says
So is that your last final decision? Or are you agreeing with"

With that question it is very apparent that you need to invest in reading comprehension classes. It should have dawned on you from my links about the sun that any intelligent person would have known what my point is.


"Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″
http://hockeyscht...ild.html

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2017
@J Doug.
It should have dawned on you from my links about the sun that any intelligent person would have known what my point is.

"Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″
http://hockeyscht...ild.html
Mate, since I am atheist since age nine, I do not 'believe in miracles'. Having said that, I will make an exception in your case should you ever get clue-one about all that you have been spamming 'all over the shop'. You still don't get it yet? The sun affects as it affects. KNOWN. And already factored into all the longstanding modeling and understandings. I even pointed out to you that it is the case and NOW the Earth's atmosphere determines what happens to that sun-heat we receive, whatever its amount/variation from millennia to millennia. The point NOW is that we humans have affected the ATMOSPHERE. That is the ADDITIONAL variable/factor NOW. Get that clue-one, mate! :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2017
You still don't get it yet? The sun affects as it affects. KNOWN. And already factored into all the longstanding modeling and understandings.


RealityCheck: why are your so dense?

You are incapable of ever understanding what John Tyndall figured out 158 years ago that this is H₂O that is the main green house gas and not some trace gas, CO₂, that certain uninformed duds want to think causes the earth's planet to be what it is.
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.
https://archive.i...-913.378

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2017
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
"One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns."
http://www.nytime...uds.html

This is beyond your ability to comprehend; but, give it a go, Mate.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2017
J Dooshy reminds me of a poo volcano. It erupts all the time spewing out crap. Typical of a russian troll farm actor. You know when you sight;

More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. http://www.nature...504.html
long ago disproven. Disproven in the 50's or something.

See if you believe that nonsense then, what happened to pronounced effects of CO2 and AGW that only shows up after the industrial revolution. Riddle me that fancy pants.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2017
The density of the average human is 985 kg/m3. That is how dense we are. Does that answer your question about being dense. Your just as dense as the rest of us. Maybe more so if you exhale a lot.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2017
@J Doug.
You still don't get it? The sun affects as it affects. KNOWN. And already factored into all the longstanding modeling and understandings.
why are your so dense?
Whoa there, matey! It's YOU REFUSE to do 'due diligence' research BEFORE opening your troll-mouth under the mistaken impression you're telling us anything 'new'.

Here is a link to a discussion OVER TWO YEARS AGO that 'beat you to it'; with (unlike you) a gentleman and a scholar, @Water_Prophet:

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

It was one of a number of discussions across a number of threads.

So you're a 'Johnny-come-lately' shill-spammer insulting the intelligence of all who've 'been there done that' LONG BEFORE you came along offering to 'teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs'.

As with KNOWN Solar Cycle effects, EQUALLY KNOWN Hydrologic Cycle effects LONG INCLUDED in climate modeling/understanding.

NOW man impacting atmospheric CO2 levels. See, JD? :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
long ago disproven. Disproven in the 50's or something.

You poor scientifically illiterate dud. You are too stupid to even present a link that can be opened, let alone know what it was about.
Published online 24 August 2011 | Nature |
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays
Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.
http://www.nature...504.html

I know that you are too dense to notice the date of this experiment.

Why don't you take the time to do some research and then maybe actually learn something before you constantly make it obvious how little about anything that you know.
Mark Twain had howhot3 in mind when he said this below:
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
J Doug
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

It was one of a number of discussions across a number of threads.


Hurricane Return Periods
Hurricane return periods are the frequency at which a certain intensity of hurricane can be expected within a given distance of a given location (for the below images 50 nm or 58 statute miles). In simpler terms, a return period of 20 years for a major hurricane means that on average during the previous 100 years, a Category 3 or greater hurricane passed within 50 nm (58 miles) of that location about five times. We would then expect, on average, an additional five Category 3 or greater hurricanes within that radius over the next 100 years.
More information on return periods can be found from NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 38 (pdf) on the NHC Risk Analysis Program (HURISK).
http://www.nhc.no...imo/#ncy

Let your water prophet explain this.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
NOW man impacting atmospheric CO2 levels. See, JD? :)
Prove it because i sure don't take your word for anything!

Category 4 or stronger Atlantic hurricane landfalls in the U.S. are a rare occurrence with only 27 documented since 1851, including Harvey and Irma. Three of those 27 landfalls were Category 5 hurricanes.
Harvey's Category 4 strike on Texas was the first to occur in the U.S. since Charley hammered southwest Florida in 2004. Before that, no landfalls of that strength had happened since Andrew's destructive hit on South Florida as a Category 5 in 1992.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
Florida has experienced the most Category 4 or stronger landfalls with 13, while Texas is second with 7 landfalls of that intensity.
While this is the first time two Atlantic hurricanes have made landfall at Category 4 or stronger intensity, it has happened before if you include the Pacific Ocean.
As previously mentioned, Andrew made landfall in South Florida as a Category 5 in 1992. That same year Hurricane Iniki made landfall as a Category 4 on Hawaii's Kauai Island.
https://weather.c...-history
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
See if you believe that nonsense then, what happened to pronounced effects of CO2 and AGW that only shows up after the industrial revolution. Riddle me that fancy pants.


Why don't you go and live like people had to before the industrial revolution?
It is kind of hard to know just what to believe, for the disciples of this hoax, agw. I have a few questions for them. Just which period in the past would have qualified for your climatic "utopia" since you believe that things are so bad now?
 
Would it have been before 1900 when the life expectancy for men was 46.3 and 48.1 for women in the US; by 1998 according to a Berkeley study, that had improved to 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women.
http://demog.berk...re2.html
According to another study in 1930 the life expectancy for both sexes was 59.7 years. and in 2010 it was 78.7 years.
http://www.infopl...148.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
For most people there was often not enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short since many children died. According to records of the royal family of theKingdom of England, among the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years. Between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84, while between 1348 and 1375, during the Black Death and subsequent plagues, it dropped to only 17.33.
http://en.wikiped...%80%9317

Thanks you once again howhot3 for showing me again just how dense you are and how little time that you spend actually thinking.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
@J Douche, I already told you my density чмо,   My density is  ~985 kg/m3.  How dense are you?
What is english your second language? So how much does a professional astroturfer make in Moscow?

So far everything you said has already been posted on facebook in one place or another. That story on Cosmic rays causing clouds reminds me of the meteor that exploded over Russia in the Ural Mountain city of Chelyabinsk.   Of course Russia had to say something so it was ported; 
"Those aren't meteorites falling,"  "It's the Americans trying out a new weapon."

The meteorite would serve as a good excuse to cancel some (newly promised) gubernatorial elections and extend the president's term (from six) to ten years, wouldn't it? I wish everyone would just drop the BS and state what they mean instead of the astroturf of poo.

Ahh but we have to remember the Putin has never flown a meteorite before.  But I could be
wrong.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
The climate change denier @J Douche points out
For most people there was often not enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short since many children died.
and that is exactly what is happening as global warming begins to impact the planet. We are just in the beginning of that horror my Russian friend. You all had the blistering heat and massive forest fires just like we are this year. It's cause; greenhouse gas based global warming. Look tell your astroturf friends, trump buddies and the like, it isn't AGW, it's a greenhouse gas based global warming that is the cause of all of this. Then we can solve the problem and you deniers can claim that you knew all along it wasn't AGW, but greenhouse gasses.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2017
J Douche; Want to find out if a meteorite will fall on your city? Send a text message to 666 naming your city. Cost of the message—667 rubles. You really need to come to America and try a really good Bourbon. It's an eye opener, Mate.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: "Why some people say that Hungarians love the Russians and hate the Americans?"
We're answering: "Because Russians helped Hungarians to get rid of one totalitarian rule, but Americans don't help to get rid of the other."


Sounds like it's still the same old. The same old thing. My density is still  ~985 kg/m3, or do you want that in imperial units?
You poor scientifically illiterate dud. You are too stupid to even present a link that can be opened, let alone know what it was about.

You misspelled dud; It's DUDE my friend. The DUDE is cool.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
Ahh but we have to remember the Putin has never flown a meteorite before.  But I could be
wrong.


If one were to actually care, they would wonder just what the hell you are babbling on about. You seem to be fixated on Russia. I have gone by train across Russia from Saint Petersburg to Moscow and then on to Ulan Ude. As dense and ill informed that you are I'm sure that you never heard about this: "At 7:17 AM on the morning of June 30, 1908, a mysterious explosion occurred in the skies over Siberia. It was caused by the impact and breakup of a large meteorite, at an altitude roughly six kilometers in the atmosphere." Other than that why don't you shove it.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
You misspelled dud; It's DUDE my friend. The DUDE is cool.

You are one stupid, dense slob. Check to see it that is spelled right.

This is YOU, no doubt about it.

dud
dəd/Submit
informal
noun
1.
a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless.
"a high-grade collection, not a dud in the lot"
2.
clothes.
"buy yourself some new duds"
adjective
1.
not working or meeting standards; faulty.
"a dud ignition switch"
synonyms: defective, faulty, unsound, inoperative, broken, malfunctioning; More
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
So far everything you said has already been posted on facebook in one place or another.


I now see why you are so in the dark about everything and so totally ignorant about anything that has to do with the science that shows that CO₂ doesn't drive the climate.

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.
Why does this scam continue?
  https://stevengod...and-co2/
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
"When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground." Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki
http://www.bishop...rse.html
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2017
@J Doug.

So mate, I was right: you ARE a Russian/Fossil Troll Factory Shill-Spammer/Blogger after all! No surprise, really; it was obvious from the get-go; with your blizzard of un-comprehended, disjoint, lying propaganda spiel 'facts' which have been 'doing the rounds' for years now. I even showed you via those links that your 'propaganda spiels now are just 'johnny-come-lately' Troll Poop from a 'johnny-come-lately' JUDAS-Johnny calling itself "J Doug".

Hey, JUDAS-Johnny, read this link, and see the UPDATED REALITY which makes all your spam-crap just old troll-crap:

http://www.abc.ne.../9053406

Many of the propaganda spiels from your Troll Factory, Lobbyist sites/paymasters were based on old ill-informed opinions from some scientists who once were skeptics but have since realized the facts and reality are worse than they opined when they were without the necessary knowledge and facts.

But blather on, JD! :)
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
You know @RealityC, I think your right. We have a real live paid shill, astroturfer here. What has amazed me now is the stuff he said about Clinton and the Uranium sale. That story is just now breaking across the US. The republicans here are spinning a version that leaves out the facts and makes Hillary look like she sold it directly to Russia and profited directly from it. Hell, our republican Senate investigating trump want's to create a committee around it. What I would like to know, is how this astroturfer from Russia knew about this story days in advance!

Our astroturfer, Judas J_Doushy, apparently has some deep spin info. The Washington Post fact-checked the story yesterday and gave it a 4 Pinocchio rating. But in the USA right wing circles, it's hit a fever pitch.

I think this just confirms all of the suspicions about open discussion boards. Even something as boring and obvious as climate change can be socially engineered.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
So @J_D, how's the weather over there? I understand Crimea is warm and sunny. The last I heard, Putin submitted paperwork to change name of Crimea to "Putinville". Residents will be called 'Putins.' "Everyone is excited," says Putin,

Crimea citizens ("Putins") are happy to be past phase 1 of assimilation into Russia: Attending a Yakov Smirnoff concert!

You know that America's favorite vodka is "Smirnoff". Bourbon is better though. For you, you should try a "Maker's Mark".

It's very excited to hear that Canada, inspired by Crimea, is voting today to join the USA. Perhaps we can name it Trumpville, and the citizens will become "Trumps".

Seriously, if you have a joke to tell, let's hear it. Your insults already gave me a laugh, Dud vs Dude. LOL. My Egyptian friends prefers the term "Flat Tire" instead of dud. I thought DUDE fit better, and the Dude is cool.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2017
the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground


Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki

But J_D, it doesn't have to be that way my friend. Climate change doesn't care about country boarders. It will mess with everyone, some geography more than others.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
Hey, JUDAS-Johnny, read this link, and see the UPDATED REALITY which makes all your spam-crap just old troll-crap:
http://www.abc.ne.../9053406


As usual, none of the garbage that RealityCheck presented was worth reading. I wasted time reading it, & I feel foolish for having made that mistake, one which I will not make in the future, unless I see a link to go to. The link he supplied that, unlike the ONE link that the dud, howhot3, tried to present that would not open, mentions Professor Muller.
He had said "Yes I am a converted sceptic. However, anybody today who is not a sceptic about the solutions being proposed is not thinking them through."
This is a far different tune than what he was playing when this below was made.
Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
https://www.youtu...pciw8suk
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
RealityCheck; You might be surprised to learn, if you can ever learn anything, three things about Dr. Muller:
1. He says Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change.
2. He suggests individually reducing our carbon footprint is pointless -- we need to "think globally and act globally," by encouraging the switch from coal to gas power in China and developing nations. He's a fan of "clean fracking."
3. He says climate skeptics deserve our respect, not our ridicule.
http://www.huffin...=2278509
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
RealityCheck; Does this sound like unbiased research to you?
"GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."
http://www.linked...ciates_2

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
This explains Richard Muller's changing his views on carbon dioxide and warming, MONEY.
"Elizabeth Muller is listed as "Founder and Executive Director" of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she's been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick "the right technologies" – presumably meaning the right "Green" technologies.
http://joannenova...ultancy/

At least Muller knows that there has never been an empirical experiment done that demonstrate that CO₂ has anything to do with the earth's climate, unlike some idiotic fools who support this scam and that makes it the same as a religion where faith is the only requirement for believing.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
So @J_D, how's the weather over there? I understand Crimea is warm and sunny.

You can't even find Russia on a map,. let alone the Crimean peninsula that Putin was allowed to rob from Ukraine. Putin also had fun shooting down the Malaysian plane over Ukraine killing everyone on board.

My Egyptian friends prefers the term "Flat Tire" instead of dud. I thought DUDE fit better, and the Dude is cool.


Don't lie to me, you have no friends.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2017
@howhot3.
You know @RealityC, I think you're right. We have a real live paid shill, astroturfer here.
Yeah, it's sad; when a human being betrays the future health/security of his family, friends, neighbors, country and humanity at large for "Thirty Pieces of Silver" from a Troll Factory/Lobbyist paymaster who doesn't care about him or his family etc. I suppose it's the Trump-Putin (Capitalist-Communist-Crooks.com) organization that finds these treasonous-troll-turds and finances/trains them to lie and troll like that for blood money. I pity JD as the latest stooge-victim of said organization's propaganda drive against humanity's best interests, all in the name of crooked profits and power. Poor JD, he refuses to read/understand anything not given/told him by his paymasters to parrot all over the net forums like a demented bot-shill-spammer without a conscience. Not only does he just blather, he also craps all over the PO floors! The janitor is getting mad at JD! :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
@howhot3.[ I suppose it's the Trump-Putin (Capitalist-Communist-Crooks.com) organization that finds these treasonous-troll-turds and finances/trains them to lie and troll like that for blood money.


You two uninformed, ignorant duds are amusing because of the total lack of knowledge about anything that you demonstrate. I'd be very surprised if either of you duds was ever right about anything. Is this part of the Russia connection you two idiots are carrying on about?
PHOTOS: Bill Clinton Met with Vladimir Putin AT HIS HOME IN RUSSIA Before Uranium One Deal and After Being Bribed In 2010 former President Bill Clinton met with Vladimir Putin at the State residence Novo-Ogaryovo outside of Moscow. This was after his $500,000 speech and before the Uranium One deal was approved by the Hillary Clinton State Department a
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2017
PHOTOS: Bill Clinton Met with Vladimir Putin AT HIS HOME IN RUSSIA Before Uranium One Deal and After Being Bribed In 2010 former President Bill Clinton met with Vladimir Putin at the State residence Novo-Ogaryovo outside of Moscow. This was after his $500,000 speech and before the Uranium One deal was approved by the Hillary Clinton State Department and Obama administration officials.
http://www.thegat...-bribed/

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
Oh my Russian friend, you really are good at your astro-turf job. But isn't kind of boring just cutting and pasting schlock (crap, poo... etc), But lets have fun with it anyway. So you say; "Vladimir, AT HIS HOME IN RUSSIA", (I guess his summer vacation home in Crimea was being repaired :-). And after Vladamir was bribed before the Uranium deal. And the honorable Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton gave Vladamir $500,000 to speak. Is that what you mean? English is your second language aye?

Don't lie to me, you have no friends.
. Don't you want to be my friend? I'll buy you a beer.

You know what @RC, I really don''t know what a real astroturfer gets. 30 Pieces of silver seems fair if he works at it. Surely he's got a girl friend or likes to head to the pub. It has pay enough to make it worth his time. Since he keeps USA rightwing talking points, I gather he must somehow be directed to use specific fact sheets. Boaring.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2017
Hay @RC, google the following string
The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering.
in quotes. After about 3 pages of entries, google gives up and says would you like to "repeat the search with the omitted results included." meaning that quote goes on and on. They are all crackpot rightwing websites. That is a very expensive ASTROTURF!

@J_Dude, I didn't mean to leave you out of the conversation, do you have any insight from your point of view as to who pays for your services? Russia has a lot of oil and gas, but until that Crimea Ukraine invasion thing is solved, I don't see you getting much of the West's business.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2017
Oh my Russian friend, you really are good at your astro-turf job. But isn't kind of boring just cutting and pasting schlock (crap, poo... etc), But lets have fun with it anyway. So you say; "Vladimir, AT HIS HOME IN RUSSIA", (I guess his summer vacation home in Crimea was being repaired :-). And after Vladamir was bribed before the Uranium deal. And the honorable Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton gave Vladamir $500,000 to speak. Is that what you mean? English is your second language aye?



Do you have any idea at about the hell ever you are blabbering about? I sure don't; but, believe it is either bought on by being either stupid or drunk or it could be because of being stupid & drunk. Not a great way to come up with the truth and that is something you have never been acquainted with.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2017
. They are all crackpot rightwing websites. That is a very expensive ASTROTURF!



You only tried to present one link and that failed. I'd rather learn from right wing websites than to remain as ignorant as you are. Obviously, you get information from Now where, & it shows.
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2017
@howhot3
"Right wing" and "left wing." Truth and science has flown the coop and only politics is left behind. You could not have made it any clearer that AGW is a left wing invention.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
So AGW is "Leftwing?" Sorry goofy, but AGW is simply fact based science. Nothing more. It's the rightwing flakes and nuts like you @Dustydud that don't get it. Don't get math, don't get science, don't get facts, don't get reality. The problem with the rightwing (in a very general since) is that you all don't believe science, facts, reason or logical thought.

So why is AGW is "left wing invention"? Haha. Maybe my Russian astroturfer friend can astroturf how AGW is a "left wing invention" but it might be a waste of his time. Issues like oil and gas will die overtime as real science based technologies displace fossil fuel combustion. Energy technologies like Wind, solar, hydro, agro will obsolete oil, gas and coal with in 100 years. Only rouge nations will use them. Large scale battery tech and modern grid will dominate energy.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
I understand Crimea's vote to join russia consisted of two choices; [ ] Yes, Crimea is Russian or [] No, Crimea is not Ukrainian. What, Just kidding. I understand the whole Trump thing was plans for a Crimean golf course.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
AGW is simply fact based science. Nothing more.
As long as you are careful about which facts you use as your scientific basis and how well you feed your conclusions to a hungry media.

In high school when our class discussed taxes we facetiously suggested a tax on breathing, as everything else already seemed to be taxed. AGW is the foundation to denigrate CO2 which surprisingly (sarc) leads to a carbon tax. Now we have our tax on breathing; call it clean air, carbon, CO2, or whatever. AGW is only the underpinning for government and supporters to pick the pockets of the public.

dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
AGW is simply fact based science. Nothing more.
J Doug gave you all kinds of facts with supporting links to NASA and NOAA, but instead of discussing the science you chose to politicize the discussion and attack him on what you assume is his location.

Did you notice that at no point did J Doug deny that the climate is changing? He only questions, as do many of us, your linchpin arguments that CO2 is in any way the major cause of climate change.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
@Dustydud, said
In high school when our class discussed taxes we facetiously suggested a tax on breathing, as everything else already seemed to be taxed.
and then suggests that taxing CO2 is like taxing breathing. Its funny I will give you that Dusty; (if you haven't got it, all living mammals exhale CO2 as part of the breathing process. So do mushrooms by the way). Plants are the counter balance. They inhale CO2 a release O2. By your logic Dusty, if it's a money-thing then maybe we should tax that!

The point of the CO2 tax is to *punish* industries that dump raw CO2 into the atmosphere using the planet as a toilet. That is what is going on with that @DustyDud. Our engineering has gotten so good, we don't really need combustion engines anymore. We don't really need fossil fuels any more. The only reason we haven't changed is the all-mighty dollar needed to bring this technology to the everyday man.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
You know so much is said about AGW and it's evils to man kind. Basically all AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) means, is that fossil fuel combustion has added more CO2 into the planet's atmosphere than it would have without fossil fuels use. CO2 is earth's normally stabilizing greenhouse gas (it keeps us out of an ice ages). But if you add too much CO2, earth traps more and more heat, creating global warming. It's not from breathing.

Because fossil fuels are mined and extracted by humans. because of demand by humans, it is an Anthropogenic activity,,, A human created activity. The result of combustion is CO2 that has increased the planets heat retention, that is Global Warming. So AGW.

Now you know what AGW is. Man-made global warming created from the mankind's combustion of fossil fuels.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2017
I see @J_Dude has taken the weekend off. So I gather it's a typical 9-5 M-F job being an astroturfer. Do they give you vacation days so you can visit Crimea?

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
Did you notice that at no point did J Doug deny that the climate is changing? He only questions, as do many of us, your linchpin arguments that CO2 is in any way the major cause of climate change.


dustywells; It is with a certain degree of guilt that I hand the dud who answers to the name of howhot3 over to you to try to deal with. I hope you have as much fun as I did discovering just how insane these fervent members of the cult that actually believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is the bases of all life on earth and that this dud, howhot3, expels with every wasted breath and actually believes that at 400 ppm it can drive the earth's climate. If that is not an insane believe, I know of none more so. Good luck but do not try to give the dud facts because that is something as foreign to howhot3 as is its knowledge of Russia.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
@J Doug.

All you've succeeded in doing is to confirm that PUTIN has been trying to corrupt/influence BOTH 'sides' of the political divide in USA. Thanks for again confirming what I have been telling YOU for a long time: that politicians of all persuasions that are more interested in money/profit/power at the expense of society and humanity are everywhere, and can call themselves whatever they want in order to hoodwink the public. The most immediate proof of Putin's attempts at bribery/blackmail/hacking etc efforts is staring you in the face but you deny it and try to distract attention away from this by your latest 'Johnny-come-lately shill-spamming about climate change and politics; as if we didn't already know long since the truth about both. You call people who follow the facts 'believers' while you 'believe' in the propaganda spiels fed you by your paymasters. Poor Judas. Read, JD:
http://www.abc.ne.../9053406
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
Now you know what AGW is. Man-made global warming created from the mankind's combustion of fossil fuels.
Did you know that the majority of fossil fuels are also known as hydrocarbons? Did you know that when you burn hydrocarbons they emit CO2 and H2O? Did you know that this H2O finds its way into the oceans and contributes to sea-level rise even without the need of melting ice?

See, you AGW alarmists are missing an entire facet of demonizing and scaremongering by ignoring the release of H2O from FF. If enough H2O is released we could see ocean-front property just outside Denver, CO.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2017
@dustywells.
J Doug gave you all kinds of facts with supporting links to NASA and NOAA, ...
No, all he's been doing is shilling and spamming disjoint facts which have already been covered in discussion long since (as I proved via the link I gave him but which he refuses to actually take into account while he spams and denies away like a paid stooge.
Did you notice that at no point did J Doug deny that the climate is changing? He only questions, as do many of us, your linchpin arguments that CO2 is in any way the major cause of climate change.
Even there he is "Johnny-come-lately with the propaganda points long since proven just that, propaganda, and late at that. I even pointed out that scientists who used to be AGW skeptics have since changed their tune when all the facts were eventually considered. Even @Shootist, who used to quote Freeman Dyson, finally realized that Dyson actually acknowledged Climate Change was BAD/due to CO2/man's activities.

Rethinkit. :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
@J Doug

dustywells; It is with a certain degree of guilt that I hand the dud who answers to the name of howhot3 over to you to try to deal with.
Don't feel bad. I enjoyed reading and learning from your posts in this and other threads.

It is discouraging to have been on this site for well over five years and have yet to see evidence that even one of the participants on either side of the argument has changed position.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
PS @dustywells.
Did you know that the majority of fossil fuels are also known as hydrocarbons? Did you know that when you burn hydrocarbons they emit CO2 and H2O? Did you know that this H2O finds its way into the oceans and contributes to sea-level rise even without the need of melting ice?
Now you're just being silly as well as incorrect. Coal burning is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2 increase. How much H2O does coal burning release, dusty? See? Even when you're being sarcastic you can't get things straight. The fact you feel it's OK to treat the serious matter of global climate change as a subject for cheap jokes tells that your intellect has been perverted to the demands of your ego/politics or whatever is driving your un-reasoned trolling trying to defend the indefensible trolls lying for money from troll factories/lobbyists. Bad. Real bad, @dustywells. Rethinkit, mate. :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
The point of the CO2 tax is to *punish* industries that dump raw CO2 into the atmosphere using the planet as a toilet. That is what is going on with that @DustyDud.
You have said some stupid things before, but this betrays your ignorance as well as stupidity.

How does this tax punish an industry? They simply add the tax to the cost of doing business. In simple terms, they charge more for their product. If they can no longer sell their product, they close down and move overseas where regulations are lax and labor is cheap. Now you have to import their product and pay more for duties and transportation. In any case, you are driving up the prices. So one way or another, it is not the industry that is punished, but the consumer; with the collateral damage of forcing jobs overseas as well.

As long as we need the widgets, those widgets will get made and sold. The only questions are where they are made, who benefits and who loses in the end.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
J Doug gave you all kinds of facts with supporting links to NASA and NOAA, ...
No, all he's been doing is shilling and spamming disjoint facts which have already been covered in discussion long since
In return you decided to perpetrate personal attacks and to politicize the discussion. There is little new in the AGW dispute, only new people to continue arguing the topic. Just because something was discussed years ago, does not give us the right to brush off and refuse to be civil to new participants.

Similar to your remark 'already been covered long ago' are the articles that every few months claim to prove what has already been proven - only the names of the researchers (usually) and the names of the institutions are changed. In those instances the AGW supporters come out in droves repeating their supporting links and mutual admiration. Any one not in the cabal is told 'it's settled' and 'it's already been covered.'
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
all he's been doing is shilling
Why should that be an issue? Most of the AGW supporters are doing that; and they are doing it with several sock-puppets and bots.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
You [@dustywells responding to @howhot3] have said some stupid things before, but this betrays your ignorance as well as stupidity. How does this tax punish an industry? They simply add the tax to the cost of doing business. In simple terms, they charge more for their product. If they can no longer sell their product, they close down and move overseas where regulations are lax and labor is cheap.
Before calling others stupid, @dusty, it is prudent to make sure you are not the one being stupid. Your simplistic/ill informed 'analysis' omits many important economic/social considerations/imperatives which make a Carbon Tax the perfect 'Market Mechanism' for changing the behaviour/re-targeting of INVESTMENT CAPITAL. By imposing the ACTUAL COSTS of coal burning to include health/environmental DAMGE (which costs society/economy a LOT), means that ALTERNATIVES are that much cheaper/safer etc by comparison. That is the point you MISS (or is it deny?), mate. :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Now you're just being silly as well as incorrect. Coal burning is the major contributor to atmospheric CO2 increase. How much H2O does coal burning release, dusty?
I'm being silly? I talk about hydrocarbons (see the 's' at the end makes it plural, meaning more than one) and you pick the one that has a low hydrogen content. That is what is meant by cherry-picking your data. This cherry-picking is what makes the belief in AGW plausible. Without cherry-picking the data the argument for AGW falls apart.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
I'm being silly? I talk about hydrocarbons (see the 's' at the end makes it plural, meaning more than one) and you pick the one that has a low hydrogen content. That is what is meant by cherry-picking your data. This cherry-picking is what makes the belief in AGW plausible. Without cherry-picking the data the argument for AGW falls apart.
No one in their right mind has suggested stopping *all* fossil fuel burning, mate.

And Coal has '*picked* ITSEL by virtue of being, as I said, the main contributor to atmospheric CO2, causing the unsettling of previous established 'norms' in ocean/atmos climatic patterns/currents etc.

Just by attenuating that major contributor via replacement with wind/solar/battery etc alternative sources we can solve that problem.

As for fossil fuels like oil/gas for transportation, the case for switching/minimizing those is just plain air particulate/chemical pollution adversely affecting cities especially. Separate issue. Ok? :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Before calling others stupid, @dusty, it is prudent to make sure you are not the one being stupid. Your simplistic/ill informed 'analysis' omits many important economic/social considerations/imperatives
A prerequisite to having 'important economic/social considerations/imperatives' is to have a society. A prerequisite to society is an economy. By destroying the economy, you are destroying society.

I find it amusing that my simplified summary of the impact of a Carbon tax on the economy is 'simplistic/ill informed' while the climate models that are intended to predict the future with incomplete data and assumptions are taken as comprehensive and reliable.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
all he's been doing is shilling
Why should that be an issue? Most of the AGW supporters are doing that; and they are doing it with several sock-puppets and bots.
Presenting the scientifc facts/logics is not "shiilling", but INFORMING. Whereas the trolling for money paid by troll factories/lobbyists in order to confuse the discussion with propaganda which is wrong and political/mercenary to boot, is NOT 'informing' re the actual facts, but LYING. That you don't seem to know the difference between the two acticvities says a LOT about your own motives/politics/mercenary/ego activities here.

And the only reason I respond in kind to @J Doug is because he is insulting my and others' intelligence while he persists in LYING and shilling-spamming for money for CROOKS acting against the best interests of science/humanity. So, mate, being a true objective scientist and honest, concerned human being is NOT the same as being a "doormat" for LIARS. Capice? :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
Before calling others stupid, @dusty, it is prudent to make sure you are not the one being stupid. Your simplistic/ill informed 'analysis' omits many important economic/social considerations/imperatives
A prerequisite to having 'important economic/social considerations/imperatives' is to have a society. A prerequisite to society is an economy. By destroying the economy, you are destroying society.

I find it amusing that my simplified summary of the impact of a Carbon tax on the economy is 'simplistic/ill informed' while the climate models that are intended to predict the future with incomplete data and assumptions are taken as comprehensive and reliable.
You have that backwards, mate. An economy is supposed to work for society, not the other way round. Without society, stability, laws, fair governance, protections etc, there IS NO economy worth the name; except those based on 'law of the jungle' and 'dog-eat-dog' mentality/anarchy. Rethinkit. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
The most immediate proof of Putin's attempts at bribery/blackmail/hacking etc efforts is staring you in the face but you deny it and try to distract attention away from this by your latest 'Johnny-come-lately shill-spamming about climate change and politics; as if we didn't already know long since the truth about both.


Trump never was caught by an open mike telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to convey a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin that: "On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space," Putin saw that this was solved to his liking because the Obama/HRC & Kerry team scrapped the missile defense system that NATO & the US had wanted to put into place.
[FLASHBACK] Hot mic catches Obama telling Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after election
https://www.youtu...l1AWaWdo

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
causing the unsettling of previous established 'norms' in ocean/atmos climatic patterns/currents etc.
How are these 'norms' established? We are dealing with incomplete data, with semi-reliable records spanning at most one-hundred-fifty years and inferred/assumed/massaged data spanning hundreds, thousands or millions of years.

Considering the lengths of the periods of glaciation over the last three million years, our 'norm' might be considerably colder than now.

But considering the lack of glaciation over fifty million years prior, our 'norm' might be considerably warmer.

Who are we to establish a 'norm' with only our limited experience and knowledge?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
PS @dustywells.

Moreover, the JOBS and ECONOMY based on safer, cheaper, more sustainable sources and future employment is BETTER with wind/solar etc than the land/health/air damaging limited fossil mining/transport/burning industries. You apparently have just believed/parroted the propaganda points without having regard to the fact you are promoting old/bad OBSOLESCENT industries while demonizing good future industries. You have a lot to learn before you can call @howhot or anyone else 'stupid', mate. Learn now. Stop trolling and trying to defend the indefensible for people who only using you as paid/willing stooges for their anti-social profiteering/political machinations. Do better with your life and intellect, mate; for your family's and humanity's sake if not for yourself. Good luck. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
It would take a mindless far left liberal without being able to use logic to understand just why & how Putin's Russia would want to trade in a known person who they have been able to use for the last number of years, whether it be to get uranium deposits in the U.S. or any number of concessions, to their total advantage. It was about like having a Russian in the White House in addition to all of the Muslims who were there. To make people believe that now they want to go with an unknown, unpredictable person like Donald Trump instead of a malleable, corrupt person like Hillary Clinton is ludicrous, but that is the way the far left, liberal mind works.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
You have that backwards, mate. An economy is supposed to work for society, not the other way round. Without society, stability, laws, fair governance, protections etc, there IS NO economy worth the name; except those based on 'law of the jungle' and 'dog-eat-dog' mentality/anarchy. Rethinkit. :)
Without an economy how do you arrive at 'stability, laws, fair governance, protections etc?' You obviously subscribe to the mindset that society does not need an economy to survive. Isn't that what they tried in the USSR last century?
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Since it is obvious that RC, who never got beyond grade school, is not what one would call a member of the bourgeoisie. It is always the ones who can't ever make it one their own who want socialism/communism to take over, just like what happened ion the USSR

"And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."
https://www.marxi...ch01.htm
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2017
you are promoting old/bad OBSOLESCENT industries while demonizing good future industries.
I am doing neither of these things. I am pointing out that the lib/left has an unsupportable idea of how an economy behaves. Meanwhile you are telling me that an economy is created by society. You are absolutely wrong in that you have it backwards. Society is created and supported by economy.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Moreover, the JOBS and ECONOMY based on safer, cheaper, more sustainable sources and future employment is BETTER with wind/solar


"California recently adopted the most stringent of these so-called renewable portfolio standards (RPS), requiring 33 percent of its electricity to be renewable by 2020."

"That said, we have compared the costs of electricity in RPS and non-RPS states, using price information from the EIA. Our analysis has revealed a pattern of mostly higher costs in states with RPS mandates:
1. In 2010, the average price of residential electricity in RPS states was 31.9 percent higher than it was in non-RPS states. Commercial electricity rates were 27.4 percent higher, and industrial rates were 30.7 percent higher.
2. In the ten-year period between 2001 and 2010—the period during which most of the states enacted their RPS mandates—residential and commercial electricity prices in RPS states increased at faster rates than those in non-RPS states.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@J Doug.

First learn history; then politics; then situation re SUPERPOWERS in the modern age.

Consider: When the Berlin Wall came down, and the cold war abated, the nuclear powers realized they had to prevent was because Nuclear War would finish everyone, and all would lose. Hence the various agreements to reduce nuclear warheads etc; and cooperation in world affairs/economy matters/stability; and even in Science, Space STATION joint efforts.

But since Putin got entrenched in power he's pursued expansionist program which started old enmities/machinations all over again. As part of his strategy he has tried blackmailing Europe threatening to withhold gas supplies etc; and has invaded and brutalized many nations, even assisting Iran and North Korea clandestinely with nuclear tech and firepower in Syria. He recently tried to bribe the Trump campaign by promises of 'business opportunities' for Trump Family interests and his interests.

JD, you are stooging for TRAITORS. Sad.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
3. Of the ten states with the highest electricity prices, eight have RPS mandates.
4. Of the ten states with the lowest electricity prices, only two have RPS mandates.
5. Sixteen of the 18 states with residential rates that are higher than the 2010 U.S. average residential rate are RPS states.
6. Nineteen of the 21 non-RPS states have residential rates that are below the U.S. average."
http://www.manhat...r_10.htm
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@J Doug.
Since it is obvious that RC, who never got beyond grade school, ....
Not only are you a shill-spammer, but a silly one at that, if you are trying to convince yourself that others have not already figured out who the ignorant unscrupulous troll here is, JD. You refuse to read and understand what I have been pointing out that makes your shill-spam propaganda not only wrong but also evilly motivated; yet you pretend I am the one not educated far beyond what you will ever reach if your demonstrably mercenary/selfish mentality is any guide. Lose that mentality/troll job and regain your humanity and intellectual self respect, JD. Stop fooling yourself. You are not fooling anyone else here, that's for sure. Get an honest job which doesn't involve being stupid and lying for a living, hey? Otherwise your thirty pieces of silver will do for you in the end. You know I'm right, mate. Go on, rethinkit and do the right thing for a change. You can do it if you try, JD. :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Consider: When the Berlin Wall came down, and the cold war abated, ...
... the AGW boogeyman was raised to prominence.

Coincidence?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
you are promoting old/bad OBSOLESCENT industries while demonizing good future industries.
I am doing neither of these things. I am pointing out that the lib/left has an unsupportable idea of how an economy behaves. Meanwhile you are telling me that an economy is created by society. You are absolutely wrong in that you have it backwards. Society is created and supported by economy.

Have you ever tried to establish an economy worth the name in a war zone where no security or assurances of any kind obtain? Mate, you are talking like an armchair political novice who is letting his ego/politics rule his intellect and integrity. Rethink your present trolling in defense of the patently indefensible. No amount of selective sophistry can make valid/reasonable your assertion that a NATIONAL economy worthy of the name and capable of sustaining A WHOLE NATION above the poverty/subsistence line is possible if a SOCIAL COMPACT is not in force via SOCIAL LAWS.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
Consider: When the Berlin Wall came down, and the cold war abated, ...
... the AGW boogeyman was raised to prominence.

Coincidence?
Wrong again, mate. Don't you know any history of the relevant issue/science either? The CO2 connection withy warmer atmospheric feedback etc was recognized long before it became a political football used by vested political/religious/business interests in order to delay or sabotage efforts which might have impacted on their profiteering/religioneering/political power bases. The science was always there; only your 'paymasters' raised it as a political issue instead of the sensible/objective science/humanity action issue which it was before the GOP and their donors got their wallets out and funded all sorts of misinformation campaigns (just like BIG TOBACCO did for their profiteering interests, remember?). Now, mate, wake up and stop being a dupe for those crooked politicians and their cronies/donors. Rethinkit! :)
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Not only are you a shill-spammer, but a silly one at that, if you are trying to convince yourself that others have not already figured out who the ignorant unscrupulous troll here is,
For someone who likes to quote science, you sure like to spout opinions based on foundationless assumptions.

One could say exactly the same about you, calling you a troll, a shill, a spammer, etc. But I prefer to argue over issues, not your heritage or personal habits/traits.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
He recently tried to bribe the Trump campaign by promises of 'business opportunities' for Trump Family interests and his interests.


You show how easily confused you are and how little you know. It is the Clinton's that he did bribe and he got uranium in exchange for the money that he paid them.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
For someone who likes to quote science, you sure like to spout opinions based on foundationless assumptions.

One could say exactly the same about you, calling you a troll, a shill, a spammer, etc. But I prefer to argue over issues, not your heritage or personal habits/traits.
I tried informing JD; even gave him a link or two showing where he was johnny-come-lately spamming stuff which was long covered/refuted before he ever came in and started parroting discredited propaganda. Then he insulted the intelligence/science further by refusing to consider the facts explained to him that he was missing. Faced with such obvious and implacable trolling from an obviously paid shill-spammer who just insults instead of acknowledging counterfacts/arguments objectively, then what other course was open to me but to identify him for what he self-demonstrably was, and to defend against his insults by responding in kind. You trying to defend JD tells a lot about you, dw.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
"Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America's secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries' ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates."
http://business.f...-failure

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@J Doug.
"Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America's secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries' ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates."
http://business.f...-failure

And there is the mentality you hold. Selfish and heedless of the damage in long term; and willing to let everyone else carry the burden. Sad.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
It is interesting to look at the numbers of folks employed in energy production. "In 2016, 1.9 million Americans were employed in electric power generation, mining and other fuel extraction activities…."
"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."

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
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. 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.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
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.
Then we have wind to consider. "There are an additional 102,000 workers employed at wind firms across the nation. The solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while wind employment increased by 32%." This seems, when compared to coal and natural gas, to be an extremely labor-intensive way to obtain electricity; but, for the government, that obviously is no problem.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
"Although wind makes up about 8% of total U.S. electricity generating capacity, wind generators provided a smaller share (5%) of total U.S. electricity generation in 2016 because wind turbines have relatively low capacity factors. Capacity factors, which measure actual output over a certain period as a percent of the total mechanical ability of the turbine to generate given sufficient wind, average between about 25% and 40% for wind generators and vary based on seasonal patterns and geographic location."
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
And there is the mentality you hold. Selfish and heedless of the damage in long term; and willing to let everyone else carry the burden. Sad.

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

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
Have you ever tried to establish an economy worth the name in a war zone where no security or assurances of any kind obtain?
A war zone is a special case that has its own form of economy.

Your perspective of economy is of the modern view based on mega-corporations, government, laws, taxes and consumers. Your view is that penalties can be imposed to force compliance; that entire industries can be wiped out without negative consequence.

My perspective holds the fundamentals of trade and consumption. In order for people to congregate, there must be a form of trade. This trade may take the form of security, food, shelter, sex. By trading one for one or more of the others societies are created. Societies make laws. Societies enforce laws. But that society will survive only as long as its members can trade. This trade is the initial making of the economy. That is why I say that a prerequisite to society is an economy and that a continued economy is needed to support a society.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017

RealityCheck, John Kerry, Barrack Hussein Obama, John Holdren & all who think as they do using the same elitist contempt for humanity need to get some facts before launching pointless comments like the one that RealityCheck just posted.


There has been marked progress on reducing poverty over the past decades. The world attained the first Millennium Development Goal target—to cut the 1990 poverty rate in half by 2015—five years ahead of schedule, in 2010. Despite the progress made in reducing poverty, the number of people living in extreme poverty globally remains unacceptably high. And given global growth forecasts poverty reduction may not be fast enough to reach the target of ending extreme poverty by 2030.
http://www.worldb...overview

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.

Did you just see that from JD, mate? It is making my earlier case for me; re more and better jobs and less cost/damage to environment and health etc in renewables industry compared to coal/fossil industry.

Poor JD just hasn't the wherewithal to actually understand the fuller implications of what he is spamming above. He just unwittingly pointed out the facts that more jobs and less damage and cheaper power would come from renewables! He doesn't grasp the subtle implication of having more jobs for the same power while cheaper and safer jobs/environment result that also contributes to overall benefits from renewables which fossils can never match. Yet he just keeps spamming mindlessly and not even realizing that he is making my earlier case for me. See why you shouldn't just 'go along' with JD just because he is saying the things you want to hear, dw? His education is demonstrably not up to the task of enabling critical thinking or connecting the dots. Rethink.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
By trading one for one or more of the others societies are created. Societies make laws. Societies enforce laws. But that society will survive only as long as its members can trade.
What you say is well and good as far as it goes; but that's a very idealistic/artificial theory, not reality on the ground, mate. :)

The war on drugs was an attempt to do just that which you just decried. Yes? The severe controls over asbestos/alcohol is also a social imperative despite 'free trade' ethos. Yes? And Patent Laws were enacted to allow some measure of encouragement/protection for Innovation. Yes? Etc.

See? The whole construct is complex when it becomes a national society/economy status. Naturally villages and towns can 'get by' through BARTERING etc locally; but national/international trade and treaties etc require a social/legal compact which is just more than trade enabling. It enables SOCIETY across the nation(s); and Economies at various levels/extents. Ok? :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
that's a very idealistic/artificial theory, not reality on the ground, mate.
No, RC, the expectation of a reward is the only reason any of us do anything. It may only be a warm, fuzzy feeling of thinking we are 'doing the right thing' or it may be an expectation of 'going to heaven' or it may be a financial reward or the expectation of a 'gift' or 'power' over others. But a reward is a reward regardless of its form.

This may in your mind be idealistic or artificial, but without this type of trade nothing will happen. This expectation of reward gives rise to motivation and accomplishment; it permeates society to the point that it is a 'given' and we even forget that it is necessary for society to exist.

Your concept of economy is only a super-set of my description. Industry, corporations, small businesses, individuals; all operate on this same, simple principle. Withhold the reward as punishment and you diminish the economy.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
There has been marked progress on reducing poverty over the past decades.
That depends on how poverty is defined and on the locality's definition of wealth.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
..the expectation of a reward is the only reason any of us do anything. It may only be a warm, fuzzy feeling of thinking we are 'doing the right thing' or it may be an expectation of 'going to heaven' or it may be a financial reward or the expectation of a 'gift' or 'power' over others. But a reward is a reward regardless of its form.
Again, that is idealistic/artificial 'aspiration', not reality on the ground, mate. Otherwise we would have no need for rewards/punishments from laws/social reaction to one's good/bad behaviour. Consider why 'unfettered' Communism/Capitalism is unsustainable and contrary to society/economy interests. Recall when such 'unfetterred' regimes/obtained in the past/present? The pollution poisoned the water, air and land for profit; and society was left to pay the costs after the profiteering communist/capitalist crooks 'left town'.

Reality is nowhere near the idealistic aspirational 'theory' you seem to be working from, mate. :)
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
we would have no need for rewards/punishments from laws/social reaction to one's good/bad behaviour.
The purpose of punishment is to exercise power and to force others into a 'norm.' Who decides what is good/bad behavior? Consider the restrictions Islam places on women and the severe punishments placed on violations. Is this a 'norm' to be emulated?

A 'norm' depends on the place and the time at which it is established. As it is with economy and society, it is with climate. Who decides on the 'norm' and who benefits and who is punished by the setting of this 'norm?'
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@dustywells.
The purpose of punishment is to exercise power and to force others into a 'norm.' Who decides what is good/bad behavior? Consider the restrictions Islam places on women and the severe punishments placed on violations. Is this a 'norm' to be emulated?

A 'norm' depends on the place and the time at which it is established. As it is with economy and society, it is with climate. Who decides on the 'norm' and who benefits and who is punished by the setting of this 'norm?'
The specific context of our exchanges was ECONOMY and SOCIETY; not General/Religious/Moral Philosophies/Political Regimes. The fact you now 'need' to expand context beyond original specific context, only confirms that you are 'working' from idealistic/artificial 'aspirational' theory rather than from specific reality-based observations re society and economy inter-relationship as I observed to you already based on the reality on the ground.

Please stick to our original context/subject. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017

He just unwittingly pointed out the facts that more jobs and less damage and cheaper power would come from renewables!


How so, RealityCheck?

This is what the war on coal has done for the nation and its people.
Average Price of Electricity Climbs to All-Time Record
July 29, 2014 - 2:20 PM
"(CNSNews.com) - For the first time ever, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity in the United States has broken through the 14-cent mark, climbing to a record 14.3 cents in June, according to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
http://cnsnews.co...record 

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2017
"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
howhot3
not rated yet Oct 29, 2017
Holy crap! Something big must be happening in the Russian vote hack and voter meddling thats got the Trump supporters scared. The Mueller investigation must have spooked the deplorable herd. I'm sorry @RealityCheck that you had to take this crap alone. Now we have two trolls. Dusty the deplorable and J_Dud the Russian friend that once took a train from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Probably to see his sweet heart. Ok. I understand, you need to get that quota in.

@J_D if you knew who Sen. Phil Gramm is, he's an idiot deplorable just like you fool. Of course he would say that. Big freaking deal. The Amerikrainian people understand how you like rightwing propaganda. Actually wind is supplying 5.55% of the USA electricity. That's a pretty good sized chunk considering the tech is less than 10 years old. Proving that Gramm doesn't know what he is talking about.

Why do most conservatives fail geometry? Because they don't have any points.
howhot3
not rated yet Oct 29, 2017
It's funny @J_Dud says there is a "War on coal" and there should be with good reason. But what about the "War on Ukraine"? Just when they want to join the EU (and with good reason given all of the benefits of EU membership, perhaps even join NATO. What about that?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2017
@dustybrained idiot
Don't feel bad. I enjoyed reading and learning from your posts in this and other threads
proof that you don't accept validated science over your beliefs - just like j-douche
It is discouraging to have been on this site for well over five years and have yet to see evidence that even one of the participants on either side of the argument has changed position
wrong

i changed

funny thing - when you follow the evidence you end up realising that science is real, the climate is warming and idiots like jdouche, you, the eu cult and others are simply here to promote your delusion in an attempt to not seem so pathetic while gathering the idiots and gullible to your cause

it's not working for yall, either

science always wins
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
science always wins


Some one must have really shaken the tree whose fruit bears idiots because look at what fell out of it, the dumb ass himself, old Captain Stumpy, who has never had an original thought in his whole miserable life & he proves it here again.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
In order to keep this on the topic before this stupid fuck who calls himself Captain Stumpy made a non-informative comment.
Conclusion
Coal is not going away in France and Germany as both countries need it to keep the lights on when nuclear units in France are down for inspection and as Germany's energy transition brings in intermittent renewable energy to replace its retiring nuclear units. Coal, particularly lignite coal, is indigenous to Germany and supplies the majority of its power despite the dramatic growth in Germany's wind and solar power industry.
http://institutef...rn-coal/
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2017
Coal is not going away in France and Germany as both countries need it to keep the lights on...

J_Doug, Please put quotes around something your plagiarizing.

I guess that link was in you book of talking points. A pretty lame one I might add. France and Germany both will quit using coal soon they can. I don't need to provide a link for that common piece of common sense. The USA will too when a real democratic government is in control and running things in a normal well reasoned way. It won't take long for this current administration tp implode under pressure from real Americans objecting to the irrational actions taken by the current presidency.

howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2017
@Captain_Stumpy' Good to see you in the debate. Let me bring you up to speed. We have established that J_D is a professional Astroturfer based somewhere near Moscow, with a book of talking points used to "over factuallize" or overwhelm a subject. Most everything J_D sites is just at the top of a google search; example in the previous post. These astroturfers have 9-5 hours and gets weekends off. (I'm sure they are up to there eyeballs by the time the weekend rolls around).

They do seem to have connections to the republican spin machine, because J_D broke the Clinton "Uranium" story 2-3 days before it ever hit the press. See the whole thread a week back.
J_D could be two people now just based on the jumpy posting style.

So that's what we have. Dusty seems like a coal troll as well, but an American republican kind. He probably does it for loyalty to his party, and industry of employment. A total brainwash. I wonder what he will say to this post?

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
@howhot
Dusty seems like a coal troll as well, but an American republican kind. He probably does it for loyalty to his party, and industry of employment. A total brainwash. I wonder what he will say to this post?
I can say nothing that will change your conviction that you are right. Just like I can say nothing that will erode your conviction that human released CO2 is causing global warming.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2017
So did anyone hear about CO2 being he highest concentration in 800,000 years? It's like 403.38 ppm ( http://co2now.org ). The northern hemisphere is close to the winter season. It will be interesting to see what the additional trapped heat does to the atmosphere's seasonal weather patterns.

It's terrible that the deniers will try to reason there way out the increasing CO2, except CO2 once released into the atmosphere from combustion will remain in the atmosphere for nearly 1500 years give or take a few 100. That means once the planet is heated up from global warming, it will not go back in anyone's lifetime. Not in 10 generations of lifetimes.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
@J Doug
Some one must have really shaken the tree whose fruit bears idiots because look at what fell out of it, the dumb ass himself, old Captain Stumpy, who has never had an original thought in his whole miserable life & he proves it here again.
You know, JD, it seems that whenever the minions like howhot, RealityCheck and others get in too deep, the old Stumper shows up with his verbal diarrhea and links to AGW blogs so he can change the topic.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2017
@Dust, you shouldn't talk to @J_Douche since he's probably a russian astroturfer. Unless you hired them, then by all means conduct you business. I guess your out in force since Fox news isn't saying much about P Manaford giving up the cookies on Trump (the treasonous SOB).

Please excuse my cynicism, but an old cow poke like you deserves to have reality kick you in the ass. Didn't Huston drown in the worst rain event ever in it's history from weather effected by global warming? How many billions did that cost? Don't you get it? You can expect that and worst for the next 1500 years if fossil fuel combustion is not stopped globally. Every little PPM adds up.



dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
@howhot3
So did anyone hear about CO2 being he highest concentration in 800,000 years? It's like 403.38 ppm ( http://co2now.org ). The northern hemisphere is close to the winter season. It will be interesting to see what the additional trapped heat does to the atmosphere's seasonal weather patterns.
Careful there, you'll anger Stumpy by looking for something to happen in the next six months. Don't you know that we aren't allowed any longer to have weather and climate answers that are less than seventy-five years in the future?
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
Huston drown in the worst rain event ever in it's history from weather effected by global warming?
No. Houston was flooded because their politicians decided that salt water marshes had no purpose and bulldozed them. Nothing to do with CO2.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
Please excuse my cynicism, but an old cow poke like you deserves to have reality kick you in the ass.
Reality is in Australia. Will likely be on shortly.

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2017
@RealityCheck
The specific context of our exchanges was ECONOMY and SOCIETY; not General/Religious/Moral Philosophies/Political Regimes.
Please stick to our original context/subject. :)
Actually, the topic was CO2 levels and climate change until it was politicized. Your comments changed it to an attack on industry and economy.

BTW, one cannot talk about AGW without talking about General/Religious/Moral Philosophies/Political Regimes since AGW has all the earmarks of a religion that impacts all of the above. That would be like talking about climate change and dismissing water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2017
Let me bring you up to speed
@Howhot
no need - jdouche is just the latest manifestation of jdswallows ( https://sciencex....w/?v=act ) who was banhammered for lying
Most everything J_D sites is just at the top of a google search
true - the anti-science idiots like to spread their sh*t, so it's going to have a lot of hits
hits aren't the same thing as science, nor is it validation of their beliefs - but that will not stop said idiot from posting it

you will never get the jdouche to understand any of the science - it's been tried
if there ever was a paid shill here to piss on factual science, it's jdouche

dustybrained idiot is simply a wanna be

notice that not a single one has ever produced a study to refute any other study that i or anyone else has provided?

blogs? yup
beliefs? yup
actual science? nope
proof: https://phys.org/...res.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
It is no surprise that this dipped in dung idiot by the name of by the name of Captain Stupid has no idea what the arcticle was about.
Carbon dioxide levels lower than thought during super greenhouse period
October 12, 2017
https://phys.org/...html#jCp

The fool babbles on about who knows what:
"notice that not a single one has ever produced a study to refute any other study that i or anyone else has provided?"
What study have you ever produced?
Where is the experiment that shows that CO₂ has anything to do with the climate? There is none you sorry dud. Then the fool offers up some crap that has no bases in fact about
Human-caused warming likely led to recent streak of record-breaking temperatures: study
https://phys.org/...res.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017

This is a record that still holds after 104 years & isn't it the same WMO that said that this is the warmest time in earth's history, or some other such nonsense?
It is interesting for me, but probably not for Captain Stupid , to note that while "the fewest number of 100 degree days in a year is 48, which occurred in 1913" that is also the year that the all-time high temp for the planet was recorded in Death Valley, CA.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
"On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA."
http://journals.a...f=R&
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
I would certainly hope that Captain Stupid is able to notice the year that these records were set.
In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121⁰F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60⁰ F.
http://www.ncdc.n.../records
"Winter of 1886-87 stands as coldest January 31, 2009 6:00 pm 
Bismarck's snowiest winter occurred 11 years ago, but the city's coldest winter goes back farther - to the days when Dakota was a territory.
Half of Bismarck's 10 coldest winters were prior to 1900, and none was colder than the winter of 1886-87. From December to February, the average temperature was 0.4 degrees below zero - Bismarck's only winter with a below-zero average temperature."
http://bismarcktr...dc9.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
I know that unless Captain Stupid's "facts" come from Wikipedia or Skeptical Science, he pays no attention to actual FACTS.
One of the regions that has contributed to GISS' "hottest ever year" is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina. In reality, much of this is fabricated, as they have no stations anywhere near much of this area, as NOAA show below."
http://data.giss....mp;ds=14
http://data.giss....amp;ds=1
https://notalotof...america/

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
Or this for Hansen's, and I assume Captain Stupid's approach to science; alter it to make it show what you want.
"Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record." 
https://stevengod...practor/

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2017
@jdouche
i noticed that you attempted a Proof by verbosity* once you were outed as being a sock puppet of the idiot jdswallows
* (AKA-gish-gallop: https://web.njit.edu/ )

you've provided red herrings, distraction, and argument from ignorance above

worse still, you're flooding with your interpretation of evidence because you don't understand the science
I know that unless Captain Stupid's "facts" come from Wikipedia or Skeptical Science, he pays no attention to actual FACTS
then why haven't you been able to debate the facts within the studies located in the following link with equivalent evidence? https://phys.org/...res.html

it was a simple argument

you failed (again)

you have yet to be able to address the points being made by science

you have yet to establish a scientific refute
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
Please note: As soon as these questions were posted, and RealityCheck did not answer, Captain Stumpy appeared with his flood of insults, distractions, red herrings and incantations of "science" and requests for proof.
The purpose of punishment is to exercise power and to force others into a 'norm.' Who decides what is good/bad behavior? Consider the restrictions Islam places on women and the severe punishments placed on violations. Is this a 'norm' to be emulated?

A 'norm' depends on the place and the time at which it is established. As it is with economy and society, it is with climate. Who decides on the 'norm' and who benefits and who is punished by the setting of this 'norm?'
Now that the question has been asked for the umpteenth time, how about a reasonable answer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2017
how about a reasonable answer
@dustybrained idiot
how can anyone produce a reasonable answer when you cannot accept reason, fact or logic?

this means, by definition, that any answer that doesn't fit your personal delusion is "unreasonable" and therefore wrong

this is part of my point above to jdouche, and it's been my point to you for a long time
there is only one way to determine if something is factual or not: science

when you dismiss science for your political beliefs, then there is no possible way anyone can be "reasonable" to you unless it fits your own political beliefs

case in point: AGW
you don't believe despite the overwhelming scientific evidence

that isn't reasonable - that is delusional

however, it doesn't stop you from continuing to argue against it with politics rather than factual evidence based science

see above for demonstrations of that one

that makes you the one who is insulting
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2017
@Captain Stumpy says;
case in point: AGW
you don't believe despite the overwhelming scientific evidence

that isn't reasonable - that is delusional


I think that is pretty fitting of anyone that rejects the concept of CO2-global warming linkage. Delusional! It's like they have closed their eyes and refuse to open them for fear of destroying their dreams. They also have a sense of arrogance in that they seem to think they know more than others; but upon proving them wrong the repleat some other non-sense. Delusional.

But as we learned to day in the Senate hearing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, whole armies of internet trolls used social media like this to start fights and stir up and divide groups. J_Douche is an expert at it (but I doubt that he's a single individual). If he is from the Internet Research Group like the ones that hammered Facebook, then he's even more nefarious than delusional Dusty.


dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
@Captain Stumpy
Yes, I am the idiot who keeps asking foolish questions and you are the wise priest of the AGW cult whose wisdom lies in the ability to avoid answering the questions.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Mark Twain

Is the fear of removing that doubt why only answer questions with insults and put-downs?

Who decides on the 'climate norm,' who benefits and who is punished by the setting of this 'norm?'
No answer.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
you have yet to establish a scientific refute


It is characteristic of this total, uneducated dunce, Captain Stupid, who camafloges himself from being a dung covered hemmoroid by predtnding to be human.
Captain Stupid offers up such irrelevant trash as  (AKA-gish-gallop: https://web.njit.edu/ ) & mentions again his only source that has a slanted and mistaken scientific bases, https://phys.org/...res.html.

Captain Stupid has no way of knowing that CO₂ is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO₂ and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life, plants and animals alike, benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO₂ is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide because the ignorant dunce never looks anything up.

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
I think that is pretty fitting of anyone that rejects the concept of CO2-global warming linkage. Delusional! It's like they have closed their eyes and refuse to open them for fear of destroying their dreams. They also have a sense of arrogance in that they seem to think they know more than others; but upon proving them wrong the repleat some other non-sense. Delusional.
Obviously you haven't heard of or seen the data derived from the Vostok ice cores showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

There is none.

Occasionally the peaks coincide but mostly there is an offset; sometimes thousands of years. At times the trends are in the same direction, but often they are not.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
But as we learned to day in the Senate hearing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, whole armies of internet trolls used social media like this to start fights and stir up and divide groups.
You could be describing the AGW cult in general and their cabal on physorg in particular
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
It is characteristic of this total, uneducated dunce, Captain Stupid, who camafloges himself from being a dung covered hemmoroid by predtnding to be human.
Captain Stupid offers up such irrelevant trash
His intrusion into threads and his answers are so predictable and repetitive that I have begun to think it is not human - that it is a bot.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2017
@J_Dousey; Can you all do use a favor an put quotes around the stuff you plagiarize? Otherwise it's hard to tell if I should read the schlock or ignore it. Everyone knows that
"facts" come from Wikipedia or Skeptical Science (the material is sourced from real science sources for the most part.) Unlike you talking points book, which just says what it wants it's puppets to say.

"What does Trumps hair and a thong have in common? They both barely cover the ass."

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
"Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. [...]If you do not have enough material to write a good stub, you probably should not create an article. At the end of a stub, you should include a "stub template" like this: {{stub}}. (Other Wikipedians will appreciate it if you use a more specific stub template, like {{art-stub}}. See the list of stub types for a list of all specific stub templates.) Stubs help track articles that need expansion"
http://en.wikiped..._article
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
"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.

Captain Stupid has no way of knowing that CO₂ is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO₂ and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
Hum.. Sorry for the dups. It bears repeating . Very similar to the J_D posts that repeat the same talking points ad nauseum based on orders from the Kremlin. Then we have poor dirty @Dusty also that somehow thinks AGW is a cult, when the facts are that AGW is a well established physics theory about the planets observed plight. The planet you live on, it's temperature is increasing abnormally fast, and what should scare the crap out of you, is that it may not stop. It could very well result in the complete extinction of Earth.

CO2 is like a very large container ship, I takes a very long time to turn it around and dock it.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
... the facts are that AGW is a well established physics theory about the planets observed plight.
No, someone is preying on your gullibility. AGW is no more than a hypthesis that has been disproved a number of times with only wailing about "science" and "disaster" from the AGW cult. Something as simple as the Vostk ice core data disproves the claimed relationship between CO2 and temperature but the cult leaders instruct their followers to ignore or deny that valuable bit of science. (cherry-picking)

"Einstein said 'A thousand scientists can't prove me right, but one can prove me wrong'. We can't prove a hypothesis but we can disprove it."

As Vostok disproves the relationship between CO2 and temperature, the hypothesis of CO2 based temperature increase is disproved and since CO2 based global warming is a false hypothesis, AGW is debunked.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
"CO₂ is neither a pollutant nor does it endanger public health.
CO₂ is a plant nutrient and necessary for existence of life on earth.
Additional CO₂ causes an astonishing plant growth. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with only a 105 parts per million (0.0105 percent) increase, the Earth has had an average growth increase of about 12 percent for plants and 18 percent for trees. CO₂ is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer.
Higher CO₂ enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates.
According to scientists from the USGS and NASA, CO₂ is a trace gas in our atmosphere (0.0385 percent) and is a requirement for most of life to continue on this planet.
Natural causes, such as volcanic activity and biologic activity in the oceans, annually put 97.1 percent of the CO₂ into the atmosphere. All of man's activities account for only 2.9 percent."

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
This information below backs up everything that I presented above. I know that dustywells well realizes that to present actual scientific facts to these dismal idiots is a waste of time; but, it is fun to do none the less and then watch the one dud keeps wanting to talk about Russia, of all things.

"Similarly, we can now examine the processes behind the extraordinary greening of the Earth over recent decades as CO₂ levels have climbed. Up to 50% of vegetated land is now greener than it was 30 years ago. The increasing human-driven CO2 fertilization effect on vegetation was estimated to be the dominant driver.
We now have satellites that can study this process at spatial resolutions of tens of metres – meaning we can also keep tabs on processes that undo this greening, such as deforestation."
https://phys.org/...bon.html

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
@howhot3
Would you be terribly devastated if you were to find out that J Doug is actually a University professor in California and that Captain Stumpy is actually a Russian bot whose purpose is to destroy the Western economy by promoting an escalating fear of CO2 emissions.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
@DustyWell you must be the most buck-tooth dim bulb to have ever worked for coal mine. I worked the mines too. But I was young then so when you say "AGW is no more than a hypthesis that has been disproved" I say prove it. Explain why the Sea level rising, explain why the temperatures keep rising out of season. Explain why coral reefs are dying, explain why storms are stronger. CO2 is now the highest it's been in 800,000 years. That's almost a million years friend. Oh .. Oh and maybe you haven't seen polar ice caps, glaciers, and snow coverage all decrease at the same time.

Basically, what kind of CLUE-STICK do you need hitting you over the head to get it? You must need a BIG ONE. A HUGE ONE! HUGE. MASSIVE like the one J_D' got.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Hay @DustySmucky, what if I told you, I was a University Professor from CA, USA and searched for climate denying trolls for a living? It;s a hobby, but I record everything they claim. I think I'll write a book about it in a few years. Anyway have fun down there with your mountains of coal. Enjoy your yoga class when the instructors says; "BREATH DEEPLY". You might learn what China has about pollution.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
Explain why the Sea level rising


I generally try not to read this idiot's comments and made the mistake of doing so this time.
On sea level rise.
9451600 Sitka, Alaska
http://tidesandcu...=9451600
 
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends 1611400 Nawiliwili, Hawaii
 http://tidesandcu...=1611400

Interannual Variation 
8723170 Miami Beach, Florida
http://tidesandcu...3170>

Mean Sea Level Trend
8723170 Miami Beach, Florida
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandc...=8723170

dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
Hay @DustySmucky, what if I told you, I was a University Professor from CA, USA and searched for climate denying trolls for a living?
If you are, you really should hire someone to check your spelling, grammar and punctuation. But then again, they are a signature of the level of education our graduates have sunk to.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
@J_Douchey writes
This information below backs up everything that I presented above.

LIKE WHO CARES. IT A REHASH OF THE 10,000 WORTHLESS QUOTES FROM ABOVE!!!

I know that dustywells well realizes that to present actual scientific facts to these dismal idiots


IDIOTS? Really. Your seem to be the nematodes that want to continue this thread of your own delusion. Personally I enjoy recording your lame replies for the laughs.

So I understand Crimea just declare their independence from Russia... They are rejoining Amerikrainea. Or maybe I confuse Catalonia and Spain.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
If you are, you really should hire someone to check your spelling, grammar and punctuation


I do have someone check, I have Dyslexia and read everything backwards. Sorry that the stuff annoys you. But I get my point across don't you think? Regardless, I still can put the pain on the trols like you. Don't you see it was AGW that gave me Dyslexia and that is why I hate climate-change deniers like youz and JDippo.

dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
...when you say "AGW is no more than a hypthesis that has been disproved" I say prove it.
Already done. Look up the Vostok data.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
Hay @DustySmucky, what if I told you, I was a University Professor from CA, USA and searched for climate denying trolls for a living? It;s a hobby, but I record everything they claim. I think I'll write a book about it in a few years.
Make sure you include your own comments for comic relief. Some of them are really funny - in or out of context.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Look up Vodka data. Must be the good stuff.

interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.

What about from 1982 to 2017 ringworm? What does the data say about that?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Look @Dusywells, lets be honest here. What the hell does it matter what you or I think. What matters is doing the right thing for our planet, our nest and our civilization. Science has doubt about what you think in near unanimity so I would out of consideration accept the arguments of science and move your dispute to subjects you understand. Like alligator wrestling.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
I do have someone check,
They are not doing their job.
I have Dyslexia and read everything backwards.
Are you saying that you are contrarian or that you are immune to original thought?
Don't you see it was AGW that gave me Dyslexia
You are telling me that CO2 causes global warming and that dyslexia is an acquired disability. Do you have any other such wisdoms to share?
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
Look @Dusywells, lets be honest here.
You can not be honest and continue this babble about CO2 causing AGW while you refuse to accept the disproof that the Vostok data clearly presents.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
You are telling me that CO2 causes global warming and that dyslexia is an acquired disability. Do you have any other such wisdoms to share?
Oh shoot. I thought you would be dumb enough to believe that one. Never mind then.

So what is the *Vostok* data, Enlighten me about it if you will. I think I've had a change of heart after talking with you. I hate AGW now. So what is this stuff *Vostok*. I really want to be just like you.

dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.

What about from 1982 to 2017 ringworm? What does the data say about that?
If you cared about more than your attempts at bullying, you would have followed the link and seen that the data provided is only available from May 27, 1931 to Jul 29, 1981. If you really want to cherry-pick your rising sea-level data go to this site - it has hundreds of similar tables. Some of them, like this Miami table, even indicate rising sea-level trends that could support your fear of drowning.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
So what is the *Vostok* data, Enlighten me about it if you will. I think I've had a change of heart after talking with you. I hate AGW now. So what is this stuff *Vostok*.
Oh my, I thought that with all those big words you that use you would know how to use Google to find information yourself. I guess it's no wonder that you think that Captain Stumpy is smart.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Look @dustywells, I'm not a bully, I do science. As I said a few posts back;

lets be honest here. What the hell does it matter what you or I think. What matters is doing the right thing for our planet, our nest and our civilization. Science has doubt about what you think in near unanimity so I would out of consideration accept the arguments of science and move your dispute to subjects you understand.


Science is in 99% agreement here and you, the fox new fans, and the russian astroturfers just don't seem to get how deadly your making it for the Earth. Not just humans, but every living thing.
Think about it if your wrong on AGW, global warming and all. It's a 1500yr recovery time once CO2 is in the atmosphere. You can kill the planet. We all need to stop AGW as fast as we can in a global effort.

But then; Do you know what to call a basement full of Conservatives?
A whine cellar.

Wa wa waaaaahhhh.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
Yes, I am the idiot who keeps asking foolish questions and you are the wise priest of the AGW cult whose wisdom lies in the ability to avoid answering the questions
@dusty
1- you have yet to accept any validated science studies that i've provided

therefore

2- i don't see a point in continually linking you the same evidence which you deny simply so you can ignore it yet again

.

this is also true of jdouche and his multiple socks here

when one is openly denying validated studies, as both you and jdouche have, then there is absolutely no level of evidence that can be provided that will change your mind or allow you to comprehend reality

IOW - you're a fanatical acolyte who's job it is to defend your religious-like belief, no matter how untenable

it's not like there aren't plenty of examples of that in this thread alone...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
CO₂ is a plant nutrient and necessary for existence of life on earth
@jdouchebag
https://phys.org/...res.html

https://phys.org/...ent.html

LMFAO - and you all others stupid?

water is also a requirement, but it can still kill you if you drink too much, or you can't swim, or...
& mentions again his only source that has a slanted and mistaken scientific bases
[sic]
you do realise that your inability to refute those validated studies simply proves my point, right?

oh wait... i forgot who i was talking to

you're the idiot who thinks lots of CO2 is a good thing.... so, why haven't you pulled a plastic bag over your head yet to show us all how stupid we are?

LMFAO
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
@Stumpy
1- you have yet to accept any validated science studies that i've provided
2- i don't see a point in continually linking you the same evidence which you deny simply so you can ignore it yet again
when one is openly denying validated studies... then there is absolutely no level of evidence that can be provided that will change your mind or allow you to comprehend reality
IOW - you're a fanatical acolyte who's job it is to defend your religious-like belief, no matter how untenable
it's not like there aren't plenty of examples of that in this thread alone...
That's rich, coming from you!!!

All of your drivel right back at you.

You openly deny that there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature no matter how the evidence is presented to you and here is absolutely no level of evidence that can be provided that will change your mind or allow you to comprehend reality.

You are the fanatic that you want to make me to appear to be.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
...here is absolutely no level of evidence that can be provided that will change your mind or allow you to comprehend reality
[sic]
@dusty

1- wrong: should you be able to actually prove the statement that "there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature" using validated scientific studies, i would accept it
(you never have, so i will not accept your belief)

2- the level of evidence that i accept is simple, and i've stated it time and again - validated studies

hence the problem we have: your evidence is political or based upon your belief

whereas my evidence supporting the relationship between CO2 and warming is based upon validated studies like Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, Ruedy

if you could refute the science you would be the hero of the oil industry

.

so: where are your validated studies proving "there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature" ??

the ball is in your court now
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
I'm not a bully,
Your words and your posts have every appearance and tone of bullying. Maybe you are too involved to see yourself as others see you.
I do science.
You wouldn't even know the word 'science' if if it weren't for the likes of Stumpy using it over and over. You know nothing about science or even about critical thinking.
Science is in 99% agreement here
What is in 99% agreement is the AGW echo chamber and that is a corruption of science where every extreme weather event is attributed to AGW. Even that 99% echo chamber is only achieved by heckling, bullying and driving away anyone who dares to ask a question that does not meet the approval of the high priests.

But then; Do you know what to call a basement full of AGW fanatics?
A whine cellar.

Wa wa waaaaahhhh.

dustywells
not rated yet Nov 01, 2017
1- wrong: should you be able to actually prove the statement that "there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature" using validated scientific studies, i would accept it
(you never have, so i will not accept your belief)
What do you call the Vostok data? Why will you not accept that?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
What is in 99% agreement is the AGW echo chamber and that is a corruption of science
yet another baseless claim that you have yet to be able to prove with *any* evidence

there is overwhelming evidence that there is a conspiracy against science specifically funding anti-science to dupe people like you: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

it's been validated several times in various ways

one thing you have never once been able to prove with anything other than a blog, someone else's beliefs or anecdote is your claim that there is a global conspiracy in climate science

and it would have to be global

and still no refute of any studies i've linked to you... why is that?

.

you claim it's real and i am the fanatical one, therefore there must be evidence equivalent or better than mine

where are your validated studies proving "there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature" ??
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2017
@dustybrain
What do you call the Vostok data?
i call it interesting

more to the point: what do you *think* it actually means?
Why will you not accept that?
for starters, you've given no context

accept it as what?
proof of what?

more to the point: what about validation?

feel free to give links and references at this point since you want to be specific and talk about data points and what they mean

studies would be good too

because you want to offer your explanation of the science then you should offer supporting validation of your claims

you know, like the reference of Lacis you still haven't addressed in the years i've used it directly to refute you

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
water is also a requirement, but it can still kill you if you drink too much, or you can't swim, or..
What is your point? It is hardly valid to compare a liquid to a gas at 400 ppm. H2O at 400 ppm will not kill you. Water at 4,000 ppm will not kill you. Not even at 40,000 ppm H2O will you have difficulty breathing.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
when one is openly denying validated studies, like Captain Stupid has


So, Captain Stupid, You don't believe NOAA sea level charts that, being as stupid as you are, you have never even heard of?
"Mean Sea Level Trends
605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam
The mean sea level trend is -1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1977 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.41 feet in 100 years."
& these links that show that dumb ass howhot3 who said that sea level are rising. You and that dud answer those examples from NOAA. I forgot you never look further than this
Phys.org 2003 - 2017, Science X network to get your "scientific" information.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
http://tidesandcu...=605-041
http://tidesandcu...=8724580
https://tidesandc...=8723170
http://tidesandcu...=1611400
http://tidesandcu...=9451600
http://tidesandcu...=8723170

''Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. ''
http://www.agu.or...30.shtml
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Oh .. Oh and maybe you haven't seen polar ice caps, glaciers, and snow coverage all decrease at the same time.


Wrong yet again for the 1000 time. When have you ever been right, howhot3?

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, according to data from Rutgers University's Global Snow Lab. NOAA did not respond to subsequent requests for comment on the issues.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
Even if the controversial "adjustments" of the U.S. temperature record criticized by numerous experts are accepted as legitimate, countless scientists said this month that the latest data from U.S. government bureaucracies confirmed again that "global warming" has been on so-called "pause" for some 17 years — and counting. All 73 United Nations climate models predicted significant warming over the same period. The record high Antarctic sea-ice coverage confirmed again this month by NASA and NOAA, surpassing the previous records set the year before, also defied alarmist forecasts of shrinking polar ice.
http://www.thenew...-warming

Record Antarctica Ice Contradicts Global Warming Trend
http://www.newsma...d/458115
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months in 2015 and now is even with the 1981 to 2010 average. It fell below the record highs set in 2014 in July, 2015.
http://www1.ncdc....aice.png
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
explain why storms are stronger.


(CNSNews.com) -- Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.
http://www.cnsnew...trike-us

dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
the reference of Lacis you still haven't addressed in the years i've used it directly to refute you
We can already see how correct Lacis' model of fear turned out to be. More CO2 - no significant temperature increase.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2017
@Dustywankee; More CO2 - no significant temperature increase. Humm.. If that is so then why do they call CO2 a "Greenhouse Gas?" It works on the same principle that a greenhouse does. It lets light in but doesn't let heat out. If you haven't got that part figured out you must be dumber than a rock.

So explain again why storms are stronger. I'm having a hard time reading the words that you are saying there @J_Douchey. So Douchey, how are the wild fires doing over in Russia? How about the exploding methane pockets? So hows the weather over their friend?

Anyway I'm sure the people of Russia will appreciate your intervention into a discussion about climate change on an English speaking science discussion forum. That really has to win you some brownie points.

Wrong yet again for the 1000 time. When have you ever been right, howhot3?;
We'll It's good to know how many time's I've been wrong. I didn't know you russian astroturfers kept track.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
Anyway, JD the professional astroturfer gets some practice on a dead thread, Dusty doens't know what to do with himself so do you still beat you wife? Then there is this;

A Conservative found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I were smarter".
So the genie made him a Liberal.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@J_D says
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent has been at record highs for 7 months

Dude take your meds. You need a vacation in wonderful Crimea theme park. The new Russian Disney world equivalent. Oh that's right, you all never built anything worth a stock market.

Anyway to help all of the new comers to this thread, let me provide a link to the most difinitive website on climate change (next to phys.org) that combats climate change denialism.

https://skeptical...nce.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
Old wind up dummy, howhot3, who represents the liberal global warming crowd, wants to know about the fire season in Russia and why would I know, is the question for the idiot. I do know what it has done in the US; but, that is of no interest to this fool.

"We've known about the link between climate change — a warmer, drier climate — and wildfires for over a decade," says University of Colorado Prof. Tania Schoennagel, citing a 2006 study that showed that temperatures have increased about 2 degrees F in the Western United States since the 1970s, and that fire season has increased by almost 3 months in most places."

This information that is reliable and accurate is sure different than what we see in this piece above. The question is, why do these charlatans lie so much? It is because the truth is not in them and they are not very intelligent if they think that the trace gas, CO₂, controls the earth's climate.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
"The 2016 fire season was below normal for number of reported wildfires (92 percent of the 10-year annual average). There were 67,743 wildfires reported nationally (compared to 68,151 wildfires reported in 2015). The number of acres burned was also below normal in 2016 with 5,509,995 acres or 79 percent of the national 10-year average. The Southern Area led the nation with nearly 1.6 million acres burned (109 percent of its 10- year average). Based on an annual 10-year average, Alaska (114%) and Southwest (108%) reported above average fire occurrences in 2016. Rocky Mountain (98%) and Eastern (97%) experienced near average fire occurrence, while Southern (94%), Northern Rockies (92%), Southern California (90%), Northern California (82%), Great Basin (75%), and Northwest (71%) all experienced below average fire occurrences.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
Rocky Mountain (193%), Southern California (153%) and Southern Area (109%) were the only Geographic Areas to experience above average acres burned. All other Geographic Areas were below their annual average acres. Nineteen fires exceeded 40,000 acres in 2016; thirty-three less than in 2015 (see Significant Fire Activity below for a list of those fires)."
https://www.predi...ry16.pdf
Old wind up dummy, howhot3 couldn't prove that the sea levels were raising nor prove that the sea ice was disappearing now he is off on something else he know nothing about, fire.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
Old wind up dummy, howhot3, can take a look at these stats about fire and give stupid reply that has something to do with Russia.
Year-to-date statistics
2017 (1/1/17 - 10/31/17) Fires: 52,699 Acres: 8,830,898
2016 (1/1/16 - 10/31/16) Fires: 51,994 Acres: 5,018,599
2015 (1/1/15 - 10/31/15) Fires: 53,802 Acres: 9,746,846
2014 (1/1/14 - 10/31/14) Fires: 43,151 Acres: 3,262,635
2013 (1/1/13 - 10/31/13) Fires: 42,148 Acres: 4,182,962
2012 (1/1/12 - 10/31/12) Fires: 51,716 Acres: 9,001,167
2011 (1/1/11 - 10/31/11) Fires: 63,691 Acres: 8,233,122
2010 (1/1/10 - 10/31/10) Fires: 61,294 Acres: 3,185,553
2009 (1/1/09 - 10/31/09) Fires: 73,444 Acres: 5,775,838
2008 (1/1/08 - 10/31/08) Fires: 73,960 Acres: 5,052,109
2007 (1/1/07 - 10/31/07) Fires: 77,108 Acres: 9,191,148
Annual average prior 10 years
2006-2016 Fires: 59,074 Acres: 6,172,002

https://www.nifc..../nfn.htm

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
So the genie made him a Liberal.


All it took to make this despicable creature, a liberal, was to knock the brains out of a young magpie. We know that young magpies are like liberals in that they are all mouth and ass.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@dustybrained idiot troll

so, that's a big, fat resounding *no* as far as proving AGW is "wrong" or debunked then?

yeah, i thought so... just another idiot who doesn't understand the science, so you use politics to argue the point
It is hardly valid to compare a liquid to a gas
ok, so lets talk about gasses - since you want to be a complete idiot!

O2 is required for life
high concentrations will kill a human

get it yet?

or will you change the subject yet again?
LMFAO
We can already see how correct Lacis' model of fear turned out to be
and thank you for once again proving you not only didn't read the paper... (which has been validated)

but proving that you completely misunderstood what it proved!

LMFAO

.

.

as for @jdouche:
like dustyidiot, you still have *yet* to refute a single study with equivalent evidence

argument from verbosity doesn't equal refute
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@Forum.

You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE and my work on accompanying reality-based-axioms construct for my Mathematical ToE which will model the Physics ToE more realistically and consistently from Infinitesimal-to-Infinite scales; thus completing the Universal Physical/Mathematical Theory and uniting all the (correct) partial theories and providing the missing physics/maths 'reality-bridge' between all such across their 'domains of applicability' from Quantum-to-Macro.

I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed.

I will leave JD, dusty (and everyone) with this crucial reality-check: the record will show I am no-one's "minion"; so dusty/JD associating me with Captain Stumpy is a 'really funny' mistake in fact!

Bye for now. :)
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@Reality
... I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE and my work on accompanying reality-based-axioms construct for my Mathematical ToE...
WOW. I Look forward to reading about in the near future. Carry on then, there is not much to see here. Except some fine troll clobbering.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@Dustywells seems like a very dim bulb. There just doesn't seem to be anything that could get through to that man's brainwashed in belief system. Climate denial brain washing from years of conservative radio, tube, will do that. There was a recent physiological experiment I read about where a far rightwing flake was not allowed to watch Fox news or Listen to AM-Radio, or read certain internet sites, and after a couple of months the person could eventually carry on a thoughtful conversation with his family without being ridiculed and shunned by his family and friends, It doesn't mean much @Dusty except you pretty gullible to influence.

@J_Douche is like your drug dealer @Dusty, he has all kinds of facts a figures to support your *Belief* your brain's desire to believe your correct, but he's a russian Astroturfer that likely works for a professional persuasion firm hire by fossil fuel interests.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
Bye for now. :)


This is great news, RealityCheck. You never had anything of interest that was substantiated by facts, which is consistent with you "alarmist" and that is because the facts do not prove that you are right, about anything. You and the rest of your unscientific group have never submitted an experiment that proves that carbon dioxide has one thing to do with causing the earth's planet to be what it is & you will never do so because it doesn't, as any logical person other than some idiot like howhot3 & the totally ignorant Captain Stupid, can never figure out.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@J_Douggy, Well at least you calling me by name now and you've identified me correctly as some liberal. Not bad for a professional russian astroturfer. Oh so you guys in the former crap hole know as USSR didn't have an increase in forest fires? I'm sorry, I forgot your in russia and they don't have access to data as good as we do in the USA.

"young magpie" Ok. that gave me a chuckle. �Ľолодая сорока. Sounds like "mo-low-daya sore-ra-ka". An this is representative of a Liberal. Liberal global warming crowd. I'm just one of the 99% of the science community that agrees that about dangers of future climate change, global warming, AGW or what ever you call it in Russia. глобальное потепление

So what is your favorite website to screen scrape data from. You certainly do a lot of that.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
as for @jdouche:
like dustyidiot, you still have *yet* to refute a single study with equivalent evidence

argument from verbosity doesn't equal refute


So, Captain Stupid, where is your evidence that the trace gas, CO₂, that makes up a scant .04% of the atmosphere causes the earth's climate to do anything? It is a scientific fact that the ppm of CO₂ INCREASE up to 200 years AFTER the rise in the planets temperature. A sane person, that excludes you, then can see that CO₂ follows the rise and does not contribute to it. Got that, dumb ass.
"His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates."
https://www.scien...p-solve/
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
You know @JDouchey,,,, the latest news is that AGW is the only working theory that explains "climate change". With each article in PHYS.ORG, you denier goons look dumber and dumber. Especially the trolls, who seem to be working for someone, but that someone goes unrecognized. So who's paying you to post all of the clip-n-saves to Phys.org my friend?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@JDouchey claims [q[It is a scientific fact that the ppm of CO₂ INCREASE up to 200 years AFTER the rise in the planets temperature It's not scientific fact at all. Total BS!
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
So what is your favorite website to screen scrape data from. You certainly do a lot of that.


You would do well to sometime or the other post some facts instead of your bull shit that has no verifiable reference one can go to, such as this one: "Why people around the world fear climate change more than Americans do"
https://skepticalscience.com/

Try one of these out and find out what is actually happening, you dud.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
Scientists: 'Loud Divergence Between Sea Level Reality And Climate Change Theory'
http://www.climatedepot.com/

Early freeze-up in progress on Hudson Bay – what a difference a year makes
https://polarbear...r-makes/

Early snow in China
November 2, 2017 
https://www.iceag...w-china/

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
Because you seem to have such a stupid fixation on Russia, where I have actually been and rode the train from St. Petersburg to Ulan Ude and then on to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. You would be hard pressed to even find Russia on a globe , let alone know anything about the country.

Wall of grief: Putin is courageous to question Stalin
Days ago, Vladimir Putin unveiled the Wall of Grief, a sculpture by Georgy Frangulyan which will be a memorial to the victims of communism in Moscow – the first such a memorial in Russia.
https://motls.blo...e+frame)

Global Warming Alarmists – Recycling The Identical Idiocy From 50 years Ago.
https://realclima...nce.com/

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on ...
wattsupwiththat.com
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change


J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@JDouchey claims [q[It is a scientific fact that the ppm of CO₂ INCREASE up to 200 years AFTER the rise in the planets temperature
It's not scientific fact at all. Total BS!

You showed your degree of interest in this issue because you did not even look at the verification that I presented, did you?

Since this dodgy unscientific site "With each article in PHYS.ORG, you denier goons look dumber and dumber." is where you get and the idiot, Captain Stupid, get all of your "scientific" information from, you know thing, & it shows.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson had to have been talking about PHYS.ORG as well as Newspapers.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
@JDouchey so you weakness is that you have to support Putin or be booted out of work for being WEAK. Sounds like a great job. Slam down a good shot of SMIRNOFF for me.

It's not scientific fact at all. Total BS!
It is to total BS! Go look it up. It's CO2 first, the temperature rise. Been in a greenhouse lately? It has been and always will be. The are feed backs of course, but nothing in history that indicate other than CO2 first. Besides it's usually CO2-N-Heat at the same time when discussing geological time periods.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2017
@JDouchey so you weakness is that you have to support Putin or be booted out of work for being WEAK. Sounds like a great job. Slam down a good shot of SMIRNOFF for me.


Was it something that you read in PHYS.ORG that gave you the inspiration to make the "scientific" post that you just presented?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2017
So how is it over in Moscow anyway friend? Having a nice warm transition to winter? Like the warmest ever recorded? Or did Putin ban you all from actually feeling the weather?

"How many climate sceptics does it take not to change a lightbulb?
Approximately 100. One to say that the current absence of light is the result of natural solar cycles and the other 99 to disseminate this finding through their 'science organisations' and oil industry funded think tanks."

About as scientific as your wattsup site.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2017
@J Doug and @dustywells.
This is great news, RealityCheck. You never had anything of interest that was substantiated by facts, which is consistent with you "alarmist" and that is because the facts do not prove that you are right, about anything. You and the rest of your unscientific group have never submitted an experiment that proves that carbon dioxide has one thing to do with causing the earth's planet to be what it is & you will never do so because it doesn't, as any logical person other than some idiot like howhot3 & the totally ignorant Captain Stupid, can never figure out.
Have you missed it all, mateys? I linked the proof that your shill-spam spiel is old crap which was already addressed and debunked in PO discussions LONG before YOU both came on the scene as Johnnies-come-lately trolls. I even linked where the H2O effects were already long acknowledged and discussed, but you just ignored it all and keep shill-spamming pre-paid troll crap. Bye for now! :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
"How many climate sceptics does it take not to change a lightbulb?


"How many climate alarmist does it take not to change a lightbulb? None, because they have never had a lightbulb that has come on so there is no way they would know that it needed changed. It takes a total idiot whose bulb has never been lite to believe that a trace gas, CO₂, drives the climate and not the orb in the sky, the sun.

Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
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. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 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.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
I gather our dumb russian troll friend, @JDingleberry couldn't stay up all night. His train trip across russia to Mongolia was likely part of his military service to Putin. Typical of the Astroturfer rightwing spammer.. Funny thing is Putin joked about climate change, saying something like now that Trump has been elected, I won't be blamed for global warming any more. But really do we need to hear @JD say anything. I'm sure his buddies over in his homeland are busy up to no good.

You know what's lower that the belly of a nematoad? the stack of shit website known as Wattsup. (Note if you visit it, you will be tagged by the douche bags), Nice touch.




J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2017
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
http://xxx.lanl.g...707.1161

What does Your favorite site for your science, Skeptical Science say about this, dud?
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2017
John Tyndall had this figured out 158 years ago and there are people today who are still clueless about CO₂.
"The greenhouse effect works as follows."
"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.
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."
http://understand...dall.htm

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
A russian astroturfers really as dumb as you @Jdouche? Why the heck would you ever take a trip to Mongolia unless it was as a military conscript to Putin? I bet you mother was related to a russian bear, hairy, large and totally stupid when it came the the science of global warming.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2017
His train trip across russia to Mongolia was likely part of his military service to Putin.


Thanks so much howhot3 for keeping the conversation on topic. OH, I see now, you don't even have any idea what the topic is. Let me give you a clue, dud, it had nothing to do with Putin or Russia; but, it was about carbon dioxide.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
Speaking of Nematodes like the russian astroturfer @Jdouchey,
Assessing the Response of Nematode Communities to Climate Change
In sandy beaches, free-living marine nematodes usually are the most abundant and diverse group of intertidal meiofauna, playing an important role in the benthic food web. ... We conducted a microcosm experiment with two natural communities to assess their stress response to elevated ...

Yeap. Nematode... sounds like russian нематода
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2017
I bet you mother was related to a russian bear, hairy, large and totally stupid when it came the the science of global warming.


howhot3, did you even have a mother or where you, as I have heard, the product of a magpie having defecated on a warm rock and the conditions proved to be ideal for the birth of another global warming alarmist, such as your self?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
LOL: Ok @J_ducky. Your internet psychotherapy session over for now. Please visit again during normal business hours.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
@j.useddouchebag
...where is your evidence that the trace gas, CO₂, that makes up a scant .04% of the atmosphere causes the earth's climate to do anything?
well, you can start here: https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

but i know you won't read any of that, as proven here: https://sciencex....w/?v=act

more to the point:
multiple posters, from runrig and thermodynamics to maggnus and myself have provided you with multiple links to studies that you still have yet to address, so there is no point re-hashing that same argument when you still have no answers

.

your argument was 23+ pages of trolling with politics, lies and pseudoscience - that is why your last profile was banhammered here

PS - had you read Lacis, you would understand how and why CO2 can have such a huge effect
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
multiple posters, from runrig and thermodynamics to maggnus and myself have provided you with multiple links to studies that you still have yet to address, so there is no point re-hashing that same argument when you still have no answers


You, Captain Stupid, nor any of the above mentioned fools who believe that the trace gas, CO₂, controls the earth's climate with out even ONE repeatable empirical experiment that show that it does what you say it does. Show me the experiment or shut up.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than you or runrig and thermodynamics or maggnus could ever hope to acquire from where ever you get your delusional information.
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

If you can think, do so about his statement: Meteorologist Mark Nolan stated: I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
your argument was 23+ pages of trolling with politics, lies and pseudoscience - that is why your last profile was banhammered here


Prove what you said, you poor illiterate fool who actually believe that the trace gas that you expel with every one of your wasted breaths would destroy the planet when during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO₂ concentrations were about 1,800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO₂ during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7,000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Your too stupid to ever understand that the planet did not disappear l;like you fools maintain because it will burn up.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@J Doug/dustywells.

NOTICE OF TERMINATION: Russian/GOP/Fossil funded Troll Factory dispensing with your shill-spamming services as your Johnny-come-late trolling has been overtaken by reality which even 'we' can no longer deny.

Good luck in finding an honest job that won't involve betraying your family, friends, humanity. The reality is now clear to everyone who isn't a paid-for shill-spammer and willing stooge for 'our' criminal campaign to confuse/delay/sabotage efforts to be pro-active in trying to stave off the looming AGW dangers we all face.

Where White House finally accepts the AGW reality:

https://phys.org/...ans.html

Where the evolving AGW reality is being reported in no uncertain terms:

https://phys.org/...rse.html

And, again, a reminder re past skeptics:

http://www.abc.ne.../9053406

From Russia with love. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
@J Doug/dustywells.

From Russia with love. :)


The blessed reprieve from reading this idiot from Australia's mindless unsubstantiated nonsense was short lived indeed. Like most of his kind, his word is meaningless.
"I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed."
If this fool is no better than his word on this pledge he made, how can what he says about anything else be believable?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@J Doug.
The blessed reprieve from reading this idiot from Australia's mindless unsubstantiated nonsense was short lived indeed. Like most of his kind, his word is meaningless.
"I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed."
If this fool is no better than his word on this pledge he made, how can what he says about anything else be believable?
Now you are effectively demonstrating that you can't parse even the most straightforward English phrase. Please try to understand that "not MUCH at all" is NOT EQUAL TO "not at all". Ok? :)

Hence why I posted again to tie up loose ends; and to reflect NEW 'just in' information/links you/dusty needed to see because it makes all your shill-spamming campaign futile. Read the earlier-provided links and see why you're losing your shill-spamming 'job' in that Russian/GOP etc Troll factory.

Good luck finding an honest job for a change, JD. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017


Good luck finding an honest job for a change, JD. :)


It would be all luck if you were to find any job. Who in hell would want some fool around that believes that the trace gas, CO₂, that is essential for all life on earth, could control the climate?
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
"Our planet's rising fever is caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) cast off when fossil fuels are burned to produce energy.
Sixteen of the hottest years on record have occurred since the start of the 21st century."
https://phys.org/...rse.html

All you idiots are doing is recycling the same odd stinking dung.
Global Warming Alarmists – Recycling The Identical Idiocy From 50 years Ago.
Posted on November 2, 2017 by tonyheller
Not everyone was pushing global cooling in 1969.  In 1969, J. G. Fletcher said man only had a few decades to solve global warming. He also said global warming was melting the Arctic.
https://realclima...ars-ago/
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
@J Doug.
It would be all luck if you were to find any job. Who in hell would want some fool around that believes that the trace gas, CO₂, that is essential for all life on earth, could control the climate?
Now, now, mate; is that any way to talk to a senior citizen retired and free to pursue whatever projects they please? On the other hand, you are an obvious shill-spamming troll employed by a Troll factory which has just had the reality check which makes your own 'job' obsolete. In case you missed/ignored it the first time round:

Where White House finally accepts the AGW reality:

https://phys.org/...ans.html

Where the evolving AGW reality is being reported in no uncertain terms:

https://phys.org/...rse.html

And, again, a reminder re past skeptics:

http://www.abc.ne.../9053406

Denial is futile. Reality rules. Take care! :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2017
This video is interesting when Dr. Muller says regarding global warming and its relationship to CO2 [03:05] "you can't prove it". I would think that Dr. Muller would have mentioned an experiment that would have proven that CO2 is causing the warming that is not beyond the natural virilities, especially since the Little Ice Age ended and his BEST experiment doesn't start their temperature assessment until AFTER 1753 temps are used; so, why wouldn't there be warming? He seems to like natural gas and his opinion of the Koch brothers is different from yours.
http://www.youtub...99w5bWyo

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2017
Read those links, JD. You are wasting your shill-spammer 'breath' now more than ever.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
Read those links, JD. You are wasting your shill-spammer 'breath' now more than ever.

I read the meaningless links and that was where my reply was pointed.

I know that you "alarmist" can't predict the future and you also know nothing about the past. Give me your thoughts on this below.
THE CHANGING ARCTIC. By GEORGE NICOLAS IFW. [lln4er data of October 10 1922 the American consul at Bergen Norway , submitted the following. The State Department, Washington, D. C.
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.
https://docs.lib....589a.pdf
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
Sail boats have tried to do this in the last couple of years but could not do what Roald Amundsen accomplished just after the turn of the century.
"Mariner trying to sail Northwest Passage rescued after sailboat gets stuck in sea ice near Barrow" July 13, 2014
A man attempting to sail his 36-foot sailboat through the Northwest Passage was rescued by a U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Saturday after his boat became trapped in Arctic sea ice northeast of Barrow.
The Coast Guard cutter Healy broke a 12-mile path through ice to reach the sailboat Altan Girl about 40 miles from Barrow, the Coast Guard said in a news release Sunday. The Healy was diverted from a research mission to respond to the sailboat.
https://www.adn.c...4/07/13/
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
"Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC climate report
But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.
This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong.
Scientists have attempted to explain the pause in a number of ways, with many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans."

http://www.bbc.co...24173504

So the oceans ate your warming.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
I was hoping that @J_Dipstick would do something beside do a tag team switch but they signed up for the work and it looks like they have a tag team working. So our turd package from Russia (St. Petersburg) working for the Internet Research Corp has a contract with a Russian fossil fuel company to basically do a tobacco like miss-information assault on AGW and Phys.org is the perfect target due to it's open discussion platform and science based subject matter. Climate change subject matter that attracts the best of the spin engineers, That's the way I see it. Isn't that correct there @J_Dipsticky?

For example, I really wanted to discuss the article about a very important temperature-to-CO2 level proxy that indicates CO2 is a much better trapper of heat than earlier studies indicate. So current CO2 levels could be having twice the effect than we thought they would for lower concentrations of CO2.

https://www.rferl...749.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
For example, I really wanted to discuss the article about a very important temperature-to-CO2 level proxy that indicates CO2 is a much better trapper of heat than earlier studies indicate. So current CO2 levels could be having twice the effect than we thought they would for lower concentrations of CO2.

https://www.rferl...749.html



I have no idea in the world what this stupid fuck is raving on about Russia. What does Russia have to do with "Carbon dioxide levels lower than thought during super greenhouse period"?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2017
@J Doug (and @howhot3 if you're reading this).

@JD...
Read those links, JD. You are wasting your shill-spammer 'breath' now more than ever.
I read the meaningless links and that was where my reply was pointed.
Really? Your posts were just more 'disjoint facts' without any attempt to connect the 'evolving AGW reality' dots which science has been doing objectively across the globe. Why persist, mate? Your shill-spam campaign is dead in the water now that the White House is finally accepting the science re AGW reality disaster turning out even worse than many had suspected.

@howhot3...
I was hoping that @J_Dipstick would do something beside...
Sad, isn't it, mate; that JD's 'human condition' and chosen profession (shill-spammer) involves having to betray his own intellect as well as the future of his own family/friends and humanity at large. Is it wrong of me to feel sorry for the poor bugger despite what he has been doing for 'Thirty Pieces of Silver'?
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2017
@Dustywankee; More CO2 - no significant temperature increase. Humm.. If that is so then why do they call CO2 a "Greenhouse Gas?" It works on the same principle that a greenhouse does. It lets light in but doesn't let heat out. If you haven't got that part figured out you must be dumber than a rock..
Yessireebob, I amm dumber than a rock, I am stupid, I am an idiot. I know that because you a$$holes are always telling me that. But I can't figure out why, if CO2 lets light in but doesn't let heat out, then why it isn't hot. In the greenhouse we have vents or louvers that we have to open because it gets too hot in a short time - just like Lacis predicted. But outside with all that extra CO2 floating around it isn't any warmer than it was a hundred years ago. Every night the weather report tells me the record temperature and only sometimes is it a new record. usually it's from a long time ago. Sometimes it's even a new low temperature record.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
Every night the weather report tells me the record temperature and only sometimes is it a new record. usually it's from a long time ago. Sometimes it's even a new low temperature record.


It is a shock to see someone such as dustywells offer up a correct appraisal of CO₂ & how it influences the earth's climate. This below substantiates his comments.
On 13 September 2012 the World Meteorological Organisation disqualified the record for the highest recorded temperature, exactly 90 years after it had been established at El Azizia, Libya, with a measurement of 58°C. The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7°C (134°F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.
http://www.guinne...erature/

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
Antarctica sets new cold weather record of –93.2 C Dec 09, 2013
It happened in August 2010 when it hit –135.8 F (–93.2 C). Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: –135.3 F (–92.9 C).

The old record had been –128.6 F (–89.2 C).
http://www.cbc.ca....2457494

We do not need to ponder whether or not the duds who call themselves RealityCheck, Captain StuPid & the one who is so insane that he believes himself to be in Russia, a country that inspite of its size, he could not point out on a globe, howhot3, because we know that they are totally devoid of any pertinent and valid info about anything & can only comment so that everyone can know how stupid they are.

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2017
Minus  33°C ( -27.4°F) at Summit, Greenland.  The coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, says Tony Heller.
How much ice do you think is melting at -33°C?
4 July 2017  – The new record of -33C ( -27.4°F) smashes the old record of -30.7°C (-23.26°F).
"Climate experts immediately responded to the record cold by saying Greenland is melting faster than expectedat -33C," says Heller.
https://www.iceag...-record/

I doubt that the duds recall this happening.
Bitter cold grips northern New England
Updated 6:25 am, Thursday, January 3, 2013
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Temperatures will struggle to make it out of the teens throughout much of Northern New England.
http://www.timesu...3785.php
 

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2017
@Forum.

You may have noticed my recent absence from the comment pages here. The reason is that I am now at a crucial stage in my work finalizing my reality-based-postulates construct for my Physics ToE and my work on accompanying reality-based-axioms construct for my Mathematical ToE which will model the Physics ToE more realistically and consistently from Infinitesimal-to-Infinite scales; thus completing the Universal Physical/Mathematical Theory and uniting all the (correct) partial theories and providing the missing physics/maths 'reality-bridge' between all such across their 'domains of applicability' from Quantum-to-Macro.

I will not be commenting much at all for a while, in order to make a 'final push' towards publishing complete ToE, as foreshadowed.


The project that you said you were undertaking must have been as simple as you are because it sure didn't take long to finish & here you are again, spouting your meaningless bull shit.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2017
Sad, isn't it, mate; that JD's 'human condition' and chosen profession (shill-spammer) involves having to betray his own intellect as well as the future of his own family/friends and humanity at large.

So, in your feeble drug altered mind, presenting facts, with links, is betraying my own intellect as well as the future of my own family/friends and humanity at large?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2017
@J Doug.

You're whistling in the wind, Judas. The reality is speaking right now.

https://phys.org/...onn.html

Your mercenary shill-spamming-trolling has branded you a traitor to both science and humanity. That you still persist after the White House has accepted the AGW reality unfolding; and despite the ongoing AGW disasters and threats to many nations/regions, tells all we need to know that you are a seriously deranged and selfish nincompoop betraying your own intellect and character for "Thirty Pieces of Silver". Oh, and just because I am involved in a wide scoping scientific project does not mean I must shirk my responsibility to science and humanity by staying silent while you evil morons lie and sabotage proper efforts on behalf of all humanity against those who have been paying you to shill-spam lies. You have chosen to be a paid stooge for crooks and corrupt politicians betraying every good ethic/principle under the sun...JUDAS.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2017
I know good old @J Douchey is just one of the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersburg. All his postings and actions seem to indicate he's with a professional trolling group. I also gather he's a professional climate change denier. It's nice to have such a big fish on the line. His pay has to be pretty good considering how little work the JD troll does. Phys.org should complain that JD is not giving us enough BS, and he needs to deliver MORE!

He is a Judas @RC. He gave his soul to the polluters for a few rubles. The professionalism of his cut and paste posts tactics are interesting in using Science against Science. His posts' are beyond scientific debating points, and more to talking over you with science jiberish. Garbage russian propaganda tactics. The trolls did the same thing to the USA elections, and the are trying to do the same on climate change! The trolls get paid good money for this.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2017
I hope you see the tactic @RealityC in his reply to you;
Sad, isn't it, mate; that JD's 'human condition' and chosen profession (shill-spammer) involves having to betray his own intellect as well as the future of his own family/friends and humanity at large.

So, in your feeble drug altered mind, presenting facts, with links, is betraying my own intellect as well as the future of my own family/friends and humanity at large?

He's taunting you man. He's using you against you, science against science, etc. @J_D only wants debate and conflict. Every psyop that they can muster to deny climate change is good for him except his hate for Putin kind of shows here and there.

J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2017
@J Doug.

You're whistling in the wind, Judas. The reality is speaking right now.


Don't you think, RealityCheck, to use the word loosely, that your comments would be viewed differently that, if instead of a stupid repeat of other ad hominem attacks on me, you perhaps concentrated on some scientific subject? I realize that for you, that is impossible to do.

I have been to Fiji on two separate occasions and I did not see evidence of the islands soon disappearing beneath the waves.

I'm sure that you do not want to believe Anthony Watts since he repeatedly proves you wrong; but, if you don't believe him about this proven historical sea level data, then prove him to be mistaken. Since you can't do that, try to show how this fits in with your present narrative about your devil in the sky, CO₂, and sea level rise.
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2017
I have been to Fiji on two separate occasions and I did not see evidence of the islands soon disappearing beneath the waves. What do you imagine was happening in Fiji when this below was documented regarding Rome & the UK?
"Scientists warn some low-lying island nations risk being swamped entirely as sea levels rise."
https://phys.org/...onn.html

"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."
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2017
Please give me your thoughts about this historically document case when the sea level was much higher than now during the much warmer than present MWP & what would have been happening in Fiji.
"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 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/

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2017
@J Doug.
I have been to Fiji on two separate occasions and I did not see evidence of the islands soon disappearing beneath the waves.
Now we know yu are a stupid troll for 'thirty pieces of silver' from your paymasters who are now being forced to face the AGW reality which has become undeniable to even the erstwhile denialists in the White House who have just released a report that confirms AGW is happening and getting worse if we don't act now. But all you can do now is lie about "been to Fiji twice..." and pretending to know better than the whole nation living there with their water table and buffer zones being compromised more and more each year. You really are an incompetent troll shill-spammer, aren't you. More than your troll factory employee predecessors here in the past, JUDAS.

PS: Being atheist since age nine, I do not go in for 'belief'; I study objectively the extant reality. I pity you/your type; betraying your own intellect and objective faculties. Pity.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017
I have been to Fiji on two separate occasions...
As what? A Russian spy??

I'm sure that you do not want to believe Anthony Watts...
How are we supposed to believe in a false prophet like him. No one should ever trust what that creep says. Do you know he makes $1 million (maybe more now) running that 'watts up with that'. Regardless, his is a religion, and followers like you @J_Douchey worship his feet. A smarter man would be more skeptical of a snake oil salesman.
https://www.sourc...ny_Watts
https://skeptical...blog.htm
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017
PS: Being atheist since age nine, I do not go in for 'belief'; I study objectively the extant reality. I pity you/your type; betraying your own intellect and objective faculties. Pity.


My; is that the best you can do? Why didn't your address the information about the sea levels during the MWP? That would take some analytical thought and you are more comfortable with calling people names that taking any kind of action that would involve actual science and looking at history to base opinions about the present on. When was the last time you were to Fiji since you fancy yourself to be such an expert on the diverse island nation? Why would you being an atheist interest me? The fact that you appear to be an uninformed fool is something that you do not have to tell me because that is obvious.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017
No one should ever trust what that creep says. Do you know he makes $1 million (maybe more now) running that 'watts up with that'.


Watts certainly has been more honest than kind of people that the old wind up dummy, howhot3, thinks are so great, such as Gore.

"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017

Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard)."
https://forums.an...1587380/

Environmentalists and human rights activists are accusing Vice President Al Gore of hypocrisy over his shareholding in Occidental Oil, a company that plans to drill in Colombia's rainforests over the objections of local indigenous communities.
Gore owns up to half a million dollars of the company's stock.
http://www.democr...cidental
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017
Watts certainly has been more honest than kind of people that the old wind up dummy, howhot3, thinks are so great, such as Gore since Al Gore has made so much off of this hoax of climate change.
Al Gore currently has a net worth of an estimated: $177,217,106
Al Gore's net worth decreased by $291,043 on 11/1/2017
When Al Gore ran for President in 2000, he filed a public financial disclosure report that revealed that his net worth was somewhere between $700,000 and $1.9 million. 
This filing revealed that Al Gore had a fairly modest net worth, with his largest asset being listed as a home in Arlington, VA that was worth between $250,001 - $500,000. 
https://www.davem...al-gore/

Al Jazeera is owned by oil rich Arabs
Gore sold the Current TV network, which he helped start in 2004, to Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million in January. 
http://www.dailym...ade.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2017

Watts certainly has been more honest than kind of people that the old wind up dummy, howhot3, thinks are so great, such as Gore since Al Gore has made so much off of this hoax of climate change.

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore's film as "alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was "one-sided" and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore's attempt at "political indoctrination."
The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. The Gore-loving U.S. media largely ignored the story, but starting premiere night Oct. 18, Americans will hear it in Not Evil Just Wrong. To set the stage, here is a recap of Gore's claims and why they are flawed:

http://britainand...e-f.html
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2017
Man-o-man there @J_Douchebag, you certainly can dig up crap when you want to. Al Gore is a politician. 'C's don't matter. He does what politicians do and he's honest about being a politician. He's not a scientist, he's simply a politician speaking on a point of view that needs to be discussed and acted on. So thank you for bringing him into the conversation.

Watt on the other hand is a tool to the highest bidder. There is nothing truthful about him. None. He's basically a tool. A tool easily corrupted by right-wing ideology (and russian influences). He's never written a good science paper in climate change ever. Nothing that will ever get published in Nature or Science or any credible journal.

It's kind of begs the question doesn't it @J_Dodgey. The question of why Russians are so anti-environmental. They seem to be so against climate change science. Whats up with that friend?
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2017
You know @J_Dogooder; you problem is that you have to man facts to share. Just too man facts. They are all BS facts, but you have a lot of them! You seem to ignore the one fact that make Al-Gore the loudest voice against the tyranny of the polluters and the destroyers of the atmosphere. He has a Nobel Prize recognizing his contributions. Watt doesn't, and never will.

Click-n-enjoy Anthony Watt's linkedin page.

https://www.linke...sambaman

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2017
He's never written a good science paper in climate change ever. Nothing that will ever get published in Nature or Science or any credible journal.


What is it, howhot3, that has caused you to be such an uninformed stupid fuck? Where do you live, maybe that has something to do with it? What kind of drugs are you taking in enormous quantities to cause you to be so utterly clueless about anything? I really don't care and take this opportunity to announce to you that I will NEVER again reply to you.

"MulIer says that the BEST team has now cleared up this  issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. "lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."
http://bishophill...tts.html
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2017
The J_Doushey askesl
What is it, howhot3, that has caused you to be such an uninformed stupid fuck?
Your the climate change denier not me, so I really question who is the uninformed stupid fuck.

As for everything else you posted, the only thing I've gathered is you seem to admire Putin (more than a man should) and you have never had Smirnoff vodka? So that make you a russian nasal hair twister as best as I can tell.

It's getting to be winter in the Northern hemisphere so we should see CO2 levels increase slightly quicker, CO2now.org says 404.37. Based on that measurement alone, Watt is a FAKE.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2017
@J Doug.
Being atheist since age nine, I do not go in for 'belief'; I study objectively the extant reality. I pity you/your type; betraying your own intellect and objective faculties.
My; is that the best you can do? Why didn't your address the information about the sea levels during the MWP? That would take some analytical thought ...
You have already well-demonstrated you are incapable of objective connecting-the-dots type "analytical thoughjt", JD. And your posts of disjoint facts' which have been addressed here at PO long before you came along, demonstrates you are just the "Jonny-come-latest" cab off the rank from that Troll Factpry employing you to shill-spam. Apparently you are also slow in the 'news updates' department too, as you still miss/ignore that bothy the WHITE HOUSE and FOSSIL INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS which funded that Troll Factpry campaign are NOW admitting/accepting that AGW is real and CO2 has a large part to play in exacerbating it, JUDAS.
howhot3
not rated yet Nov 15, 2017
@J Douchey has wimped out;
I really don't care and take this opportunity to announce to you that I will NEVER again reply to you.


This is a typical action of a PAID PROPAGANDA TROLL. When cornered in a money loosing never-ending debate, the loser just wimps out! Good job @RC. We won.




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.