Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

I watched the whole thing. Another real good piece of propaganda by a charlatan.

And it was wrong because....?

[RandomGuy]

The no mention does matter. H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. It is a lie by omission, making the viewer think that only increased CO2 can be the cause. Any starting changes in the earths temperature will increase the H2O content in the air also.

CO2 changes by what? Around 50%? H2O changes by more than that. If we go to the alarmist belief that CO2 increases temperature by 3C for doubling, then a 50% increase is about a 1C increase for CO2. However, the forcing of water vapor is at least 3 times that of CO2. Doubling of water vapor is at least 9C then.

Have you ever seen how the Water vapor content in the air changes over the earth during these long term changes?

Could a 12 minute video addressing a single topic address every single possible point you want it to make?

You are claiming it is some deliberate "lie by omission", when it is entirely possible that point may have been addressed elsewhere.

Have you looked at the author's other material to be able to say this for certain?

We both know the answer is "no, I have not, nor will not, look at all of this other material, I just slapped that claim on there to make myself feel better about my dismissing it out of hand".

Emotional arguments suck when it comes to getting at the truth.

[RandomGuy]

LAtD9aZYXAs

Shocking.

Google is your friend. "climate crock of the week water vapor" found this in one tenth of a second.

[Wild Cobra]

LAtD9aZYXAs

Shocking.

Google is your friend. "climate crock of the week water vapor" found this in one tenth of a second.
In don't even know where to start addressing that. Since you posted the propaganda, and obviously do not understand the sciences to believe why i would claim as I do, it's probably pointless.

Yes... Propaganda.

It starts with a rolling mist, which is not the same as H2O in the atmosphere you cant see.

Notice that levels are never assigned.

He states something like 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect is from various form of water in the air, but then claims CO2 has a greater effect because it is well mixed and H2O is only in the troposphere. CO2 having a greater volume does not mean it has a greater effect. Why didn't he say that the consensus is that CO2 is thought to have 95 to 26% of the greenhouse effect?

Bringing up extreme views of "deniers" at 95% (90%?) then giving a top range of 85% is also suspicions. Not a whole lot of difference between 85% and 95%.

Calling H2O a feedback from CO2 forcing (implied) is ridiculous, especially after correctly pointing out H2O has a loose boundary of percentage in the air by temperature. Not only is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas, but temperature is also increased by the sun, which isn't poi9nted out. To say that the claimed 0.6C assumed increase makes a large enough change in H2O concentration to have an increased radiative forcing is laughable. Assuming we change the equatorial air from around 40C to 41C, you may get around a 5% increase in water vapor. this is pretty meaningless when at these temperatures, it is already near the horizontally flat part of the logarithmic curve. Now in the polar regions, where it is claimed the air may be a couple degrees warmer, the change may be around 10%. This may be from increased H2O, but as he pointed out, the percentage is around 0.2% in the polar regions.

Where does he make any claim about where the increased temperature, enough to affect H2), is from Co2?

He brings out facts, clumps them together, and without directly lying... lets the viewer get the wrong impression.

It's funny. So few studies on H2O forcing. I was looking for a clear graph to post, concentration vs. forcing, and didn't find any. Anyway, these changes are more notable at low levels that already high levels.

When I do look for H2O forcing, a common theme I find is it isn't studied because it isn't man made. At the same time, they claim extra forcing from temperature. Again, is it too much to ask to make sure they are not including natural forcing in their results when looking for anthropogenic forcing?

[Wild Cobra]

Random...

What I see, maybe you can relate to mathematically.

If I make a claim, and show some fancy calculations, but never show them together, and how the results are achieved, what you you think? That's what I see in these videos. He is baffling people who don't understand at the levels needed with his bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

Though I usually don't see "Skeptical Science' as anything other than another AGW site, the work by Kevin Trenberth here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=213&&n=865) is a good piece. Even though he is one of the "alarmists," and a lead author for the IPCC, his bias seems to be tempered in the words of his works. I suggest anyone wanting to understand the greenhouse effect better see if this helps. I still don't like a few statements like:


There is often confusion about how the greenhouse effect works. Greenhouse gases are those with more than two atoms, and water vapor is most important (H2O). But water has a short lifetime in the atmosphere of 9 days on average before it is rained out. Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, has a long lifetime, over a century, and therefore plays the most important role in climate change while water vapor provides a positive feedback or amplifying effect: the warmer it gets, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold by about 4% per degree Fahrenheit.

He seems to dismiss H2O like the others do as the primary greenhouse gas. Regardless that it having a short lifespan, it's always there to some degree, and is measured in percentage, rather than ppm.

Revised numbers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf)

Click on graphic for another good link.

[MannyIsGod]

Water Vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. It is not the most important. If you had any understanding of atmospheric workings, you would understand why. Even when you read explanations the go over your head.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a dumb ass understand how that water works in the atmosphere.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Soot and water have an effect on the thermodynamics of the Earth so of course that means that CO2 does not. Don't you understand MiG?

[Wild Cobra]

Water Vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. It is not the most important. If you had any understanding of atmospheric workings, you would understand why. Even when you read explanations the go over your head.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a dumb ass understand how that water works in the atmosphere.
That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims.

I believe the generally accepted numbers are that H2O accounts for 70% +/- a little of the greenhouse effect and that water is generally accepted at 9% to 26%. When both change, and claims are made that H2O doesn't matter because we don't produce it.... WTF...

I find this very laughable that the AGW crowd says water vapor increases with temperature, amplifying CO2's effect, but seem to refuse that the balancing point for CO2 in the atmosphere vs. ocean changes with ocean warming.

If we look at it from a life issue, and they say CO2 stays for 20+ years, and water for less than 10 days... I say it's another play on facts to mislead from the truth.

Long term, over the last 250 years that have been fairly extensively studied, we see less than a 1C increase. The fact that the AGW crowd focuses on close to that number for recent decade changes should say something.

How can CO2 possibly account for the 1.6 watts/sq. meter of warming stated by the IPCC when other factors, with revised higher numbers would make the total forcing higher than it is?

[RandomGuy]

In don't even know where to start addressing that. Since you posted the propaganda, and obviously do not understand the sciences to believe why i would claim as I do, it's probably pointless.

Yes... Propaganda.

It starts with a rolling mist, which is not the same as H2O in the atmosphere you cant see.

Notice that levels are never assigned.

He states something like 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect is from various form of water in the air, but then claims CO2 has a greater effect because it is well mixed and H2O is only in the troposphere. CO2 having a greater volume does not mean it has a greater effect. Why didn't he say that the consensus is that CO2 is thought to have 95 to 26% of the greenhouse effect?

Bringing up extreme views of "deniers" at 95% (90%?) then giving a top range of 85% is also suspicions. Not a whole lot of difference between 85% and 95%.

Calling H2O a feedback from CO2 forcing (implied) is ridiculous, especially after correctly pointing out H2O has a loose boundary of percentage in the air by temperature. Not only is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas, but temperature is also increased by the sun, which isn't poi9nted out. To say that the claimed 0.6C assumed increase makes a large enough change in H2O concentration to have an increased radiative forcing is laughable. Assuming we change the equatorial air from around 40C to 41C, you may get around a 5% increase in water vapor. this is pretty meaningless when at these temperatures, it is already near the horizontally flat part of the logarithmic curve. Now in the polar regions, where it is claimed the air may be a couple degrees warmer, the change may be around 10%. This may be from increased H2O, but as he pointed out, the percentage is around 0.2% in the polar regions.

Where does he make any claim about where the increased temperature, enough to affect H2), is from Co2?

He brings out facts, clumps them together, and without directly lying... lets the viewer get the wrong impression.

It's funny. So few studies on H2O forcing. I was looking for a clear graph to post, concentration vs. forcing, and didn't find any. Anyway, these changes are more notable at low levels that already high levels.

When I do look for H2O forcing, a common theme I find is it isn't studied because it isn't man made. At the same time, they claim extra forcing from temperature. Again, is it too much to ask to make sure they are not including natural forcing in their results when looking for anthropogenic forcing?

If your ideas are that good, get out there and publish. Quit bitching about "propaganda" and do something about it, mouse.

Here is what I think:

You obviously don't understand the sciences involved. Every time I have taken the effort to delve into your claims, they have proven to be pretty bad takes on both the science involved, and sound reasoning itself.

If your understanding was as good as you claim, you would be publishing.

Since you are not publishing, I can only assume that if you presented this to someone who did understand the sciences, they would rightly shred your claims and assertions.

You do this with a variety of things beyond this.

Sorry, I don't accept your claim that this is spurious propaganda. I do not take your word at it.

[RandomGuy]

How can CO2 possibly account for the 1.6 watts/sq. meter of warming stated by the IPCC..

Present an alternate value, then submit that to a peer-reviewed journal.

Don't be afraid. Real scientists want to know the truth.

[Wild Cobra]

If your understanding was as good as you claim, you would be publishing.

Not my thing to do. I have a job that I actually enjoy doing. Why should I do something that is less interesting?

[Wild Cobra]

Present an alternate value, then submit that to a peer-reviewed journal.

Don't be afraid. Real scientists want to know the truth.
I think real scientists know the truth, but either sell their souls, or know better than bucking the system.

Climate scientists that disagree with the current dogma do get forced out.

[TeyshaBlue]

"That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims."
lol...I dont understand how it works I just know it's wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

"That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims."
lol...I dont understand how it works I just know it's wrong.
I can comprehend how the variables play out in the system, the problem is with the multiple variables, there is no way to make any solid claim. There is no solid understand of a complete climate system, by anyone. It is impossible for anyone to say that CO2 is the culprit it is, with any integrity.

[TeyshaBlue]

The converse is every bit as true using that "logic".

[Wild Cobra]

The converse is every bit as true using that "logic".
Hence, skeptic.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hence uninformed opinion.

[MannyIsGod]

There really aren't all that many variables on the global scale that need to be quantified. We can represent the Earth's energy budget rather simply. Its not perfect, but it doens't need to be to represent what CO2 is doing.

WC calling scientists liars because he's got no scientific skill is rich (and status quo).

[Agloco]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

There really aren't all that many variables on the global scale that need to be quantified. We can represent the Earth's energy budget rather simply. Its not perfect, but it doens't need to be to represent what CO2 is doing.

WC calling scientists liars because he's got no scientific skill is rich (and status quo).
I'm questioning their assessment of CO2 warming. Using SpectralCalc (http://spectralcalc.com/info/about.php) in the areas that CO2 produces warming, it takes a tube length 1000 times longer than with H2O to get comparable absorption. Considering there is about 10 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2, how do you explain that?

---edit add---

There is one part that doesn't need the 1000 times longer length to have merit, and it is the primary discussed range for CO2. However, when looking at it for the spectrum of earth emitted IR, it looks like this:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/CO2vsH2O.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

No one is disputing that water vapor is a higher contributor. What is being disputed is that you fail to realize that water vapor in the atmosphere is hard capped and is a function of temperature. That is why it is a feedback and that is why CO2 is more important.

In other words, you (per usual) have no fucking clue what you're talking about because you're a parts changer with no education in the field that believe you know enough to lecture experts in. Its not even just atmospheric science; its pretty much EVERY field. You think you know more than the experts.

[MannyIsGod]

I mean it should be self evident that if H2O was the primary driver behind AGW we would have no oceans and a temperature much higher because higher temps evap more water raising the temp etc etc. Why doesn't it happen? I wonder. (not really)

[Wild Cobra]

No one is disputing that water vapor is a higher contributor.
Good.

What is being disputed is that you fail to realize that water vapor in the atmosphere is hard capped and is a function of temperature. That is why it is a feedback and that is why CO2 is more important.

As I have pointed out in the past, CO2 is not the only thing driving temperature.

If CO2 was respnsible for ~0.6C increase, then that is very little more to add any water to the atmosphere. there would be almost no change for a few reasons, but H2O, like CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, is logarithmic in forcing vs. quantity. Solar energy however, with it's known changes since the 1700, has directly warmed the oceans more than in the past. This will also create more humidity in the air, and almost for certain, more than any amount of CO2 has done.

I mean it should be self evident that if H2O was the primary driver behind AGW we would have no oceans and a temperature much higher because higher temps evap more water raising the temp etc etc. Why doesn't it happen? I wonder. (not really)

What a silly statement.

If H2O caused AGW...

Really now...

In these more recent days, you need to remember. I pointed out H2O as increasing with temperature as well, besides CO2, coming out of the ice age. All you fear-mongers do is talk about CO2.

Would you agree there was a significant increase in H2O levels coming out of the ice age or not?

CO2 only increased about 50%. H2O more than doubled. CO2 increased slightly coming out of the maunder minima. I'll bet H2O almost doubled.

[MannyIsGod]

Show me your math, WC. You know, the way that has been done for CO2 over the past 100+ years. Show your math, or STFU already.

[Wild Cobra]

Show me your math, WC. You know, the way that has been done for CO2 over the past 100+ years. Show your math, or STFU already.

You agree that H2O is temperature dependent, yet you ignore any discussion that it is valid for changes from the ice age to now, and from the maunder minima to now?

How hypocritical.

[Wild Cobra]

Show me your math, WC. You know, the way that has been done for CO2 over the past 100+ years. Show your math, or STFU already.

LOL...

Show the math...

Where is the math from the AGW crowd?

Have any that is preficed with "we assume this" or "our best assessment?"

[MannyIsGod]

Um, in every peer reviewed paper published on the subject? The ones you always say are wrong even though I doubt you know enough math to even understand the equations. If you don't even know how they come to the conclusions why are you saying they are wrong? Question is rhetorical as I already know the answer.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, in every peer reviewed paper published on the subject? The ones you always say are wrong even though I doubt you know enough math to even understand the equations. If you don't even know how they come to the conclusions why are you saying they are wrong? Question is rhetorical as I already know the answer.
I don't remember the specific words, but have you ever noticed how they qualify their statement? They almost always say something like "to arrive at our conclusions, we assumed a set of xxx for yyy," etc.

Yes, my paraphrasing isn't completely accurate, but I'm trying to make a point.

Have anything that has facts, without assumptions?

Don't you ever notice the written in uncertainties?

[MannyIsGod]

you agree that h2o is temperature dependent, yet you ignore any discussionthat it is valid for changes from the ice age to now, and from the maunder minima to now?

How hypocritical.

lol

[MannyIsGod]

So, tell me whats wrong with these analysis, WC.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jmgregory0201.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

Thats a TINY fraction of the papers out there on CO2 climate sensitivity and ALL have the math within them.

Show why those are wrong and you are right. Should be easy for someone as smart as you, right?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't remember the specific words, but have you ever noticed how they qualify their statement? They almost always say something like "to arrive at our conclusions, we assumed a set of xxx for yyy," etc.

Yes, my paraphrasing isn't completely accurate, but I'm trying to make a point.

Have anything that has facts, without assumptions?

Don't you ever notice the written in uncertainties?

If they are wrong then show it. Show what is wrong and why. Enough of your bullshit parts changer babble and actually show it.

[Wild Cobra]

If they are wrong then show it. Show what is wrong and why. Enough of your bullshit parts changer babble and actually show it.
I have said something before, but it went unchallenged, so I didn't elaborate.

I just scanned the first page of your first link. Right away:

It is defined as
the steady-state change in global-average surface temperature
due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration,
and is estimated to lie between 1.5 and 4.5
K (Cubasch et al. 2001), largely on the basis of experiments
with general circulation models (GCMs). This
wide range was informally obtained from the model
results, and does not correspond to any particular probability
limits.
OK, we have agreement that the model shows what it was designed to show.

I'm not going to read all those four links. I'll jump to the second one and see if it says something interesting.

[MannyIsGod]

Where's your math? Where do you show that their math is incorrect?

[Wild Cobra]

Did i read this right in the third:

A global climate forcing, measured in W/m2 averaged
over the planet, is an imposed perturbation of the planet’s
energy balance. Increase of solar irradiance (So) by 2% and
doubling of atmospheric CO2 are each forcings of about 4
W/m2 [12].
Are they claiming a 2% increase in solar output?

That would be disastrous!


The resulting
GHG forcing between the LGM and late Holocene is 3
W/m2, apportioned as 75% CO2, 14% CH4 and 11% N2O.
0% for water, and you want me to thing this shit has merit?

[MannyIsGod]

Show your math or show why theirs is wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, they are not saying that H20 has zero effect dumb ass. A forcing and a feedback are two different things. You would know that if you actually understood the science the way you like to claim so often.

This shit is basic. You know, like ice sheets.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, if you're going to talk about increases in solar output being disastrous you might want to actually READ the article and take a look at the time frame then understand more about stellar cycles. You understand the science right? You don't even understand the papers you're reading.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

In the fourth one:


Without any
feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would
result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.14
Not disputed...

Bullshit.

Note 14... IPCC... LOL...

[Wild Cobra]

Also, they are not saying that H20 has zero effect dumb ass. A forcing and a feedback are two different things. You would know that if you actually understood the science the way you like to claim so often.

This shit is basic. You know, like ice sheets.
The bottom line it that it is all feedback. Feedback from the sun.

Call it what you must to say H2O plays no roll. It's not going to fool me.

Once again, If you want to call CO2 something that the forcing comes from, then don't forget the sun's forcing changes, and the indirect effect it has on GHG forcing.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, if you're going to talk about increases in solar output being disastrous you might want to actually READ the article and take a look at the time frame then understand more about stellar cycles. You understand the science right? You don't even understand the papers you're reading.
I didn't read the whole thing. Are they speaking of the next... I think 26,000 years... when the eccentricity of the earth is at it's minimum?

[MannyIsGod]

The bottom line it that it is all feedback. Feedback from the sun.

Call it what you must to say H2O plays no roll. It's not going to fool me.

Once again, If you want to call CO2 something that the forcing comes from, then don't forget the sun's forcing changes, and the indirect effect it has on GHG forcing.

You are a fucking moron.

PS Show the fucking math!

PPS No one in that article was saying H20 played no role (or roll).

PPPS You're just as bad at reading as your are at understanding science

PPPPS You're a moron.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't read the whole thing. Are they speaking of the next... I think 26,000 years... when the eccentricity of the earth is at it's minimum?

Yeah, you didn't read the fucking title either. SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

WC,

You're a waste of oxygen. You will not get a response from me in any form again until you show your math. The time I even spend ridiculing you're idiocy has become a waste. How many times can I laugh at you being a complete moron? Apparently I've reached that limit which is saying something since I'm fairly easily amused.

I'm cutting you off until you learn to use those 3 cells for something beyond changing fuses.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, if you're going to talk about increases in solar output being disastrous you might want to actually READ the article and take a look at the time frame then understand more about stellar cycles. You understand the science right? You don't even understand the papers you're reading.
I did a quick search for solar. Didn't see 2% elsewhere. I'm going to assume it's a typo, and should be 0.2%. Not 2%.

2% would be really bad.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, you didn't read the fucking title either. SMH.
I'm was only guessing at to why they would make the outrageous 2% claim.

Now as I think about it, I may have misunderstood their intent. It appears they are saying a 2% increase in solar energy is the same forcing as doubling CO2. And... since you separate forcing and feedback the way you like to compartmentalize things, it isn't so obvious to you, that a 2% solar change would be a disaster. Doubling of CO2 isn't the same thing.

Doubling of CO2 will increase percentage of upward IR that the CO2 traps, and returns to the ground, making a larger forcing than provided by the sun itself. this is estimated at around 4 watts/sq meter by some. I would argue this is a very high estimate, but I'll go with it for this point.

However...

The sun is the root energy of all these effects. Increase the output by 2%, and most the energy budget numbers are increased by 2% as well. If we take this latest diagram, imaging increasing all the numbers by 2%. The total 333 in back radiation becomes 339.66. A 6.66 watt/sq meter increase of radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses. I'm sorry, but doubling of CO2 does not increase radiative forcing by that much. There is also the 1.56 watts of direct forcing change in the atmosphere, for a total forcing increase of 8.22 watts. Maybe not disastrous, but I would call getting that much more forcing would become a concern. This isn't including your extra water vapor feedback yet either. I don't know how close to linear the thermals and evaporation would be, so I didn't include them. If they are linear, it would be another 1.94 watts yet.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

[Wild Cobra]

WC,

You're a waste of oxygen. You will not get a response from me in any form again until you show your math. The time I even spend ridiculing you're idiocy has become a waste. How many times can I laugh at you being a complete moron? Apparently I've reached that limit which is saying something since I'm fairly easily amused.

I'm cutting you off until you learn to use those 3 cells for something beyond changing fuses.
LOL...

Having a tantrum I see...

It's funny how you focus on one thing to use as an excuse, instead admitting defeat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The key when dealing with WC is to not give him rein. He is dumb and if you leave him to his own devices he is only going to repeat the exact same shit. How many times has he repeated the same energy flux figure and the picture now?

If you are going to do that you are just going to end up frustrated. Its the old cliche about arguing with an idiot.

Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability. I am guessing that it is autism or just straight up MR. Now one way completely understandable approach is to not go this route because making fun of retards is not exactly kind and their is something to taking the high road. It also will keep wine from whining at you. He is so cavalier as regards to WC.

Anyway, if you are going to go down the other route you have to dictate the conversation. Its not hard to find the logical inconsistencies and when you find them you have to be relentless. He is going to try and evade and switch the subject because even he knows he doesn't know wtf he is talking about.

Don't ask him to explain. Tell him he hasn't and then point out he doesn't get to insert supposition for fact. thats half of his Dr EZ-Bake analysis. Don't give him that rope.

For example, here he is babbling about linear functions and feedbacks while throwing out figures. Its dumb. Point out specifically how he doesn't understand and how its because he does not have the capacity to understand. He didn't even bring up specific heat for example/

Another example is the spectral absorption chart. WC likes to dumb things down and when he does you cannot just let it pass. In this case he tries to make claims on the ocean based on a fresh water single state absorption chart. With that same brain he talked about how it was all going to be limited to the top and evaporate. that particular take was mindnumbingly stupid.

the list goes on. as he continues and meanders through his stupidity just catalog it. Don't argue with him just catalog it, post it and laugh. You are not going to reason with stupid.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Show the math...

Where is the math from the AGW crowd?

Have any that is preficed with "we assume this" or "our best assessment?"

So, you aren't going to show your math.

[Wild Cobra]

So, you aren't going to show your math.
Specifically which math for what claim?

This gets confusing.

The math doesn't matter when you can show theirs is wrong.

[TeyshaBlue]

How in fuck's name can you show their math is wrong without showing your math?

Holy shit.

The math doesn't matter.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

How in fuck's name can you show their math is wrong without showing your math?

Holy shit.

The math doesn't matter.:lol
The facts simply do not add up.

They still claim around a 0.7C increase by CO2, but have since accepted that soot is about three times stronger in forcing than previously thought, and intentionally left out indirect solar forcing.

How many times must I say this?

Indirect solar forcing in completely missing from the alarmists numbers.

[Blake]

Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability.

That would explain a lot

[Wild Cobra]

That would explain a lot
Spurstalk has too many assholes like the two of you, who simply bully anyone you disagree with.

You two are pathetic losers.

[TeyshaBlue]

The facts simply do not add up.

They still claim around a 0.7C increase by CO2, but have since accepted that soot is about three times stronger in forcing than previously thought, and intentionally left out indirect solar forcing.

How many times must I say this?

Indirect solar forcing in completely missing from the alarmists numbers.

They don't add up? You won't even support that with math.

You make the assumption that soot is underfactored, yet you don't bother to make the case with math?

Your opinion, such that it is, is rendered absolutely worthless if you don't bother to substantiate it. Simply pointing at another facet and claiming it's wrong, without bothering to quantify whether the "wrong" has any effect whatsoever is a beyond worthless. It's completely vacant.

[DarrinS]

I'm surprised no one posted Heartland's epic fail of a billboard

http://assets1.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/44072/original/Heartland%20billboard.png?1336150100

There was also one with Charles Manson.


Thankfully, numerous notable skeptics have spoken out against these billboards and it appears that Heartland is promptly taking them down.

By attcking the character of those you disagree with (e.g. by equating them to terrorists, murderers, or holocaust deniers), you don't evelate the debate at all (sorry RG, but you are just as guilty).



A letter from Ross McKitrick to Heartland




Dear Joe:

I just saw the billboards that Heartland is using to advertise the 7th ICCC:

http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/

I am absolutely dismayed. This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation, hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.

Strike the tone in your advertisements that you want people to use when talking about you. The fact that you need a lengthy webpage to explain the thinking behind the billboards proves that your messaging failed. Nobody is going to read your explanation anyway. All they will take away is the message on the signs themselves, and it’s a truly objectionable message.

You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Once you have done such a thing you have lost the moral high ground and you can never again object if someone uses that kind of rhetoric on you.

I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards. Had this simply been someone objecting to my speaking at Heartland I could easily have (and would have) defended myself. But notwithstanding that I have tenure and have the full right to speak wherever I want, the fact is that I have to agree with the person — I’m appalled.

I appreciate what Heartland does, and I know this year has been frustrating for you, and your staff may feel like venting. But I can’t be associated with those billboards. I had really been looking forward to participating in this year’s conference, but unless the billboard campaign is immediately suspended I have to cancel my participation.

Yours truly
Ross McKitrick

[MannyIsGod]

Those billboards were brought up in a completely different thread. They don't prove anything past that Heartland is a shitty organization but I think a lot of people already knew that.

[MannyIsGod]

The key when dealing with WC is to not give him rein. He is dumb and if you leave him to his own devices he is only going to repeat the exact same shit. How many times has he repeated the same energy flux figure and the picture now?

If you are going to do that you are just going to end up frustrated. Its the old cliche about arguing with an idiot.

Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability. I am guessing that it is autism or just straight up MR. Now one way completely understandable approach is to not go this route because making fun of retards is not exactly kind and their is something to taking the high road. It also will keep wine from whining at you. He is so cavalier as regards to WC.

Anyway, if you are going to go down the other route you have to dictate the conversation. Its not hard to find the logical inconsistencies and when you find them you have to be relentless. He is going to try and evade and switch the subject because even he knows he doesn't know wtf he is talking about.

Don't ask him to explain. Tell him he hasn't and then point out he doesn't get to insert supposition for fact. thats half of his Dr EZ-Bake analysis. Don't give him that rope.

For example, here he is babbling about linear functions and feedbacks while throwing out figures. Its dumb. Point out specifically how he doesn't understand and how its because he does not have the capacity to understand. He didn't even bring up specific heat for example/

Another example is the spectral absorption chart. WC likes to dumb things down and when he does you cannot just let it pass. In this case he tries to make claims on the ocean based on a fresh water single state absorption chart. With that same brain he talked about how it was all going to be limited to the top and evaporate. that particular take was mindnumbingly stupid.

the list goes on. as he continues and meanders through his stupidity just catalog it. Don't argue with him just catalog it, post it and laugh. You are not going to reason with stupid.

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.

I'll just save myself the frustration that it ultimately leads to. Its my fault for even engaging in it. The problem is that even when I just laugh at it, there's a big part of me that wants to explain why its wrong which inevitably leads to me just banging my head against a keyboard in an effort to make someone who has obviously demonstrated either a lack of ability or will to understand come to terms with the actual science behind it.

[DarrinS]

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.


I always thought it was the conservation of energy. Hmmm. Who knew?

[MannyIsGod]

There's a reason I didn't study English. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.

I'll just save myself the frustration that it ultimately leads to. Its my fault for even engaging in it. The problem is that even when I just laugh at it, there's a big part of me that wants to explain why its wrong which inevitably leads to me just banging my head against a keyboard in an effort to make someone who has obviously demonstrated either a lack of ability or will to understand come to terms with the actual science behind it.

I agree its not worth addressing. I long ago started taking the tactic of addressing everyone other than WC as my audience when responding to his posts. You are not going to get him to understand. He doesn't want to understand and its more than likely that he lacks the capacity to understand.

That's why I still respond to them despite him having me on ignore. Most of his comments can be summed up with the Russell quote:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Simply try and relate why hes wrong with an audience of average intelligence in mind rather than trying to get through to the lackwit. On a personal note, I have learned quite a lot from your discourse with him towards the science just as i am sure have others. Do not let stupidity discourage you.

[Wild Cobra]

They don't add up? You won't even support that with math.

You make the assumption that soot is underfactored, yet you don't bother to make the case with math?

Your opinion, such that it is, is rendered absolutely worthless if you don't bother to substantiate it. Simply pointing at another facet and claiming it's wrong, without bothering to quantify whether the "wrong" has any effect whatsoever is a beyond worthless. It's completely vacant.
I have supported it before. How mant times do I have to pull out the numbers? Just look at the IPCC numbers from the AR4, they are there.

Oh fuck this. I'm not going to repeatedly look up and link the same material year after year.

I'm getting pissed at you all, and not in the mood.

I have to leave for a few hours and I need to get this off my mind for a bit, but I will say this.

The experts have agreed soot is 3 times previously thought.

They only account for direct solar forcing changes, completely ignoring the indirect forcing. Instead, they include the indirect in their increased greenhouse gas number.

If there was no sun, there would be no greenhouse effect. Increase the solar irradiance, and the forcing for for greenhouse gasses increases.

They only include the direct 0.12 watts/sq meter for the solar increases. There is added surface warming which is added fuel for the greengouse effect. In the end, the change in solar irradiance accounts for almost 1 watt of direct and indirect forcing, at the levels the IPCC and other AGW alarmists agree that the sun has intensified.

They hide this extra forcing in the greenhouse gasses and claim it's because of CO2!

I have shown in the past how the solar changes have an effect, but apparently, you guy's faith in AGW requires you to dismiss things of this nature.

By for a few hours.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The experts have agreed soot is 3 times previously thought.

Just to address this as he bases his entire position on this. I have no idea what quantities of CO2 versus carbon chains the study he references talks about but basically what it boils down to is that if you take an amount of pure carbon and irradiate it and do the same with CO2, the carbon will retain 3 times as much energy as the CO2.

Its not 3 times as much as previously thought, its 3 times as much as CO2. What he neglects to mention is that 1) the study is talking about atmospheric carbon and 2) carbon has a very short lifetime in the climate system. It deposits and gets washed away as its heavier than air. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very very long time as in more that 8 decades.

The way the dumbass would paint it, the entire arctic is black with soot. Thats what he supposes but as has been pointed out, the effect has been quantified in studies and his supposition does not trump that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I can gather below is the study that currently has the highest forcing attributed to BC and I have quoted the abstract.


Black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Black carbon is often transported over long distances, mixing with other aerosols along the way. The aerosol mix can form transcontinental plumes of atmospheric brown clouds, with vertical extents of 3 to 5 km. Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers. The interception of solar radiation by atmospheric brown clouds leads to dimming at the Earth’s surface with important implications for the hydrological cycle, and the deposition of black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces, which can contribute to melting, in particular of Arctic sea ice.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dipierro/classes/global_carbon/ramanathan_carmichael_2008.pdf

RG talks about how psuedoscientists take one fact and then overemphasize it to rule out other facts. That's what the idiot would have you believe: that the importance of BC makes CO2 emissions irrelevant, but as you can see scientists actually quantify the impacts.

[RandomGuy]

I'm surprised no one posted Heartland's epic fail of a billboard

There was also one with Charles Manson.

Thankfully, numerous notable skeptics have spoken out against these billboards and it appears that Heartland is promptly taking them down.

By attcking the character of those you disagree with (e.g. by equating them to terrorists, murderers, or holocaust deniers), you don't evelate the debate at all (sorry RG, but you are just as guilty).

A letter from Ross McKitrick to Heartland

You know that you are not interested in a "debate". No evidence or argument will change your opinion. You know it, and I know it.

Since you are not interested in a debate of any kind, what is there to elevate?

If CO2 isn't really doing anything,that will become harder and harder to ignore, and easier and easier to prove.

As we learn more, you will have to construct a larger and larger conspiracy in order to sustain your dogmatic belief that CO2 is harmless and we aren't doing anything.

How big will this conspiracy have to get before you realize it was a fantasy?

I wonder.

[RandomGuy]

From what I can gather below is the study that currently has the highest forcing attributed to BC and I have quoted the abstract.



http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dipierro/classes/global_carbon/ramanathan_carmichael_2008.pdf

RG talks about how psuedoscientists take one fact and then overemphasize it to rule out other facts. That's what the idiot would have you believe: that the importance of BC makes CO2 emissions irrelevant, but as you can see scientists actually quantify the impacts.

"LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" (that we don't know how to economically extract) "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE"

[RandomGuy]

There's a reason I didn't study English. :lol

I kind of like conversations of energy. :lol

[DarrinS]

If CO2 isn't really doing anything,that will become harder and harder to ignore, and easier and easier to prove.

As we learn more, you will have to construct a larger and larger conspiracy in order to sustain your dogmatic belief that CO2 is harmless and we aren't doing anything.



You sure kicked that strawman's ass

[RandomGuy]

You sure kicked that strawman's ass

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

CO2 is harmless to the global climate

climate scientists are covering up evidence of this

Humans are not causing increases in CO2

[Blake]

Oh fuck this. I'm not going to repeatedly look up and link the same material year after year.

I'm getting pissed at you all, and not in the mood.


:cry why is everyone else so intellectually dishonest :cry

[Wild Cobra]

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

I'll make a few remarks about this post.


CO2 is harmless to the global climate

It's all about levels. We simply don't know at what level CO2 actually causes harm. Evenm if it warms the earth, it may be more beneficial than harmful. More precipitation changing the deserts to usable lands for example.

At some point, it will affect more sensitive animals like birds, but we are talking radically higher levels than what is projected.


Humans are not causing increases in CO2

We might not be...

I will still stand by my contention that the solar warming of the ocean is changing the balance that CO2 has between the ocean and atmosphere. I will contend that we would have almost as high of levels today if we sere still in the stone age. I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

[RandomGuy]

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

So, the fact that the increases are accelerating with our fossil fuel usage is just a coincidence?

I would remind you that the cumulative total of human emissions is doubling every 10-15 years.

[RandomGuy]

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

"at most".

That is the upper boundary to your belief about this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_history_1024.jpg


The spike seems pretty unprecedented and sustained.

Is there some other event that explains this?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_Emissions_Levels_Knorr.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm


You should get out there and do some measuring to support that upper boundary.

I'm sure that the scientific community would like to get a better handle on how they are wrong.

[DarrinS]

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

CO2 is harmless to the global climate

climate scientists are covering up evidence of this

Humans are not causing increases in CO2



You keep trying to misrepresent my views. Quit being a dishonest fucktard.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796514&postcount=2739
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5801773&postcount=2859


Maybe you should post those in your sig so you don't forget (again).

[RandomGuy]

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)


The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

I can link the studies supporting this if you want.

You have to show conclusively that these studies are flawed or unreasonable. (edit) or better yet show how your theory better explains the observed data(/edit)

Get on with it, and don't prove it to me, I'm not a scientist.

Prove it to the point where it will pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal.

If your case is that good, you should be able to collect data that supports your theory.

[RandomGuy]

You keep trying to misrepresent my views. Quit being a dishonest fucktard.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796514&postcount=2739
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5801773&postcount=2859


Maybe you should post those in your sig so you don't forget (again).

Ah, you just have "questions". The milder version of most conspiracy theories that attempts to cloak/couch dogma in reasonable sounding language.

"The science and data doesn't support the conclusions to any great certainty."

Yet you have no contravening science, other than PoopDeck's flimsy list, and are unqualified to evaluate the data, even so.

Is that better?

[RandomGuy]

It's all about levels. We simply don't know at what level CO2 actually causes harm. Evenm if it warms the earth, it may be more beneficial than harmful.

It "may be" beneficial.

By all means, lets see where that logic gets us.

"It may be more beneficial than harmful to take massive amounts of this untested dietary supplement, so I don't see any reason not to".

"It may be more beneficial than harmful to invest in this awesome sounding penny stock, so I don't see any reason not to"

"It may be more beneficial than harmful to let my buddy kick me in the nuts as hard as he can, so I don't see any reason not to"

Your argument is rejected as spurious.

(edit)

Simply because something "might be" beneficial, but could quite possibly be harmful, does not mean that one should rush out and do it anyway.

Your arguments against green energy use this exact reasoning.

"Just because we "might" create green jobs, but could quite possibly damage our economy, does not mean we should rush out and do it.


twisty, isn't it?

How do you resolve this? If you are right about CO2, then you are wrong about green jobs and oil energy, by the same logic.

[DarrinS]

Ah, you just have "questions". The milder version of most conspiracy theories that attempts to cloak/couch dogma in reasonable sounding language.

"The science and data doesn't support the conclusions to any great certainty."

Yet you have no contravening science, other than PoopDeck's flimsy list, and are unqualified to evaluate the data, even so.

Is that better?


Quit being a dishonest fucktard.

[RandomGuy]

Quit being a dishonest fucktard.


My main issues are (1) how much is caused by CO2 vs. natural (2) what is the climate sensitivity, and (3) what are the nature of feedbacks?

I don't think any of those are known with great certainty.


"The science and data doesn't support the conclusions [of the AGW crowd claiming great harm] to any great certainty."


Seems like a fair restatement.

Or are you referring to my commentary? (edit)

[RandomGuy]

I don't think I've ever stated there is NO evidence.


My main issues are (1) how much is caused by CO2 vs. natural (2) what is the climate sensitivity, and (3) what are the nature of feedbacks?

I don't think any of those are known with great certainty.

But, by all means, let's get back to your real statements.

The scientists involved seem to think they have enough data to draw some reasonable conclusions.

They think they are getting all of these nailed down with increasing certainty.

Certainly as time passes and more valid science is done, they will start filling in the holes, and there are some uncertainties that remain, and a lot of holes to file, to be sure.

From what I understand, there are a lot of lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusions.


If there appears to be a harmful outcome to one of your actions, do you wait until you are 100% certain to stop?

[Wild Cobra]

So, the fact that the increases are accelerating with our fossil fuel usage is just a coincidence?

I would remind you that the cumulative total of human emissions is doubling every 10-15 years.
Funny how I have to point this out so many times. Please keep in mind, that there was a severe temperature change coming out of the ice age that caused CO2 to increase by about 50%. Since then, we have seen another approximate 50% increase in CO2, yet no notable temperature change like the previous 50% did... I mean, wouldn't we expect to see a similar temperature increase if CO2 is the cause?

It takes decades to see changes in ocean outgassing from increased warming. The last solar increase ended about 1950.

As for the fossil fuel, of course out emissions will accumulate in the atmosphere when the oceans are still warming and desire a different balance. Let me clarify to state that i don;t believe our CO2 would accumulate more than an extra 10 ppm if there was no increased solar activity. I say the ocean would have absorbed nearly all of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You keep trying to misrepresent my views. Quit being a dishonest fucktard.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5796514&postcount=2739
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5801773&postcount=2859


Maybe you should post those in your sig so you don't forget (again).

:lol yeah let's not forget your views have been so consistent. You still waffle over whether or not the warming even occurs depending on what mailer you get that day

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny how I have to point this out so many times. Please keep in mind, that there was a severe temperature change coming out of the ice age that caused CO2 to increase by about 50%. Since then, we have seen another approximate 50% increase in CO2, yet no notable temperature change like the previous 50% did... I mean, wouldn't we expect to see a similar temperature increase if CO2 is the cause?

Yay! The 'its not really warming' argument!

[DarrinS]

:lol yeah let's not forget your views have been so consistent. You still waffle over whether or not the warming even occurs depending on what mailer you get that day


What warming there has been is on the same order as noise -- kinda like your posts.

[RandomGuy]

What warming there has been is on the same order as noise -- kinda like your posts.

um, okay.

Let's add an extra word or two.

... so far.

What are your alternate sources of CO2 causing the recent run up in concentration, by the way?

What is the alternate theory, and what proof do you have to support this theory?

[RandomGuy]

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87


Remember, this alternate theory must explain the observed changes in isotope ratios as well.

I want a theory to test.

If it can't be tested, then you have no theory.

If you have no theory, get in the same corner as the twoofers.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87


Remember, this alternate theory must explain the observed changes in isotope ratios as well.

I want a theory to test.

If it can't be tested, then you have no theory.

If you have no theory, get in the same corner as the twoofers.
This doesn't matter. So what? The percentage of CO2 type in the air doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the extra sourced CO2 is not being sinked as much as it would be if there were not other changes besides Co2.

[RandomGuy]

This doesn't matter. So what? The percentage of CO2 type in the air doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the extra sourced CO2 is not being sinked as much as it would be if there were not other changes besides Co2.

So you don't have a theory to explain the changing ratio?

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't have a theory to explain the changing ratio?
The changing ratio is because we are burning fossil fuels. Not a difficult concept.

I'm saying the ratios don't matter.

[RandomGuy]

...or maybe the scientists are all wrong in their work that the ratio is changing?

Please clarify. There seems to be evidence that the ratio of Carbon isotopes is changing.

Either it is right, and there should be a theory that explains why, or it is wrong, and an explanation as to how the science/data was incorrect.

[RandomGuy]

The changing ratio is because we are burning fossil fuels. Not a difficult concept.

I'm saying the ratios don't matter.

But, I thought your theory is that we weren't emitting enough CO2 to change the concentration.

How can the ratio be changing to match our emissions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What warming there has been is on the same order as noise -- kinda like your posts.

So you disagree with the BEST correlation analysis and conclusion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The changing ratio is because we are burning fossil fuels. Not a difficult concept.

I'm saying the ratios don't matter.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

I'm saying the ratios don't matter.

They are an observed phenomenon that should be understood and studied, just like every other aspect of our complex climate should be.

Are you saying they don't matter, becuase you don't like the implications of the changing ratios?

That doesn't seem to be an unbiased approach to the science.

Should we not study them, or find out why they are changing? It would seem to be important, if one is studying increases in CO2 concentrations, as it would provide important clues as to where that extra Co2 is coming from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Haven't you been paying attention? Its not CO2; its all attributable to soot and deep ocean currents. He bets if you look at Asian industrialization that it will prove it.

[Wild Cobra]

But, I thought your theory that we weren't emitting enough CO2 to change the concentration.

How can the ratio be changing to match our emissions?
I don't have all the answers, but it should move towards the balance between our emission and natural emission.

Are you saying it went past a point of balance?

My theory is that well over 90% of the CO2 we emit should be sinked. I believe this number should be around 98%.

Now to specify, I mean quantity. Not the specific molecules involved. Put both natural and anthropic CO2 in the same bucket, and when you pour some into the sink, it's all mixed up. I can't believe anyone will want to twist my words into meaning 90%+ specific molecules of anthropogenic CO2 is sinked. When you add our 9 GtC to the 800 GtC already in the bucket, along with the 210 GtC of natural sourcing, when you poor 215 GtC back out, in a well mixed bucket, just less than 2 GtC of the man made will be poured out, with 7 remaining. Over the years, there will be balance accummulation until there is balance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg

This current model shows us as accumulating 4 GtC of carbon annually. My contention is that the oceans should be sinking far more than they do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My theory is that well over 90% of the CO2 we emit should be sinked. I believe this number should be around 98%.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Quit being a dishonest fucktard.

Really? From YOU? You post shit like your favorite CO2 video talking about how little of the atmosphere it makes up. You post shit that says there is no warming. You cannot be seriously trying to say that someone is misrepresenting your views when you yourself cannot get your damn views straight. You're all over the place then you love to try to come back to the "I am all about the science" but do you honestly think anyone is buying that given your posting history?

Remeber when you were shocked that people who even agreed with you thought you were a shill, Darrin? WHY is that? You're not the poster you think you are.

[MannyIsGod]

What warming there has been is on the same order as noise -- kinda like your posts.

You're completely wrong about this but I'd rather if you just make up your god damn mind on whether or not there is warming so that when we point out when you're wrong we don't get called dishonest fucktards by your dishonest ass.

You're either incredibly stupid, delusional, or a liar.

Which is it?

[MannyIsGod]

Great, I see Poptech lurking. Maybe we can get some more mental illness up in this thread.

[Poptech]

Yet you have no contravening science, other than Poptech's flimsy list, and are unqualified to evaluate the data, even so.
RandomLies, the list is not flimsy at all. It is peer-reviewed science,

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

There is much more peer-reviewed science here,

Climate Change Reconsidered - 2009 Report (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Climate Change Reconsidered - 2011 Interim Report (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html) (430 pgs) (NIPCC)

[Poptech]

Great, I see Poptech lurking. Maybe we can get some more mental illness up in this thread.
You, RandomLies and FuzzyDumbkins covers the mental illness spectrum for this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

There is much more peer-reviewed science here,

Climate Change Reconsidered - 2009 Report (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Climate Change Reconsidered - 2011 Interim Report (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html) (430 pgs) (NIPCC)
Thanks.

That's going to take me some time to go though. What little I read supports my points.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Poptech]

Thanks.

That's going to take me some time to go though. What little I read supports my points.
You will find these useful as well,

Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf) (PDF) (64pgs) (Fraser Institute)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2535) (PDF) (130pgs) (Fraser Institute)

Working Group (WG) I’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/515.pdf) (PDF) (16pgs) (The Marshall Institute)
Working Group (WG) II’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/526.pdf) (PDF) (13pgs) (The Marshall Institute)
Working Group (WG) III’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Be Sure to Read the Fine Print (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/530.pdf) (PDF) (12pgs) (The Marshall Institute)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Narcissistic personality disorder

Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors All Fail

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

Signs and tests

Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.
Treatment

Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.
Expectations (prognosis)

The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.
Complications

Alcohol or other drug dependence

Relationship, work, and family problems

Now keep in mind that Burry is a billionaire yet Popcrazy has no delusion of grandeur.

Second aspergers is a disorder that is noted for its sufferers to have no conception of the feelings of others. They cannot interpret facial expressions or body language and do not observe social conventions.

The thing is that aspergers is involuntary. OTOH, personality disorders behave in the same way but they are aware of what they are doing and just do not give a fuck. As you can see from the survey he is aware but just doesn't care.

TLJEsT9mY2Y

This is a youtube explaining the difference. I recommend listening to it and think about the symptoms and behaviors and compare them to how Poptech behaves.

Either way, Popcrazy exhibits antisocial behavior. If you go to his site he has multiple posts demonstrating his paranoia towards those he considers his political rivals. He also shows a tendency to stalk others in doing so. He has commented in passing how he wants to see people's IP addresses and he trolls people's profiles.

I am not kidding when I say that he is dangerous. this is not like WC's stupidity. this guy will go after you if you reveal who you are. You can look to his site to see the truth of that. I recommend under no circumstances should someone register with his site and give him any inkling as to your identity.

[MannyIsGod]

Has anyone seen my cherry tree? I seemed to have misplaced it and I want to pick it!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Isn't the NIPCC funded by the Heartland institute?

that they are piggybacking off of IPCC's name shows it to be a publicity stunt.

[Wild Cobra]

Has anyone seen my cherry tree? I seemed to have misplaced it and I want to pick it!
You can have mine if you like. I never pick them. The squirrels in the neighborhood like it, but they mostly just make a mess and go to waste.

[Poptech]

I recommend listening to it and think about the symptoms and behaviors and compare them to how Poptech behaves.
You are the one here with a mental illness,

Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.


If you go to his site he has multiple posts demonstrating his paranoia towards those he considers his political rivals.
I do not smoke marijuana so I cannot be paranoid. I simply posted the truth about various alarmists.


He also shows a tendency to stalk others in doing so. He has commented in passing how he wants to see people's IP addresses and he trolls people's profiles.
This is a lie, please provide evidence of me ever stalking anyone. I mentioned IP addresses in relation to revealing sock puppet accounts.


I am not kidding when I say that he is dangerous. this is not like WC's stupidity. this guy will go after you if you reveal who you are. You can look to his site to see the truth of that. I recommend under no circumstances should someone register with his site and give him any inkling as to your identity.
This is clear evidence of your psychosis and paranoia. I've "gone after" no one and everything I have revealed about various alarmists can be found for free online.

[Poptech]

Has anyone seen my cherry tree? I seemed to have misplaced it and I want to pick it!
You can locate it in the IPCC reports.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have all the answers, but it should move towards the balance between our emission and natural emission.

Are you saying it went past a point of balance?

My theory is that well over 90% of the CO2 we emit should be sinked. I believe this number should be around 98%.

Now to specify, I mean quantity. Not the specific molecules involved. Put both natural and anthropic CO2 in the same bucket, and when you pour some into the sink, it's all mixed up. I can't believe anyone will want to twist my words into meaning 90%+ specific molecules of anthropogenic CO2 is sinked. When you add our 9 GtC to the 800 GtC already in the bucket, along with the 210 GtC of natural sourcing, when you poor 215 GtC back out, in a well mixed bucket, just less than 2 GtC of the man made will be poured out, with 7 remaining. Over the years, there will be balance accummulation until there is balance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg

This current model shows us as accumulating 4 GtC of carbon annually. My contention is that the oceans should be sinking far more than they do.

So you don't really have a testable theory that explains the observed changing carbon isotope ratios?

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't really have a testable theory that explains the observed changing carbon isotope ratios?
I have read a few different theories about the topic, and their conclusions were all over the place. I don't think it matters, why do you? I simply don't worry about that aspect of it.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have all the answers, but it should move towards the balance between our emission and natural emission.

It should?

Why isn't it doing that?


Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

The problem with your "its coming out of the ocean" theory, is that the natural ratio would be going up, as the massive amount of natural carbon isotopes swamps that of the carbon isotopes released from burning fossil fuels.

This is the opposite of what we are observing, from what I understand.

Your theory does not explain this, and is directly contradicted by available evidence I have seen.

You don't see that as a problem?

[RandomGuy]

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

Maybe your buddy Poptech can offer some data on this theory.

Not that I am going to see it.

[Wild Cobra]

It should?

Why isn't it doing that?

Really? What evidence do you have that it isn't?


The problem with your "its coming out of the ocean" theory, is that the natural ratio would be going up, as the massive amount of natural carbon isotopes swamps that of the carbon isotopes released from burning fossil fuels.

No it wouldn't.

You completely fail to grasp the dynamics, and I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation. I hope this will suffice.

If we refer back to the graphic, then in balance, the sinking and sourcing between the ocean and atmosphere would be equal. The ocean primarily sources in the equatorial regions as the water moves and warms, and primarily sinks near the poles, at the colder water.

The vegetation will be pretty much in balance also without any changes in the solar radiation, influence of man, etc.

Take the 9 GtC out of the picture, and if there was not changes in the ocean temperature over time, all sinking and sourcing numbers would cancel each other out.

Now consider the ocean warming over time. The sourcing would be grater than the sinking. I will contend that our the ocean sourcing would be larger. let's say about 91 and the ocean sinking would be about 89 without man's influence. Now we would have a net sourcing effect. The water getting warmer cannot hold the same ratio as it did before, and must release CO2 until the new balance is achieved.

Now add man's 9 GtC rate. Now for the earth to attempt balance, but we are now adding more CO2 than the ocean does, so to achieve balance, the oceans sink CO2.

The ocean holds something like 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. If there was no change in ocean warming, then the ocean would sink about 98% of the AGW component. It will sink what is needed for balance. If it did sink 98% of that 9 GtC, then it would take ten years at that rate to increase the atmospheric component by almost 2 GtC, or by about 1 ppm.

Solubility of gasses in water... Henry's Law... are known scientific concepts. How temperature plays a role are also known and universally accepted by all scientific. Not just a consensus of scientists.


This is the opposite of what we are observing, from what I understand.

The trend shows as it should. The changes in ratio is indicating a larger percentage of fossil fuels being burned.


Your theory does not explain this, and is directly contradicted by available evidence I have seen.

It's your misunderstanding. The ocean is a net sink. I am saying it would be a net source if we didn't have the anthropogenic component. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

[MannyIsGod]

So you don't really have a testable theory that explains the observed changing carbon isotope ratios?

Good point, RG. While I think there is more than ample evidence that the increase in CO2 is due to human emission, the changes in the ratios of carbon 12 and carbon 13 are clean easy and established science that people rarely even bring up. Stable isotopes just aren't sexy enough.

[Wild Cobra]

Good point, RG. While I think there is more than ample evidence that the increase in CO2 is due to human emission, the changes in the ratios of carbon 12 and carbon 13 are clean easy and established science that people rarely even bring up. Stable isotopes just aren't sexy enough.

Yes, stable. Still too many variables. One for example is that not all plants are so particular.

If this part of the science were as stable as you guys say, then the studies would be far more repeatable.

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy,


This guy's blog is right up your alley. Enjoy. :toast

http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2012/04/22/first-post/


EDIT> And a good comment left by a reader




I’m absolutely convinced of the historical veracity of the Holocaust. My father told me his own stories late in life (he was a combat infantryman in the ETO) about encountering newly liberated concentration camp inmates wandering around Germany seeking food and shelter during the last days of the war and after VE Day.

But long before that, my own study of history had convinced me that only a fool (or a charlatan) would ever claim that the Holocaust never happened.

Climate change is a horse of a different color. I’ve been a pilot for almost 40 years (major U.S. airline and corporate), have an engineering dgree and have had extensive training in advanced mathematics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, meteorology and atmospheric physics. I view the matter through the prism of my education, professional training and the experience of many thousands of hours of flight time recorded over a period of several decades.

I’ve studied this issue extensively for many years, keep up with the literature and have listened with an open mind to both sides of the debate. My conclusion is that the climate is indeed changing and human activities definitely do influence the climate. But so do many other natural factors, including some that we currently appear to know very little about (cosmic rays, for example). I have also concluded that there has been a great deal of alarmist exaggeration about the threat of climate change, the rate at which it is occurring and the means available to humanity to influence the climate. Jim Hansen’s catastrophist screed in today’s New York Times is an excellent example of what I’m talking about.

The Climategate E-mail revelations (I’ve read them) have also done nothing to improve my confidence in the objectivity of many climate scientists. It is perfectly obvious to any neutral observer that many climate scientists have become overzealous advocates for a cause they deeply believe in. Careers, reputations and research grants are at stake. Their corrupting influences are plain. Many individuals with climate science pedigrees can no longer claim to be dispassionate analysts of the scientific evidence.

I find efforts to suppress debate about this issue profoundly disgusting, as do most people who love and respect science and the power of the scientific method. Equating well-meaning people who hold legitimate, well informed and skeptical views about the causes and effects of climate change with lunatics that deny the Holocaust is disgusting beyond words. It is the same kind of repulsive smear tactic that the Nazis themselves often used against dissent. It has no place in science and no place in America.

Holocaust deniers are rightly regarded as kooks. The reason, of course, is because of the overwhelming weight of documented evidence on the side of the truth. If AGW advocates ever hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public of the truth of their arguments, the first thing they must do is reject and condemn the use of the type of smear tactic embodied in this piece. The second thing they need must do is concentrate on building a far more convincing case for their claims. That includes engaging in a meaningful debate with scientific skeptics, not calling them names and equating them with lunatics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin once again demonstrates he cannot come up with his own arguments and piggybacks --poorly I might add-- onto others.

His arguments on cosmic rays and those emails could have been done in about 4 sentences.

[Wild Cobra]

EDIT> And a good comment left by a reader
The Climategate E-mail revelations (I’ve read them) have also done nothing to improve my confidence in the objectivity of many climate scientists. It is perfectly obvious to any neutral observer that many climate scientists have become overzealous advocates for a cause they deeply believe in. Careers, reputations and research grants are at stake. Their corrupting influences are plain. Many individuals with climate science pedigrees can no longer claim to be dispassionate analysts of the scientific evidence.

I find efforts to suppress debate about this issue profoundly disgusting, as do most people who love and respect science and the power of the scientific method. Equating well-meaning people who hold legitimate, well informed and skeptical views about the causes and effects of climate change with lunatics that deny the Holocaust is disgusting beyond words. It is the same kind of repulsive smear tactic that the Nazis themselves often used against dissent. It has no place in science and no place in America.

Holocaust deniers are rightly regarded as kooks. The reason, of course, is because of the overwhelming weight of documented evidence on the side of the truth. If AGW advocates ever hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public of the truth of their arguments, the first thing they must do is reject and condemn the use of the type of smear tactic embodied in this piece. The second thing they need must do is concentrate on building a far more convincing case for their claims. That includes engaging in a meaningful debate with scientific skeptics, not calling them names and equating them with lunatics.
This is so dead on.

When all the alarmists do as try to destroy careers, call skeptics names, etc. it is even more evidence that they are not able to win in a proper debate of facts. No wonder none of them will debate a well informed skeptic.

[DarrinS]

Darrin once again demonstrates he cannot come up with his own arguments and piggybacks --poorly I might add-- onto others.

His arguments on cosmic rays and those emails could have been done in about 4 sentences.



He had some other thoughts on equating Holocaust denial to AGW skepticism, but I guess you picked out the part that was important to you.

[MannyIsGod]

It is ironic as shit when the same people who claim not enough proof of CO2 try to jump to cosmic rays.

[MannyIsGod]

I have more to say about the bs lack of debate once i get to a computer as im on my phone

[DarrinS]

It is ironic as shit when the same people who claim not enough proof of CO2 try to jump to cosmic rays.

Hmmm. You latched onto that little nugget too. I guess you have no thoughts on the Holocaust denier comparison.

[MannyIsGod]

No, I don't because I've never called anyone a Holocaust denier. I could give two shits about that argument. What did you want me to say about it, Darrin? Is this another example of where you focus on the science?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He had some other thoughts on equating Holocaust denial to AGW skepticism, but I guess you picked out the part that was important to you.

Probably because i think its a red herring as to the truth behind the science. I am not much interested in labels. I am interested in what stuff does. I am not interested in gross simplifications or conflations so dumb people can understand.

For example when I label you a sophist I point to specific behaviors of yours such as waffling about the existence of warming, lip-service as to respect for BEST, demonstrated intellectual laziness by posting links based on titles without having read the content, or deception as to your sources.

Even hear you fail to make your own argument you just support someone elses argument because you like the conclusion. You are an advocate for a conclusion and could care less for the truthfulness of how that conclusion is reached.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't get how I get the burden of addressing a strawman I didn't put up. You just built a strawman out of a strawman, Darrin. Nice.

[Blake]

I don't get how I get the burden of addressing a strawman I didn't put up. You just built a strawman out of a strawman, Darrin. Nice.

lol straw²

[DarrinS]

I posted a blog about equating climate change denial to Holocaust denial and also posted one reader comment. You two lemmings saw "cosmic rays" in the reader comment, but the blog wasn't about that. But, you two saw a "shiny thing" and decided to comment on it. Lol.

[MannyIsGod]

The idea that debate is stifled or that there is some kind of effort to stifle it is built out of ignorance. The peer review process is wide open and anyone is able to submit their research to any number of journals in order to get it out there. I mean, haven't you seen PopTech's list? Haven't you yourself USED that list Darrin? So how is is possible that you on one hand hold this list as an example of how peer reviewed science is out there to support skeptic views and then in the other hand proclaim that skeptics are being silenced by some kind of conspiracy? Its completely laughable that you can't get your ideas straight.

If you want to argue that the Mann's and the Hanson's of the world are compromised through their pride, funding, agenda or whatever then go right ahead. Its a damn stupid and pointless argument to make, however. For every climate scientist you've ever heard of or seen on TV somewhere there are thousands of others of whom you will never hear about. You don't think there are thousands of people out there who would love nothing more than to make their name off of being the one who came up with the theory that destroyed AGW?

If it was possible to disprove AGW with knowledge we currently have then someone would be on it in no time. This is what scientists live for.

Cosmic ray influences on cloud formation are currently being studied at CERN. If having research done on that type of theory at the world's highest profile scientific facility isn't good enough then I don't think you'll ever be satisfied.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe

[MannyIsGod]

I posted a blog about equating climate change denial to Holocaust denial and also posted one reader comment. You two lemmings saw "cosmic rays" in the reader comment, but the blog wasn't about that. But, you two saw a "shiny thing" and decided to comment on it. Lol.

You're too damn stupid to even catch the shit you say. About the only thing you fail worse at than logic is being introspective.

In any event, you said the comment was good. You posted the entire comment. You didn't just post a comment about some bullshit holocaust association. I commented on what I felt was noteworthy about the comment. How the fuck does it make me a lemming when I comment on what you posted? Because I didn't comment about the little part YOU wanted me to comment on?

I'm sorry I didn't go after what you wanted me to go after because it doesn't apply to me and I don't have any interest in it. Maybe instead of using other people's words to convey your simplistic idea you should just say it? Its not my fault that you're too stupid to actually come up with your own arguments.

So, once again, what is it you wanted me to say about the Holocaust stuff? You think I equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Have I ever done that? Once again, why should I bear the burden of defending or decrying something I neither care about or have done?

[DarrinS]

In any event, you said the comment was good. You posted the entire comment. You didn't just post a comment about some bullshit holocaust association. I commented on what I felt was noteworthy about the comment. How the fuck does it make me a lemming when I comment on what you posted? Because I didn't comment about the little part YOU wanted me to comment on?



You and FuzzyDumbfuck both commented on something that was in fucking parentheses
(cosmic rays, for example).


I guess you really thought he was emphasizing that point. :lmao

whatever

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You and FuzzyDumbfuck both commented on something that was in fucking parentheses


I guess you really thought he was emphasizing that point. :lmao

whatever

As has been pointed out to you in Manny's recent post YOU emphasized it.

Further, you are going to have to try harder.

If you are going to call me stupid, you should try and point to specific examples. I have enough self-confidence that while someone can persuade me they are more intelligent, you are not going to persuade me that I am dumb. Think about your audience.

Its the difference between calling me a dumbfuck and leaving it at that and


For example when I label you a sophist I point to specific behaviors of yours such as waffling about the existence of warming, lip-service as to respect for BEST, demonstrated intellectual laziness by posting links based on titles without having read the content, or deception as to your sources.

See the difference?

[MannyIsGod]

I made a short comment on that. I made a much longer post about something far more substantive in the comment and you have nothing to say about that. Instead, you want to do exactly what you accused me of: Focusing on your "shiny thing".

Furthermore you have completely ignored the following:

So, once again, what is it you wanted me to say about the Holocaust stuff? You think I equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Have I ever done that? Once again, why should I bear the burden of defending or decrying something I neither care about or have done?

Are you sure you really want to accuse me of being the one who focuses on the inane parts of posts?

[Wild Cobra]

I made a short comment on that. I made a much longer post about something far more substantive in the comment and you have nothing to say about that. Instead, you want to do exactly what you accused me of: Focusing on your "shiny thing".

Furthermore you have completely ignored the following:

So, once again, what is it you wanted me to say about the Holocaust stuff? You think I equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers? Have I ever done that? Once again, why should I bear the burden of defending or decrying something I neither care about or have done?

Are you sure you really want to accuse me of being the one who focuses on the inane parts of posts?
OMG...

What a crybaby.

Darrin's right. You focus on the "shiny thing" you can criticize, and ignore the more important things presented. probably because you know you have no grounds to argue against them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is other people conflating skeptics to holocaust deniers important?

[DarrinS]

Why is other people conflating skeptics to holocaust deniers important?

I brought it up early in this thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58


Some really good posts on first few pages of this thread. Appears that many have lost interest. I don't blame them

[MannyIsGod]

You're still ignoring what I said. Not shiny enough for you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I brought it up early in this thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58


Some really good posts on first few pages of this thread. Appears that many have lost interest. I don't blame them

Why must you ask questions based on strawman premises? It was a loaded question. The cliche example of such methods are 'why do you beat your wife?'

I read the responses for the first page or so after you made that and I would like you to point us to where your question was justified. You are just trying to deflect the attention away from the science.

You have essentially posted something that attributes us incorrectly to conflating you to the holocaust debate. you also do not stand by the other comments in the post you said was a good comment.

This once again points to your sophistry. Not only do we have the previous examples I listed but additionally you dissemble from his other comments.

Do you stand by anything you claim or post? It sure doesn't seem like it.

[RandomGuy]

I have read a few different theories about the topic, and their conclusions were all over the place. I don't think it matters, why do you? I simply don't worry about that aspect of it.

So you dont have a theory.

Get in the corner with the twoofers and cosmored.

If you can't give me testable, falsifiable hypotheses, you are a conspiracy theorist.

You don't worry about it, because it directly contradicts your theory.

That is not the hallmark of good science, that is the hallmark of pseudoscientific bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Really? What evidence do you have that it isn't?

No it wouldn't.

You completely fail to grasp the dynamics, and I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation. I hope this will suffice.

If we refer back to the graphic, then in balance, the sinking and sourcing between the ocean and atmosphere would be equal. The ocean primarily sources in the equatorial regions as the water moves and warms, and primarily sinks near the poles, at the colder water.

The vegetation will be pretty much in balance also without any changes in the solar radiation, influence of man, etc.

Take the 9 GtC out of the picture, and if there was not changes in the ocean temperature over time, all sinking and sourcing numbers would cancel each other out.

Now consider the ocean warming over time. The sourcing would be grater than the sinking. I will contend that our the ocean sourcing would be larger. let's say about 91 and the ocean sinking would be about 89 without man's influence. Now we would have a net sourcing effect. The water getting warmer cannot hold the same ratio as it did before, and must release CO2 until the new balance is achieved.

Now add man's 9 GtC rate. Now for the earth to attempt balance, but we are now adding more CO2 than the ocean does, so to achieve balance, the oceans sink CO2.

The ocean holds something like 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. If there was no change in ocean warming, then the ocean would sink about 98% of the AGW component. It will sink what is needed for balance. If it did sink 98% of that 9 GtC, then it would take ten years at that rate to increase the atmospheric component by almost 2 GtC, or by about 1 ppm.

Solubility of gasses in water... Henry's Law... are known scientific concepts. How temperature plays a role are also known and universally accepted by all scientific. Not just a consensus of scientists.

The trend shows as it should. The changes in ratio is indicating a larger percentage of fossil fuels being burned.

It's your misunderstanding. The ocean is a net sink. I am saying it would be a net source if we didn't have the anthropogenic component. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

You are the one claiming that we are not adding any concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere with all of our emissions.

Where is the extra CO2 coming from then? Why is CO2 concentration climbing?

I still don't see a testable hypothesis here.

[RandomGuy]

I brought it up early in this thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58


Some really good posts on first few pages of this thread. Appears that many have lost interest. I don't blame them

Meh.

Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.

If you don't like being lumped in with other conspiratards, quit acting like them.

If you want to be a fucking crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/datzit/samp7f78f6b39d4bd244.jpg


To be clear:

Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist shits.

AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

So you dont have a theory.

A theory about the levels of 13C vs 12C?

I don't know what you're looking for. There are studies that show that CO2 from fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere more than natural CO2, and there are studies that shows that theory has no merit. There are no definitive answers here, that's why I don't look care.


If you can't give me testable, falsifiable hypotheses, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Please specify about what. So may things, I think we are crossing answers and questions. Do you mean about the absorption of CO2 by the ocean, and in my belief the absorbing less than it would if it wasn't warming?


You don't worry about it, because it directly contradicts your theory.

That is not the hallmark of good science, that is the hallmark of pseudoscientific bullshit.

Please elaborate on what you base that on, and which of the many things I said.

I often have a hard time keeping up with the specific chain of answers here, especially day by day. It's not like sitting at a table with someone debating an issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What a dissembling copout.

[Wild Cobra]

You are the one claiming that we are not adding any concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere with all of our emissions.

Where is the extra CO2 coming from then? Why is CO2 concentration climbing?

I still don't see a testable hypothesis here.
You are twisting my words.

Please read my explanations again. I am growing weary of you not understand it.

[Wild Cobra]

Meh.

Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.

If you don't like being lumped in with other conspiratards, quit acting like them.

If you want to be a fucking crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/datzit/samp7f78f6b39d4bd244.jpg


To be clear:

Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist shits.

AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.
Twisting what people mean again. I sure wish I could expect better of you.

[RandomGuy]

You are twisting my words.

Please read my explanations again. I am growing weary of you not understand it.

I am growing weary of your inability to form a testable hypothesis.

Setting aside humility for a second:

I am very intelligent, with a very high ability to understand written material, analyse it, and synthesize it into meaningful conclusions.

Are you sure the problem is at my end?

[RandomGuy]

A theory about the levels of 13C vs 12C?

I don't know what you're looking for. There are studies that show that CO2 from fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere more than natural CO2, and there are studies that shows that theory has no merit. There are no definitive answers here, that's why I don't look care.

Not all theories are created equal.

To wit:

I have a theory that pink unicorns in the back of my local shell station make my breakfast tacos.

My wife has a theory that somebody's grandma, named "Eva" makes them most mornings, with her grandson picking up the slack on her days off.

Are both theories equally valid?

Why or why not?

You can't dismiss a theory, simply because there may be competing theories or some conflicting data.

That is not good science.

[DarrinS]

Meh.

Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.

If you don't like being lumped in with other conspiratards, quit acting like them.

If you want to be a fucking crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/datzit/samp7f78f6b39d4bd244.jpg


To be clear:

Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist shits.

AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.

Meh, call me whatever you want. I no longer care.

Thread should've ended after this post, tbh.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668267&postcount

But, hey, you've got your logical fallacy scoreboard.

[MannyIsGod]

You're still ignoring my post.

I'm shocked, Darrin.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin still ignoring questions. Not that anyone is shocked.

Anway, I noticed this on youtube and thought I would pass it on. Its a Climate Change course that is not for science majors at The University Of Chicago. I watched a couple of the lectures and its extremely accessible. David Archer is excellent at presenting the information in a very plain way the way he does in his books (The Long Thaw is an excellent book).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXpkoE0G3A&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2FD9207E84E91643

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin still ignoring questions. Not that anyone is shocked.

Anway, I noticed this on youtube and thought I would pass it on. Its a Climate Change course that is not for science majors at The University Of Chicago. I watched a couple of the lectures and its extremely accessible. David Archer is excellent at presenting the information in a very plain way the way he does in his books (The Long Thaw is an excellent book).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXpkoE0G3A&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL2FD9207E84E91643

[Poptech]

Here is an excellent lecture by Climatology Professor John Christy,

UcGgLoPpbBw


John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

[RandomGuy]

Here is an excellent lecture by Climatology Professor John Christy,

UcGgLoPpbBw


John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

Not going to watch it.

Does he explain CO2 isotope ratios?

[RandomGuy]

I'm just trying to get to a working theory about where all this extra Co2 is coming from.

Wild Cobra says humans aren't doing it.

It must be coming from somewhere.

[Poptech]

So how is is possible that you on one hand hold this list as an example of how peer reviewed science is out there to support skeptic views and then in the other hand proclaim that skeptics are being silenced by some kind of conspiracy?
Things can be much more difficult for one side without being impossible,

A Climatology Conspiracy? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html) (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)

Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (http://1488276005495550431-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rossmckitrick/gatekeeping.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n2/v30n2-1.pdf) (PDF) (Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D. Professor of Geography)


"If you think that Saiers [GRL Editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp ...we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - Tom Wigley, Former Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just trying to get to a working theory about where all this extra Co2 is coming from.

Wild Cobra says humans aren't doing it.

It must be coming from somewhere.
Liar.

I did not say were weren't doing it. i said the increase would happen anyway. Our part is small since around 98% of our CO2 would be absorbed into the ocean if everything else remained the same.

I explained it. You are either too dense, or biased to understand my explanation.

How about telling me what you didn't understand about my explanation.

[Yonivore]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)


An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
...
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

Fools.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/0/




Scientists Of The Russian Academy Of Science: “Global Warming Is Coming To An End – Return To Early 1980s Level”

By P Gosselin on 21. Mai 2012

The German langauge Voice of Russia here reports a news item you’ll never hear from the mainstream media. Top scientists of Russia’s most prestigious academy say global warming is ending.

Russian Academy of Sciences: temperatures will drop half a degree by 2015.



Here’s the Voice of Russia report I’ve translated in English:

Global warming is coming to an end: In the coming years the temperature over the entire planet will fall and the cooling will provide a character of relief. This is the conclusion reached by Russian scientists from the Physics University of the Russian Academy of Science.

The process of a general temperature decrease has already begun, according to the research. After having peaked in 2005, the average temperature on Earth is now returning to the level of the 1996-1997 years, 0.3°C lower.

According to the scientists, global temperatures will fall another 0.15°C by 2015, which corresponds to the climate of the early 1980s.”

[RandomGuy]

Liar.

I did not say were weren't doing it.

(shrugs)


I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

You also said that the oceans are a net sink for CO2.

So if it isn't coming out of the oceans, but rather going into them, and mankind isn't adding but a small portion of the added CO2 that we have seen in the last 100 years or so,

where is it coming from?

[RandomGuy]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)


That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

Fools.


At this rate,

The rate changed.

Short term variability. Shocking.

You would note that he was talking about ice in the ocean, not the cap itself, right?

Meh. You will see what you want to see and continue to cherry pick what you believe or don't believe, based on your own biased reality filters.

As we go along, if the AGW crowd is right, it will get harder and harder to find those cherries. We will see how irrational you are, by when you figure out that the "skeptics" were lying to you.

[boutons_deux]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.


Study finds thickest parts of Arctic ice cap melting faster

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap.

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-thickest-arctic-ice-cap-faster.html

When the conservatives sheepfully take one side in a scientific question, rest assured it's NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

[Wild Cobra]

(shrugs)



You also said that the oceans are a net sink for CO2.

So if it isn't coming out of the oceans, but rather going into them, and mankind isn't adding but a small portion of the added CO2 that we have seen in the last 100 years or so,

where is it coming from?
My God.

How hard is this to understand?

*IF* the ocean was not heating, it would absorb arounf 98% of the lecvels we output. Since the oceans are warming, the levels for balance have changed. Therefore they are not absorbing as much. The balance between the ocean and atmosphere may have changed from like 98:2 to maybe 97:3, in round numbers.

Don't you see the ramifications? If we added nothing, the ocean would be a net source, to achieve the balance. Since we are outputting CO2, both the atmosphere are increasing, but strive to achieve what ever the new balance is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Everytime you use the phrase "My God" (which is alot), I hear it in William Shatner/James Kirk voice.:p: Please, for my (relative) sanity, stop it.:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

Everytime you use the phrase "My God" (which is alot), I hear it in William Shatner/James Kirk voice.:p: Please, for my (relative) sanity, stop it.:ihit
Shouldn't it be McCoy's?

"My God Jim... I'm not a..."

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol:lol:toast

[RandomGuy]

My God.

How hard is this to understand?

*IF* the ocean was not heating, it would absorb arounf 98% of the lecvels we output. Since the oceans are warming, the levels for balance have changed. Therefore they are not absorbing as much. The balance between the ocean and atmosphere may have changed from like 98:2 to maybe 97:3, in round numbers.

Don't you see the ramifications? If we added nothing, the ocean would be a net source, to achieve the balance. Since we are outputting CO2, both the atmosphere are increasing, but strive to achieve what ever the new balance is.

So, we are adding more than 10ppm to the overall concentration then, and your earlier statement is in error.


I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

What I see here, is circular reasoning. When I have time to flesh that out, I will.

A beer to anyone in San Antonio who can see the circular reasoning and get to it first.

[Wild Cobra]

So, we are adding more than 10ppm to the overall concentration then, and your earlier statement is in error.

Not under the conditions I laid out.

I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.

[RandomGuy]

Not under the conditions I laid out.

I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.

um, ok.


Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Does that about sum it up?

[MannyIsGod]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

This graphic shows the CO2 concentrations over the past 1 million years or so as derived from an ice core from Antarctica. There are bubbles trapped in the ice that capture the atmosphere at the time those bubbles were enclosed by the ice which allows us to find out with good accuracy what the CO2 concentrations were. These results have been reproduced via other proxies but the ice core recorders are the best.

In any event, you can see that CO2 concentrations have oscillated between 290 and 190 PPM fairly cyclically due to the glacial - interglacial cycles which are driven by Milkanovitch orbital cycles.

Today's concentration is 395 PPM which is far above the peaks in the previous cycles. Over a 100 ppm difference that was never experienced in the past 1 million years even though ocean temps have been warmer during that time. Direct observations show that the ocean is still gaining CO2 as well.

Also, the X axis of that graph is time but it is time on a very large interval. In other words, the CO2 in the atmosphere changed very slowly in the past when it rose. It fell relatively quickly when compared to the rise but those drop are still far slower than the rise we have seen in the past 100+ years (especially the past half century).

If someone wants to come up with a theory that gain we have seen in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not due to human emissions they must explain several things in relation to the record:

1. How an ocean that is still taking up CO2 today would not be taking it up if humans were not emitting CO2
2. The timescale difference - Why is this increase so fast?
3. Why did CO2 concentrations not rise in the past 1 million years to levels we have seen today?

Someone who could come up with a theory that did answered those questions without violating any other chemical or physical property of the natural world would likely be in a position to shake up the earth sciences quite a bit.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe.

[RandomGuy]

Things can be much more difficult for one side without being impossible,

A Climatology Conspiracy? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html) (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)

Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (http://1488276005495550431-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rossmckitrick/gatekeeping.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n2/v30n2-1.pdf) (PDF) (Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D. Professor of Geography)


"If you think that Saiers [GRL Editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp ...we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - Tom Wigley, Former Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

When the balance of evidence is against a theory, that is what one might expect.

You don't see a lot of credible scientists getting very far with ID, either.

If the "no harm" theory really explains observed phenomenon better, it will win out in the end, despite the pseudoscientists supporting this theory. As CO2 concentrations continue their climb, and the body of knowledge accumulates, the ultimate effects will become clearer, either way.

[MannyIsGod]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/0/

I have not read this article yet (I will and I will look for other sources that mention this proclimation) but I wanted to make a couple of comments in general.

We do not possesses the ability to make such precise predictions on temperature in such time frames (if at all). The predictions you see over the next 100 years have very large error bars. We basically know that the earth's atmosphere will be retain larger amounts of energy which will drive the temp up but we do not know enough about the feedbacks involved to give a precise measurement to the degree. 2.5-6 degrees is the typical range you see.

Over 100 years, its actually easier to give you a forecast because you're not dealing with short term variability. Have you ever seen NOAA or NASA give you a global temeprature forecast a few years out? No. Its because we can't.

They went one past that and actually tried to break it down the the hundredths of a degree which is just ridiculous.

I can tell you this. El Nino gets more and more likely with each passing week. The conditions have already started to take shape over the past month. April was already one of the hottest Aprils on record and the temperature increase coincided with the change over from La Nina conditions to a borderline EN. If EN does indeed take hold and if it lasts through the end of the summer there will be a great deal of heat increase in the atmosphere.

[MannyIsGod]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)


That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

Fools.

Science is not conducted in the media. If you can provide a scientific paper who's basis is an ice free arctic (in the summer) then we can say that a scientist has made a poor prediction but I'm not going to go off of an out of context quote in the media that is talking about trends.

Artic ice is something that is both easy and difficult for the average layman to understand. Everyone knows that if it gets warmer ice melts. A fairly easy way to show that it is getting warmer is to point to lower sea ice extent over the Arctic. The problem - as with much of climate science - is that people have a very hard time grasping variability.

Water has some incredible properties that many other compounds do not possess. Most compounds tend to get denser as you cool them. Water does get denser as you cool it but only until it reaches 4 degrees. At that point, it actually starts to get less dense which is why ice floats.

It also takes an enormous amount of energy to raise the temperature of water and to initiate the phase changes. What this means is that water is capable of holding large amounts of energy - far larger than the air. This also means it heats up more slowly and it cools down more slowly than air.

When you have years like 2007 and 2011 where there are record low (or nearly record low in the case of 2011) ice coverage you are exposing open water to nearly 24 hours of sunlight on a daily basis through the summer. That open water is able to take in and hold large amounts of energy. Even slight raises of SST in the Arctic ocean are indicators of huge energy increases in that region. Over recent years we have actually seen not small raises but record temperatures in the arctic ocean.

The heart of the oldest ice in the northern cap is what is known as multiyear ice. This is basically several layers of ice that has formed and not melted through at least one summer. It is thicker and comprises of a higher volume than ice in an area where you see annual thaw and refreeze.

The area covered by multiyear ice is shrinking on a consist basis with every passing year.

You see, you will get natural variability from year to year in the extent. Some areas that thawed last summer may not thaw in a subsequent summer. But even if they do not thaw, they will be only one year's worth of ice growth which will be lower in volume and more susceptible to thaw in future years because of this.

This is why although we see the area vary from year to year (although the trend is down), we do NOT see such large variation in the volume. Volume is consistently falling almost every year. Volume is a far greater measure of how much ice is actually present than area for obvious reasons.

The 2040 estimates are too conservative. I'm not sure if the 2012 comment was an actual prediction or rather a comment on the drastic nature of the trend in 2007 (the record low year). Most estimates I have seen around around 2020-2030 for an arctic that is completely ice free in the summer. The trend in ice volume hits zero within 10 years, so I would definitely go with the end of the spectrum closer to 2020.


http://www.realclimate.org/images/for_rc_fig1.png

[Poptech]

If the "no harm" theory really explains observed phenomenon better, it will win out in the end, despite the pseudoscientists supporting this theory.

Which one of these is a "pseudoscientist"?

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." - John R. Christy


Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

"A number of studies point to sources other than greenhouse gases as explanations for the modest warming trend of the late 20th century." - Patrick J. Michaels


Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished." - Richard S. Lindzen


Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

"As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade." - Roy W. Spencer


S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

"We see no evidence in the climate record that the increase in CO2, which is real, has any appreciable effect on the global temperature." - S. Fred Singer


Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

"I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration." - Sherwood B. Idso


Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941); B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University, UK (1945); Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945); Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947); Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948); Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949); Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951); Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953); Fellow, Royal Society (1952); Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994); Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964); Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965); Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966); Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968); Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968); Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969); J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970); Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975); Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975); Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1977); Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981); National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984); Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988); Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988); Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989); Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989); Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991); Britannica Award (1990); Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990); Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991); Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993); Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994); Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994); Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996); Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996); Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999); Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999); Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000); Templeton Prize (2000); Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004); Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present); 21 Honorary Degrees

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson


Kary Mullis, B.S. Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology (1966); Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Lecturer, Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pediatric Cardiology, University of Kansas Medical School (1973-1977); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco (1977-1979); Scientist, Department of Chemistry, Cetus Corporation (1979-1984); Scientist, Department of Human Genetics, Cetus Corporation (1984-1986); Director of Molecular Biology, Xytronyx Inc. (1986-1988); William Allan Memorial Award, American Society of Human Genetics (1990); Viral Hepatitis Research Foundation of Japan Award (1991); California Scientist of the Year Award (1992); Cetus Corporation Biotechnology Research Award, American Society for Microbiology (1992); Robert Koch Prize (1992); Vice President of Research, Atomic Tags Inc. (1992-1993); Japan Prize, Science and Technology Foundation of Japan (1993); Outstanding Contributions To Clinical Chemistry Award, American Association for Clinical Chemistry (1993); Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1993); Gustavus J. Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Interest, American Chemical Society (1994); Hon. D.Sc. (Honorary Doctorate of Science), University of South Carolina (1994); Distinguished Visiting Professor, The University of South Carolina, College of Science and Mathematics (1994-Present); Vice President of Molecular Biology, VYREX Corporation (1997-1998); Induction, National Inventors Hall of Fame (1998); Vice President of Molecular Biology, Burstein Technologies (1999-2003); Distinguished Researcher, Children’s Hospital at Oakland Research Institute at Oakland (2003-Present); Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Altermune, LLC (2003-Present)

"To make predictions about what follows from here and when, and to audaciously begin the discussion by implicating our humble species in the whole thing [Global Warming] is worse than audacious, it’s pathetic" - Kary Mullis


Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952); Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964); Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956); Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958); Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988); Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965); Nobel Prize in Physics (1973); Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974); Member, National Academy of Science (1974); Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975); Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975); Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975); Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005); Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)

"I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever


Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979); Fellow, IBM (1976-1978); Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981); Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004); Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989); E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986); Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989); Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990); Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present); Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998); Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003); President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006); President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)

"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin

[Wild Cobra]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

This graphic shows the CO2 concentrations over the past 1 million years or so as derived from an ice core from Antarctica. There are bubbles trapped in the ice that capture the atmosphere at the time those bubbles were enclosed by the ice which allows us to find out with good accuracy what the CO2 concentrations were. These results have been reproduced via other proxies but the ice core recorders are the best.

In any event, you can see that CO2 concentrations have oscillated between 290 and 190 PPM fairly cyclically due to the glacial - interglacial cycles which are driven by Milkanovitch orbital cycles.

Today's concentration is 395 PPM which is far above the peaks in the previous cycles. Over a 100 ppm difference that was never experienced in the past 1 million years even though ocean temps have been warmer during that time. Direct observations show that the ocean is still gaining CO2 as well.

Also, the X axis of that graph is time but it is time on a very large interval. In other words, the CO2 in the atmosphere changed very slowly in the past when it rose. It fell relatively quickly when compared to the rise but those drop are still far slower than the rise we have seen in the past 100+ years (especially the past half century).

If someone wants to come up with a theory that gain we have seen in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not due to human emissions they must explain several things in relation to the record:

1. How an ocean that is still taking up CO2 today would not be taking it up if humans were not emitting CO2
2. The timescale difference - Why is this increase so fast?
3. Why did CO2 concentrations not rise in the past 1 million years to levels we have seen today?

Someone who could come up with a theory that did answered those questions without violating any other chemical or physical property of the natural world would likely be in a position to shake up the earth sciences quite a bit.
Don't forget that there is an unknown about of CO2 that gets released before it is trapped in the ice. for all we know, those 290 ppm levels could be more than 400.

We just don't know for sure.

[Wild Cobra]

Not under the conditions I laid out.

I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.
um, ok.

Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.


Does that about sum it up?
Not quite, you are close, but I can't help think you are purposely placing a twist on my words. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend.

When you are ready to try to understand my point of view on this, please let me know.

[RandomGuy]

Which one of these is a "pseudoscientist"?

I was referring to hacks like yourself.

As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.

[RandomGuy]

Not quite, you are close, but I can't help think you are purposely placing a twist on my words. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend.

When you are ready to try to understand my point of view on this, please let me know.

I haven't been trying too hard, but you aren't very good at explaining things, no offense.

At this point, since you can't explain it fairly simply, I am very skeptical that you understand the underlying science.

Manny has posted a lot of rather valid arguments that you seem to have ignored.

By all means then put what you are trying to say down, punch up the words until it is what you are trying to get at, and remove my "twist":



"Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "

[RandomGuy]

Don't forget that there is an unknown about of CO2 that gets released before it is trapped in the ice. for all we know, those 290 ppm levels could be more than 400.

We just don't know for sure.

Did the scientists making those measurements consider this possibility?

[Yonivore]

I was referring to hacks like yourself.

As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.
That avoids the question.

Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?

[Poptech]

I was referring to hacks like yourself.

As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.
Oh so you are referring to yourself? :lmao

You are so insecure you have to smear everyone with lies who does not agree with your position on anything. The reason is you are not rational but emotional and falsely believe yourself to be intellectual. You have not even done the basic research on these subjects and yet pretend to have an understanding of them. I've read both sides of these arguments extensively and came to my conclusions based on logical reasoning. Your refusal to accept that I can honestly disagree with your is simply intellectual dishonesty.

[boutons_deux]

AGW deniers always raising the bar! grease-bag bubba science! :lol

Sensenbrenner: ‘CO2 Is A Natural Gas. Does This Mean That All Of Us Need To Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?’

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/22/488572/sensenbrenner-co2-is-a-natural-gas-does-this-mean-that-all-of-us-need-to-put-catalytic-converters-on-our-noses/

[RandomGuy]

That avoids the question.

Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?

Should I pull the "PopTech Defense" for that?

"That is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that I was referring to non-scientist hacks."

If you don't like that answer, then tell me why you don't like it, and explain to me why it is important to answer the question as asked.

I will then apply your logic and response to PopTechs earlier use of that tactic to avoid answering hard questions.

I await your response with breathless anticipation, fully expecting you yourself to dodge this request and change the subject.

[RandomGuy]

Oh so you are referring to yourself? :lmao

You are so insecure you have to smear everyone with lies who does not agree with your position on anything. The reason is you are not rational but emotional and falsely believe yourself to be intellectual. You have not even done the basic research on these subjects and yet pretend to have an understanding of them. I've read both sides of these arguments extensively and came to my conclusions based on logical reasoning. Your refusal to accept that I can honestly disagree with your is simply intellectual dishonesty.

Wow. Project much? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

I don't claim to be any kind of exepert on climate science. I have stated repeatedly that I am not.

I generally rely on scientists to come to reasonable conclusions based on their expertise, as this seems to be reasonable.

My interests lie in energy, economics, and finance. I spend the time I have available on that.

I am pretty scientifically literate, and generally understand most scientific topics.

I allow for honest skeptics. You aren't one of them.

You can be as butthurt about that as you want to, but I have seen you repeatedly fail to show what honest skeptics and good critical thinkers would agree is a reasonable level of intellectual honesty when discussing something.

You don't admit you are wrong, and you don't admit when others make good points, or that any of your arguments, although valid, may be weak.

[MannyIsGod]

When you trap air in ice, you are simply sealing it off from the rest of the atmosphere. There is no chemical process so nothing is released. The ice core samples are accurate and have been reinforced through other measurements. There is no scientific reason to believe that CO2 has been higher in the past 800-1000k years.

[MannyIsGod]

That avoids the question.

Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?

None. That doesn't change your cherry picking on which scientists to rely on other than they happen to agree with is pretty bad conformation bias.

The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.

[Poptech]

I allow for honest skeptics. You aren't one of them.
:lmao You are not the arbiter of who is an honest skeptic and your perpetual lies about my integrity are getting old.


You don't admit you are wrong, and you don't admit when others make good points, or that any of your arguments, although valid, may be weak.
I admit I am wrong, when I am actually wrong not when you simply declare it. I admit others make good points, when I believe they actually make good points. Your don't make good points. You don't even understand the material.

[Yonivore]

None. That doesn't change your cherry picking on which scientists to rely on other than they happen to agree with is pretty bad conformation bias.
They make reasonable arguments with which I agree. Neither you nor anyone else has persuaded me away from that position.


The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.
Assuming you're right about Spencer; does any of that apply to any of the others on the list and has Spencer or any of the others recanted their general positions about AGCC?

[Yonivore]

Should I pull the "PopTech Defense" for that?

"That is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that I was referring to non-scientist hacks."

If you don't like that answer, then tell me why you don't like it, and explain to me why it is important to answer the question as asked.

I will then apply your logic and response to PopTechs earlier use of that tactic to avoid answering hard questions.

I await your response with breathless anticipation, fully expecting you yourself to dodge this request and change the subject.
So, are any of the people on the list pseudoscientists or not?

It's important because the premise of this long-ass thread is that people who don't believe in anthropogenic global climate change are relying on pseudoscience.

[Poptech]

The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.
No he hasn't. Spencer has refuted all criticisms of his papers or published a correction. Quote where he made any such admission.


The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.
This is a lie. Please cite the paper and quote Spencer on this.


More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.
He caused no such thing. Pressure from alarmist scientists caused the editor to resign in a PR ploy to discredit the paper. The editor's reasoning was idiotic ("as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora"). Is peer-reviewed science now based on Internet discussions? :lmao

Dr. Spencer stands by everything in his peer-reviewed paper,

Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/) (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)

It looks like Manny has resorted to Internet propaganda to smear Dr. Spencer.

Also Manny can you please re-size your ridiculously large graph so it does not distort the comments.

[MannyIsGod]

They make reasonable arguments with which I agree. Neither you nor anyone else has persuaded me away from that position.


I'm well aware you're not open minded in this debate but thanks for stating it yourself.



Assuming you're right about Spencer; does any of that apply to any of the others on the list and has Spencer or any of the others recanted their general positions about AGCC?

Whats the point? See your above comment.

[Yonivore]

The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.
After reading his response (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/) to Manny's regurgitated criticism of him, yep; he's the type of scientist to which I wish to hitch my wagon.

Care to pick on anyone else on the list?

So, are they pseudoscientists or not?

[Yonivore]

I'm well aware you're not open minded in this debate but thanks for stating it yourself.
Okay, you tell me, why do I disagree with your position and agree with Spencer's, et. al.?


Whats the point? See your above comment.
Apparently, you weren't right about Spencer.

[MannyIsGod]

No he hasn't. Spencer has refuted all criticisms of his papers or published a correction. Quote where he made any such admission.


This is a lie. Please cite the paper and quote Spencer on this.


He caused no such thing. Pressure from alarmist scientists caused the editor to resign in a PR ploy to discredit the paper. The editor's reasoning was idiotic ("as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora"). Is peer-reviewed science now based on Internet discussions? :lmao

Dr. Spencer stands by everything in his peer-reviewed paper,

Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/) (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)

It looks like Manny has resorted to Internet propaganda to smear Dr. Spencer.

Also Manny can you please re-size your ridiculously large graph so it does not distort the comments.

So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling? I guess publishing a correction does not involve admitting you were wrong? :lol

It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.

[Yonivore]

So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling? I guess publishing a correction does not involve admitting you were wrong? :lol

It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.


Well, in 20 years of working in this business, the only indisputable mistake we ever made (which we immediately corrected, and even published our gratitude in Science to those who found it) was in our satellite global temperature monitoring, which ended up being a small error in our diurnal drift adjustment — and even that ended up being within our stated error bars anyway.

[MannyIsGod]

Okay, you tell me, why do I disagree with your position and agree with Spencer's, et. al.?


Because Spencer is saying your political party of choice wants to believe. Its certainly not due to any understanding of the science. You've just said no one can change your mind. Do you realize the implication of such a statement?

How is that when you're the one making that statement that the people who understand AGW theory are labeled as the zealots? I have provided a roadmap of all someone needs to do to disprove the theories in place time after time after time in here.



Apparently, you weren't right about Spencer.

I'm absolutely right about Spencer. He and John Christy published many papers in the 1990s saying that the Earth was cooling based on their satellite temperature record. They made mistakes. It turns out its not cooling and they admitted it and fixed their record.


Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah no big deal, Dr. Spencer. :lmao

One way showed cooling, the other shows warming.

NO big deal.

Nice to see your admitted conformation bias at work, Yoni.

[MannyIsGod]

After reading his response (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/) to Manny's regurgitated criticism of him, yep; he's the type of scientist to which I wish to hitch my wagon.

Care to pick on anyone else on the list?

So, are they pseudoscientists or not?

You hitch your wagon to him based on his results. Don't act like its anything else.

Do I need to repeat myself, Yoni? The answer to your question is only a few posts up.

[Poptech]

So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling?
Why do you continue to lie? They were not claiming it showed a cooling since the 1970s when this correction was published,

Correcting Temperature Data Sets (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/972.citation)
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 972-973, November 2005)
- John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer

I am still waiting for the citations and quotes to defend your smears against Dr. Spencer.

[MannyIsGod]

They never claimed it was cooling?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C0888%3ARNITMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Really? Read the abstract.

Thanks.

[Poptech]

They never claimed it was cooling?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C0888%3ARNITMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Really? Read the abstract.

Thanks.
:lmao 1994? The correction had was done in 2005, you are missing ten years.

[MannyIsGod]

Poptech is back peddling master in this thread.

Can't wait to see how the goal posts get moved next. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I'm sorry, does "never" not cover 1994?

In that case, carry on.

[MannyIsGod]

You might want to change your little title there though. Seems like you were pretty much refuted.

[Poptech]

You lied and claimed that the correction made was to correct a cooling trend,

So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling?

The correction was done in 2005 when the UAH dataset was not showing any cooling trend just no significant warming. Why are you lying Manny? Are you not used to anyone calling you out on your bullshit?

[MannyIsGod]

So, there was no correction done to fix the record when it showed a cooling trend? Why didn't their subsequent papers show a cooling trend?

Do they still claim a cooling trend?

[Poptech]

Manny what happened to all your bullshit about Dr. Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I just showed you several mistakes and the admissions of those mistakes. Good lord.

I guess this is what you mean about your mental illness being beneficial. It allows you to just disregard reality. Carry on, Poptech.

[Poptech]

I pretty much just showed you several mistakes and the admissions of those mistakes. Good lord.

I guess this is what you mean about your mental illness being beneficial. It allows you to just disregard reality. Carry on, Poptech.
You failed to cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

What is the matter Manny can't support your bullshit?

You got your ass handed to you again desperately trying to smear Dr. Spencer. Manny is now a confirmed liar.

[MannyIsGod]

Sure bud.

[Poptech]

Cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

You can do it Manny, back up your bullshit you liar.

[MannyIsGod]

:tu Poptech. You exposed me. Good job.

[Poptech]

Cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

Come on liar.

[Yonivore]

:tu Poptech. You exposed me. Good job.
So, how 'bout the rest of the list?

Are they, or Spencer for that matter, pseudoscientists?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not repeating myself for you because you're too lazy to read the posts I make that already include the answer to your question, Yoni.

[Poptech]

Cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

Come on liar, surely you can quote Dr. Spencer rescinding the conclusions of his papers?

What I said stands, Spencer has refuted all criticisms of his papers or published a correction.

[Yonivore]

I'm not repeating myself for you because you're too lazy to read the posts I make that already include the answer to your question, Yoni.
So, what's wrong with sharing the positions of those on the list?

[RandomGuy]

So, are any of the people on the list pseudoscientists or not?

It's important because the premise of this long-ass thread is that people who don't believe in anthropogenic global climate change are relying on pseudoscience.

I see you ignored my request, as predicted.

You get the PopTech treatment.

"That is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that I was referring to non-scientist hacks."

[Poptech]

Maybe RC can help out his lying friend Manny

[MannyIsGod]

So, what's wrong with sharing the positions of those on the list?

You can share the positions of those on the list all you want. Just because they're not psuedoscientists doesn't mean they're not wrong. Furthermore, the biggest problem here is with how you came to the conclusion that those on the list where right and why you came to that conclusion.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe RC can help out his lying friend Manny

All the help in the world will not help me reach people who don't have open minds. Our exchange is there in plain view for all to see. Others can make up their minds out of which of us made the appropriate case.

[Yonivore]

You can share the positions of those on the list all you want. Just because they're not psuedoscientists doesn't mean they're not wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong, either.


Furthermore, the biggest problem here is with how you came to the conclusion that those on the list where right and why you came to that conclusion.
They make reasonable, logical arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

Has any proponent of AGW theory has ever made a reasonable, logical argument?

[Poptech]

All the help in the world will not help me reach people who don't have open minds. Our exchange is there in plain view for all to see. Others can make up their minds out of which of us made the appropriate case.
They can see your lies very well,

Cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, how familliar are you with the arguments of the scientists on that list, Yonivore? How much of their work have you read?

[MannyIsGod]

They can see your lies very well,

Cite and quote Spencer stating mistakes in his papers and rescinding his conclusions.

Hey Poptech repeat yourself again.

[Poptech]

Has any proponent of AGW theory has ever made a reasonable, logical argument?
Skeptic do all the time,

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) (PDF) (36pgs) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

[Yonivore]

All the help in the world will not help me reach people who don't have open minds. Our exchange is there in plain view for all to see. Others can make up their minds out of which of us made the appropriate case.
Our minds were open until AGCC became a religion. Once disagreement began being treated as heresy, it's pretty much a slam dunk the AGCC community cannot support their positions in a fair debate of the facts.

The Spencer episode, just in the past page or so of this thread, kind of shows that.

Spencer stands by his conclusions. He emphatically said so. We posted links.

Yet, you insist he retracted his conclusions based on what he claims is a minor error which he promptly corrected but, don't post links to his retraction.

This is why you lose the argument and why I gravitate to the positions of those like Dr. Spencer.

[Poptech]

Hey Poptech repeat yourself again.
Manny, why did you lie about Dr. Spencer?

[MannyIsGod]

Our minds were open until AGCC became a religion. Once disagreement began being treated as heresy, it's pretty much a slam dunk the AGCC community cannot support their positions in a fair debate of the facts.

The Spencer episode, just in the past page or so of this thread, kind of shows that.

Spencer stands by his conclusions. He emphatically said so. We posted links.

Yet, you insist he retracted his conclusions based on what he claims is a minor error which he promptly corrected but, don't post links to his retraction.

This is why you lose the argument and why I gravitate to the positions of those like Dr. Spencer.

:lol

Oh, I missed the part where Spencers papers still show what he said in the early 1990s. I guess changing his position isn't redacting it at all. I'm sorry. I guess if Spencer says that his mistakes are minor then it must be so even if it changes completely the argument he was trying to make.

1. Spencer wrote a paper that said his satellite record showed cooling.
2. Spencer's later papers said it was warming but not to the extent that others did.
3. Spencer said it was warming and that it was to the extent the other records did.

You're right, he's never redacted anything. Its cooling, warming a bit, and warming a lot all at the same time.

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

:lol @ my mind was open till...

Yoni, the more you post, the more you just confirm what many have already come to understand about you. You don't have an open mind, your opinions are formed by those whom you listen to, and you don't make decisions based on actual knowledge

[RandomGuy]

Sherwood B. Idso,"I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration." - Sherwood B. Idso

Sorry, he doesn't seem credible to me.

I know you work really hard to pump him up on your website, but the guy's stuff is dated, and what isn't dated is on the level of yet another skeptic "blog" where someone gets a website and a license to say whatever they want to say without any critical, honest skeptic being able to present a counter point or point out the weaknesses in their shit.

[Poptech]

Oh, I missed the part where Spencers papers still show what he said in the early 1990s. I guess changing his position isn't redacting it at all. I'm sorry. I guess if Spencer says that his mistakes are minor then it must be so even if it changes completely the argument he was trying to make.

1. Spencer wrote a paper that said his satellite record showed cooling.
2. Spencer's later papers said it was warming but not to the extent that others did.
3. Spencer said it was warming and that it was to the extent the other records did.

You're right, he's never redacted anything. Its cooling, warming a bit, and warming a lot all at the same time
Nice strawman argument. Spencer never released a paper revising the results from his 1994 paper. His later papers on this subject covered longer time periods so they are not directly comparable. The correction in 2005 was to a longer UAH temperature record that was not showing a long term cooling trend but insignificant warming and even with the correction, he maintains this position. He has never characterized the mild UAH warming trend as "warming alot". Instead he has argued that it is much smaller than other temperature datasets and no cause for alarm.

Why are you lying about Dr. Spencer?

[boutons_deux]

"Once disagreement began being treated as heresy"

bull fucking shit

you right-wingers are unanimously anti-science on AGW because that's what the UCA, VRWC, 1%, Fox dictates to you.

AGW isn't a religion, it's science.

anti-AGW is purely right-wing, corporate-financed politics. You right-wingers think the science whores paid by the corps to lie is real scienc, yes, it's political science.

[MannyIsGod]

Sure, he still maintains the position of his 1994 paper. Its cooling. While its warming.

Makes sense to me.

[Yonivore]

Sure, he still maintains the position of his 1994 paper. Its cooling. While its warming.

Makes sense to me.
Or, that temperature change is insignificant.

[Poptech]

Sorry, he doesn't seem credible to me.
Sherwood Idso is an ISI highly Cited Researcher (http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/highlycited/names/i/). He is as credible as they come.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao You are not the arbiter of who is an honest skeptic and your perpetual lies about my integrity are getting old.


I admit I am wrong, when I am actually wrong not when you simply declare it. I admit others make good points, when I believe they actually make good points. Your don't make good points. You don't even understand the material.

Your ego will never allow you to admit you are wrong. You have not admitted this ever, nor will you.

Meh. I took your lame ass off ignore to bust yer nuts on energy and finance topics. I think I will confine it to that, because your pre-loaded bullshit and chest thumping gets really boring.

[RandomGuy]

Sherwood Idso is an ISI highly Cited Researcher (http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/highlycited/names/i/). He is as credible as they come.

Highly cited by people like you. Shocking.

[MannyIsGod]

Poptech's belief that it is both cooling and warming is irrefutable proof he is on LSD and is a drug addict.

[Poptech]

Sure, he still maintains the position of his 1994 paper. Its cooling. While its warming.
Strawman. Why would he be arguing a 20 year old dataset and not the most recent one? He has made no such argument using the same data range (cooling now warming).

Why are you lying about Dr. Spencer?

[Yonivore]

I think you've been schooled, RG.

[boutons_deux]

can you Idso suckers refute this:

"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments

[Poptech]

Your ego will never allow you to admit you are wrong. You have not admitted this ever, nor will you.
This is a lie as I have admitted I was wrong many times.

[Poptech]

can you Idso suckers refute this:

"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments

What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? (http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php)

"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.

Unfortunately, we know that this view is contrary to what often occurs in today's world, where the souls of many are bought and sold daily - some for a proverbial king's ransom and others for but a pauper's penny - to promulgate ideas to which they have not the slightest personal allegiance. I want to state once and for all, therefore, that we at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change do not participate in such commerce, while acknowledging there are likely many scientists on the opposite side of the climate change debate that are equally true to themselves in this regard.

But why should you believe me? Lying and fabrication are equally rampant throughout today's world, making almost anyone's declaration, however adamantly and eloquently delivered, more suspect than believable; and maybe that's what I'm doing here - lying to you.

Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue.

Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that.

So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or to encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be the truth.

In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them?

Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's image.

So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients.

Sherwood B. Idso, President
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

[H.A.L.]

This thread is now closed it has a continuation thread 197878