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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its appropriate that you would cite a science fiction author.

BTW as for data you mean something like this?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[RandomGuy]

Maybe RG should read this:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html

An exerpt

I happen to agree with her analysis for the most part.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1639

The funny thing about you posting this, is that the analysis essentially blames the politically/economically motivated fucktards like yourself for discrediting the legitimate skeptics, and producing the groupthink that is criticised. If you had those self-same critical thinking skills you might have noted that irony.

That's why I delineate between actual skeptics and "deniers", who are essentially climate change "truthers".

Just as there are some legitimate skepticisms of the "official version" of 9-11, there are legitimate skepticisms of the way climate science is conducted, and the conclusions reached.

Beyond that, you get the morons like Cosmored, and you apparently, who glom on to some kernel of truth, magnify that with ignorance and paranoia to see vast deliberate conspiracies. These vast conspiracies then move to somehow purposefully repress you.

The reality is that most people who aren't somewhat mentally disfunctional, and have the ability to form logical thoughts react with increasing repulsion at the continued craziness from such people. That general reaction then paints the legitimate skeptics with the taint of the nutters. This isn't to say it is fair, or condusive to good science. It isn't. It isn't a total barrier, either.

That's why I really advocate improved transparency and changes to peer review to make it even more rigorous.

That is just good science.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol michael criton. Lolololololol

[DarrinS]

I happen to agree with her analysis for the most part.

The funny thing about you posting this, is that the analysis essentially blames the politically/economically motivated fucktards like yourself for discrediting the legitimate skeptics, ...








No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

[DarrinS]

Lol michael criton. Lolololololol

Lol Al Gore. Lolololololol

[MannyIsGod]

Lol Al Gore. Lolololololol

Did I quote Gore? Ever?

[RandomGuy]

[Michael Crichton said:]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.



Another shining example of taking a kernel of truth and magnifying it to produce something dishonest.

Mr. Crichton is right of course. Then again, so is Manny.

Consensus is the refuge of scoundrels, and neither is it entirely useless in building conceptual frameworks. On the contrary, a general agreement on how things work, is what allows for further steps in researching. At any point, the lone correct researcher can, should, and hopefully must come forward to prove that consensus wrong when needed.

The most important take-away from Mr. Crichton's quote is the bit about reproducible results.

The recent BEST analysis shows the power of this. Skeptics and Deniers claim that the heat island affect was markedly affecting the conclusions about how much warming was taking place. The BEST analysis then went out and reproduced the previous analysis, and showed the affect was negative.

That weeded out the skeptics from the Deniers.

The next step in addressing the legitimate skeptics, is to conduct the same kinds of reproducible calculations and transparency to the science that points to human caused actions to the spike in CO2 (mostly done anyways) and the linking of that and other GHG more conclusively to the warming trend we now know is happening.

Truthers cling to their dogmatic worldview, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and I have little doubt that Deniers will be doing the same. Even now some are moving to continue their dismissal that there is even any warming taking place.

I don't think you and WC are completely mentally disfunctional, ala Cosmored, so the only thing I wonder is how long you will cling to the dogma, as more and more evidence piles up.

When you finally realize how dumb and wrong you are/were, and want to make amends, let me be the first to offer you both a good swift kick in the butt as part of your "sorry I fucked everybody over with my stupidity" contrition.

[Wild Cobra]

Did I quote Gore? Ever?
You might as well since you link other peoples work instead of being able to explain in your own words.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You might as well since you link other peoples work instead of being able to explain in your own words.

The problem arises when people such as yourself try and explain it in your own words. Tell us about looking into the troposphere and compare fog's refratction/diffusion with the absorption of photons by molecules again. That was great.

Thats why I keep quoteing Bert when you try and do the above:


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.

Your comments on 'looking into the troposphere' and fog were just that, you dumb motherfucker. Being able to put it in your onw words only adds value when you are not a dumb motherfucker so for you it doesn't apply.

Mass coronal ejection? :rollin

You are comedy gold in just one week.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think you and WC are completely mentally disfunctional, ala Cosmored, so the only thing I wonder is how long you will cling to the dogma, as more and more evidence piles up.
What do you mean. Evidence is going our way. Just because temperatures have increased, and a skeptic changes his thought, doesn't mean shit. He went from not believing temperatures have increased, to the stance Darrin and I share, that temperatures have increased. He still makes no claim that it is due to CO2.

When you finally realize how dumb and wrong you are/were, and want to make amends, let me be the first to offer you both a good swift kick in the butt as part of your "sorry I fucked everybody over with my stupidity" contrition.
How can you be certain we are wrong? Because consensus says so? Funny how as scientists actually verify their claims, the find more and more warming due to things like solar and soot. That means there is less warming somewhere else than they accounted for or more cooling from something.

I have stated before, I guess I must remind you again, I will let our future's history judge me.

Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/MaunaLoaslopes.jpg

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/GISSSolarData.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Well Fuzzy, I put it in terms I hope everyone can understand, and you still don't. Oh well, I tried.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So is it hiding in the deep oceans or in the stratosphere, WC?

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:r ollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well Fuzzy, I put it in terms I hope everyone can understand, and you still don't. Oh well, I tried.


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.

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

So is it hiding in the deep oceans or in the stratosphere, WC?

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:r ollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin
It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

What did you think that I was talking about when i said that they were nonperiodic systems? You do not even know how to begin to model and as such watching you try and discuss models is comedy gold.

I am way past your frame of mind, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

This is exactly what i am talking about.

'We should see?' Really should we huh?


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.

[RandomGuy]

What do you mean. Evidence is going our way.

If I had a nickel for every 9-11 truther who said the same for the stupid shit they posted...


Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/MaunaLoaslopes.jpg

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/GISSSolarData.jpg

The problem with that is ocean acidification from carbonic acids.

If your contention is that the extra Co2 is almost entirely from the sea, then the sea, as it gives up the CO2 gases, should be seeing less acidity from these carbonic acids.

The fact that the Oceans appear to be soaking up atmospheric CO2, despite warming, indicates that the net gain in CO2 is from some other source, does it not?

That, in turn points to one of the things I have been saying about negative feedback cycles.

Add a little CO2 to the air = retain heat

Retain heat = warm the oceans

warm the oceans = add more CO2 to the air

add more CO2 to the air = retain more heat

Etc. That is a good reason not to monkey with such cycles.

If your theory is true, then all you have to do is sample dissolved CO2 in the oceans. It goes down, as air concentration goes up, then you have a good bit of evidence showing the CO2 came from someplace other than the gigatons of yearly human emissions.

Since there is a fairly obvious source for that increasing CO2, i.e. human yearly emissions, you have a fairly high hurdle to climb.

Get cracking, crusader of truthiness.

[RandomGuy]

It's idiots like you who think it's any one part responsible. It's a complex system, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner we can have a serious debate.

A complex system that we understand little about.

Precisely why adding gigatons of extra CO2 and other GHG into the air is a bad idea.

[RandomGuy]

Similarly, one of the first detailed datasets examining temporal variations in pH at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring at a rate much higher than that previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[18][19] Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank, has suggested that "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This bit also raises another point that gets glossed over by Deniers in their rush to form strawman arguments about what climate scientists say.

It isn't about whether aspects of our climate have existed before, it is the rate of change that is far, far outside historical norms.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Its gotten to the point that I really look forward to this thread being updated because I can almost always count on it for at least a chuckle.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with that is ocean acidification from carbonic acids.

This also has more than one cause, and I forget specifically, but various carbon forms of the carbon cycle establish an equilibrium based on acidity too. Temperature also p[lays a part of these equilibrium.

Why do you believe what other tell you? Have you ever researched this part of the issue?


If your contention is that the extra Co2 is almost entirely from the sea, then the sea, as it gives up the CO2 gases, should be seeing less acidity from these carbonic acids.

No. No. No...

Don't you even try to understand anything I say? Why do you not listen to what I say, and then jump to incorrect assumptions?

I said the ocean would give up CO2 is we didn't generate any extra. As it stands, the ocean is absorbing about half the extra atmospheric CO2. The ocean is still caining CO2, not losing it. However, at equilibrium, the ocean has about 98% of the carbon. This means it should absorb about 98% of what we emit. However, it takes time and temperature will change this percentage for equilibrium.


The fact that the Oceans appear to be soaking up atmospheric CO2, despite warming, indicates that the net gain in CO2 is from some other source, does it not?

Yes, they are soaking up


That, in turn points to one of the things I have been saying about negative feedback cycles.

Add a little CO2 to the air = retain heat

Retain heat = warm the oceans

warm the oceans = add more CO2 to the air

add more CO2 to the air = retain more heat

Etc. That is a good reason not to monkey with such cycles.

Except that the radiative band the water absorbs from CO2 is limited, and doesn't beuld up the same energy because it is absorbed rather than reflected back in the atmosphere. Now what you are forgetting is that water absorbs about 90% of the solar energy that it comes in contact with. Our southern hemisphere is closest to the sun during our winter time, and is mostly water. This is more collection of energy in the waters than the greenhouse effect, and the way the ocean currents flow matter too. The warmer the water near the poles are, the less CO2 is absorbed. Cold water in the polar regions sink CO2. The surface waters become saturated quicker. As this water moves north, it is sourcing CO2, and since it started out warmer, it warms more, and releases more CO2 than it would if it were cooler.


If your theory is true, then all you have to do is sample dissolved CO2 in the oceans. It goes down, as air concentration goes up, then you have a good bit of evidence showing the CO2 came from someplace other than the gigatons of yearly human emissions.

This is already known science. Solubility of gasses in fluids vs. temperature, pressure, and even salinity are taken into account. It is measurable in the water. Alarmists completely ignore this part of the geosciences as isn't part of the meteorology they learned.


Since there is a fairly obvious source for that increasing CO2, i.e. human yearly emissions, you have a fairly high hurdle to climb.

No I don't. Note this chart:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

Lets just take 5C at 34 psu. The value is 52.44. If we relate it to the carbon absorbed in the ocean for the ratio of 40,000 GtC total with 750 of it in the atmosphere, then we can say the ocean contains 39,250 GtC.

Now if the increase the entire ocean temperature was about 0.1 degrees, we can approximate change by calculating 1/50 the value of 52.44 - 44.13, or 0.1662. We would have an approximate decrease of equilibrium to 52.27 (5244 - 0.17).

Now this 52.27 is 99.68% of the other value, but 99.68% of 39,250 is 39,127. Now, for equilibrium, we have to force another 123 GtC of carbon, or about 60 ppm into the atmosphere.

That is with no added CO2 by man, and only a 0.1 C increase.

Of course, this will be inaccurate because most the ocean is colder and some is warmer than the 5C I used, but I just wanted to show you how little changes can make bug difference.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. No. No...

Don't you even try to understand anything I say? Why do you not listen to what I say, and then jump to incorrect assumptions?

I said the ocean would give up CO2 is we didn't generate any extra. As it stands, the ocean is absorbing about half the extra atmospheric CO2. The ocean is still caining CO2, not losing it. However, at equilibrium, the ocean has about 98% of the carbon. This means it should absorb about 98% of what we emit. However, it takes time and temperature will change this percentage for equilibrium.

No it does not. Its not a linear system. I know you are too stupid to understand the relevance but its there. You are assuming only one stable point anyway and there is no evidence that is the case either.

Oh and btw you are making all these claims about oceanic CO2 but considering all of your questioning concerning the atmospheric data collection, its only sensible that you hold this data to the same scrutiny.

So, dumbfuck, where are the samples taken, how often, and in what manner? After all how do you know that the CO2 is not being hidden in the deep ocean currents like you claim the heat was?

You cannot even keep up with the logical extensions of your own bullshit.

[MannyIsGod]

f (x) = x^2

f (2) = 4

ERGO

f (4) = 8

Right?

[Wild Cobra]

No it does not. Its not a linear system. I know you are too stupid to understand the relevance but its there. You are assuming only one stable point anyway and there is no evidence that is the case either.

Oh and btw you are making all these claims about oceanic CO2 but considering all of your questioning concerning the atmospheric data collection, its only sensible that you hold this data to the same scrutiny.

So, dumbfuck, where are the samples taken, how often, and in what manner? After all how do you know that the CO2 is not being hidden in the deep ocean currents like you claim the heat was?

You cannot even keep up with the logical extensions of your own bullshit.
It is linear to partial pressure. The table is correct as are the relevant percentage changes. Though I simplified the calculation and it isn't 100% correct, it isn't far off.

If you wish to still disagree with me, let's see your math.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This bit also raises another point that gets glossed over by Deniers in their rush to form strawman arguments about what climate scientists say.

It isn't about whether aspects of our climate have existed before, it is the rate of change that is far, far outside historical norms.
I forget the details, but the ocean acidification has exceeded anything the extra CO2 would cause. Acidification is not caused only by CO2. Want me to believe CO2 is the cause, show proof of eliminating the other factors.

This link you provide has a graph I've seen before:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg/500px-Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg.png

Now coral formations are in shallow warm water. then this water gets warmer, it doesn't retain as much CO2. It out-gasses more. For the same equilibrium reasons it cannot hold as much CO2 and carbonic acid, it cannot hold as much of the other carbonates. This is why coral loses it's calcium carbonate. Temperature changes this equilibrium also . From your link:


(CO2(aq)), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO−
3) and carbonate (CO2−
3). The ratio of these species depends on factors such as seawater temperature and alkalinity (see the article on the ocean's solubility pump for more detail).

Now if we follow the link to Solubility Pump:


The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water)

One consequence of this is that when deep water upwells in warmer, equatorial latitudes, it strongly outgasses carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of the reduced solubility of the gas.
This means global warming will release CO2 from the ocean.

Please...

Start reading up and understanding this part of the geosciences and stop listening to the alarmists propaganda.

It is very unscientific to blame everything on CO2 only when there are other factors. If you want to be believed, at least attempt to account for the other factors as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Similarly, one of the first detailed datasets examining temporal variations in pH at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring at a rate much higher than that previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[18][19] Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank, has suggested that "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

This bit also raises another point that gets glossed over by Deniers in their rush to form strawman arguments about what climate scientists say.

It isn't about whether aspects of our climate have existed before, it is the rate of change that is far, far outside historical norms.
For the acidity to double in 40 years means the pH needs to decrease by 0.3. Look at this chart:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2alkalinityandph.gif

That would require a doubling of absorbed CO2 in the water, if CO2 was the cause. Other things change the chemistry of the ocean. Temperature plays a large role.

Really now. Sanity check please. i don't see surface CO2 in the water doubling in 40 years.

Please...

Learn a little more about science if you wish to debate me on this issue. Stop using propaganda material as proof.

[Wild Cobra]

f (x) = x^2

f (2) = 4

ERGO

f (4) = 8

Right?
You must be high again.

[RandomGuy]

This also has more than one cause, and I forget specifically, but various carbon forms of the carbon cycle establish an equilibrium based on acidity too. Temperature also plays a part of these equilibrium.

Why do you believe what other tell you? Have you ever researched this part of the issue?

No. No. No...

Don't you even try to understand anything I say? Why do you not listen to what I say, and then jump to incorrect assumptions? [rest of the post with graphs and things omitted for the sake of brevity--RG]


I do understand what you say, for the most part. One of your problems is that you, no offense, have problems getting points across in a clear and concise manner. You seem to be getting better at this, but it is a skill that takes a while to master.

In the past, when I have bothered to delve into your points when you get overly scientific, they have always turned out to be spurious or flawed in some way, because of your cognitive bias on the issue.

I read through the rest of that post and still found more than one thing that I thought was wrong with your reasoning, but since I have proven to my satisfaction that you are a poltically motivated hack on this issue, with demonstrably flawed reasoning, making the effort to have another Battle of the Graphs seems like a waste of time, akin to trying to prove to mouse that the earth is older than a few thousand years, because he wants to believe that "aliens did it", or whatever it is he believes this week.

I can't logically dismiss your criticisms as being invalid simply because you say it, but I can logically conclude that the chances of them being valid are low enough that bothering with them or assigning more than the lightest credibility to them is spurious.

You have only yourself to blame for that, and it dovetails rather well with the quote from the gal DarrinS posted. The crazies and political hacks that push pseudoscience, like I think you are doing here, have poisoned the legitimate skepticism of the science.

You, Darrin, Yonivor, et al, are your own worst enemy on this topic.

[RandomGuy]

For the acidity to double in 40 years means the pH needs to decrease by 0.3. Look at this chart:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2alkalinityandph.gif

That would require a doubling of absorbed CO2 in the water, if CO2 was the cause. Other things change the chemistry of the ocean. Temperature plays a large role.

Really now. Sanity check please. i don't see surface CO2 in the water doubling in 40 years.

Please...

Learn a little more about science if you wish to debate me on this issue. Stop using propaganda material as proof.

Learn a bit more about basic math before debating me on this issue.

Most of the Co2 that mankind has ever put into the air has been done in the last 25 years or so.

That means that, given that we keep increasing our output of CO2 by a moderate % every year, in the next 25 years or so, we will put out more CO2 than we have to date. That means the next 25 years will put more CO2 into the air than we have in our entire history.

Given that atmospheric CO2 has pretty much doubled since the industrial revolution, whatever man's impact, even if you think it is small, on overall CO2 will also double.

Given that you have said that warming trend will release a net of CO2 into the air, this means that it appears that a doubling of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is quite plausible. I would say it seems probable, but that is my opinion.

Unless the oceans warm enough to really reduce their ability to absorb gases faster than the atmospheric vapor pressure forces CO2 into them, again, a doubling of Ph doesn't seem beyond the pale.

Please stop trying to push your propaganda on me.

[RandomGuy]

You must be high again.

Tell me why or if his reasoning is incorrect.

[MannyIsGod]

Exponential growth is hard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is linear to partial pressure. The table is correct as are the relevant percentage changes. Though I simplified the calculation and it isn't 100% correct, it isn't far off.

If you wish to still disagree with me, let's see your math.

It doesn't require math. You are treating all the oceans of the earth as a set of two numbers as to dumb it down to the barest possible reckoning. Time to get back to Bert again:


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.

The oceans are bodies of water 10 to the order of who knows how many individual atoms each with an energy state. Same with the atmosphere. When you model such situations you use a gradient not a single point. Now the important interactions only occur along the surface where the two meet. Co2 is not going to dissolve in the ocean 10 feet above the surface. Unfortunately the ocean and atmosphere are not rigid bodies so that introduces the issue of flow and thus turbulence which becomes very messy.

All of these directly effect (re:feedback) into the solubility of the system. This is not 7th grade chemistry class with its pretty ultra controlled experiments. You are trying to make comments as to what we 'should' expect in terms of the solubility of the ocean and all you have done is dumb it down as much as you possibly can so it becomes easy for dimwits such as yourself to understand.

You cannot control the Earth's oceans to only pressure. Thats the point, dumbfuck. You have to account for all these other variables and you cannot just simply superimpose them. The reason why is if you do you leave out so much of what is actually going on as to be pointless.

Furthermore quit talking about equilibrium in reference to the ocean and atmosphere. Its not going to go around in a closed loops or stay at a point in terms of pressure and temperature. It will always move and to a degree be chaotic. If you really want to understand mathematically what is going on look into stochastics.

Looking at a chart of single values to analyze the entire fucking ocean and tell us what we should expect is stupid. I guess you enjoy looking stupid because you certainly do it a lot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exponential growth is hard.

There is the issue of flow and just as you stir a boiling pot to help dissolve it effects the systems. Its not a linear property and he does not even consider it.

You guys need to quit even trying to be civil and just treat him like the fucking retard he is. I like science experiments too but I refuse to base US energy policy off of Dr. EZ Bake Ovens chemistry experiment.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't require math. You are treating all the oceans of the earth as a set of two numbers as to dumb it down to the barest possible reckoning. Time to get back to Bert again:



The oceans are bodies of water 10 to the order of who knows how many individual atoms each with an energy state. Same with the atmosphere. When you model such situations you use a gradient not a single point. Now the important interactions only occur along the surface where the two meet. Co2 is not going to dissolve in the ocean 10 feet above the surface. Unfortunately the ocean and atmosphere are not rigid bodies so that introduces the issue of flow and thus turbulence which becomes very messy.

All of these directly effect (re:feedback) into the solubility of the system. This is not 7th grade chemistry class with its pretty ultra controlled experiments. You are trying to make comments as to what we 'should' expect in terms of the solubility of the ocean and all you have done is dumb it down as much as you possibly can so it becomes easy for dimwits such as yourself to understand.

You cannot control the Earth's oceans to only pressure. Thats the point, dumbfuck. You have to account for all these other variables and you cannot just simply superimpose them. The reason why is if you do you leave out so much of what is actually going on as to be pointless.

Furthermore quit talking about equilibrium in reference to the ocean and atmosphere. Its not going to go around in a closed loops or stay at a point in terms of pressure and temperature. It will always move and to a degree be chaotic. If you really want to understand mathematically what is going on look into stochastics.

Looking at a chart of single values to analyze the entire fucking ocean and tell us what we should expect is stupid. I guess you enjoy looking stupid because you certainly do it a lot.

Oceans, that span all manner of temperature zones and even pressures, are far more complex than subjecting them to some simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculation as if the entire world's oceans had one temperature and pressure.

Simplification has its uses, but going too far makes attempting to do so meaningless, and that is what I think he has done here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oceans, that span all manner of temperature zones and even pressures, are far more complex than subjecting them to some simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculation as if the entire world's oceans had one temperature and pressure.

Simplification has its uses, but going too far makes attempting to do so meaningless, and that is what I think he has done here.

Acceptable simplifications have purpose though. It makes sense to only range the 3-D gradients to ocean/oceanic thermal layers or to a lesser acceptable extent make a single solubility state.

Using a 2-D chart? He deserves nothing but ridicule.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is very unscientific to blame everything on CO2 only when there are other factors. If you want to be believed, at least attempt to account for the other factors as well.

This was comedy gold. We are the ones that need to pay attention to other factors? Fuck off dumbass.

[Wild Cobra]

Exponential growth is hard.

Not hard.

The answer to your formula would be 16, not 8.

[Wild Cobra]

Guys, I don't have time today. Have to leave soon else I would try to get to your points better.

Random... you appear stuck on CO2 being the only cause, and not allowing for other possibilities.

Fuzzy, equilibrium, with all other factors equal, is a given. Increase only temperature, and the solubility decreases. The ocean is not static, but dynamic. It flows in a long loops. Eventually, the whole system moves towards the new equilibrium, though it is a slow process. I used close to accepted figures that are about a decade old, slightly changing the values.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg/500px-Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle)

[MannyIsGod]

There is the issue of flow and just as you stir a boiling pot to help dissolve it effects the systems. Its not a linear property and he does not even consider it.

You guys need to quit even trying to be civil and just treat him like the fucking retard he is. I like science experiments too but I refuse to base US energy policy off of Dr. EZ Bake Ovens chemistry experiment.

I vowed never to respond to one of that dude's posts again and I won't. Either he's an epic troll or one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered. Either way, the prudent course of action is not to respond to him.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not hard.

The answer to your formula would be 16, not 8.

Of course its not hard. That was rhe point.

from a 14 year old I would credit your lack of insight to naivete however at your age I attribute stupidity. So tell us some more about how we need to understand there are many factors to a complex system juxtaposed to your model of the ocean as a single pressure and temperature.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Guys, I don't have time today. Have to leave soon else I would try to get to your points better.

Random... you appear stuck on CO2 being the only cause, and not allowing for other possibilities.

Fuzzy, equilibrium, with all other factor

s equal, is a given. Increase only temperature, and the solubility decreases. The ocean is not static, but dynamic. It flows in a long loops. Eventually, the whole system moves towards the new equilibrium, though it is a slow process. I used close to accepted figures that are about a decade old, slightly changing the values.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg/500px-Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle)

I see we are back to middle school science project. You are not making predictions on a system where all other things are equal. You obviously have no conception of flow as you just ignore it. At this point we can conclude your assertions about predictions can be ignored.

all those arrows on your picture are representative of factors your model just ignores. There is no period to rhe data. You are dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course its not hard. That was rhe point.

from a 14 year old I would credit your lack of insight to naivete however at your age I attribute stupidity. So tell us some more about how we need to understand there are many factors to a complex system juxtaposed to your model of the ocean as a single pressure and temperature.
It's retards like you who fail to understand what I say. I did point out temperatures were different, and the slope changes with temperature because it is not linear. You guys are either dense, or purposely being dense. Just the same, what I said stands. If the ocean as a whole increased by the 0.1 degrees, the percentages of the dissolved gasses would also change by an amount not far off than my simplified method. Only the surface waters will have changes seen relatively soon. The entire ocean would take a very long time to change.

If you disagree with me, then please point me to a reference and page number to show me wrong.

Manny won't respond any more because he is not capable of finding evidence to discredit me. All the links I ever see is someone else saying something different, without addressing what I say. Are you up to the challenge?

[Wild Cobra]

all those arrows on your picture are representative of factors your model just ignores. There is no period to rhe data. You are dumb.
Not all, but many represent an equilibrium. An equilibrium that changes with other factors, temperature being a primary factor. Why don't you understand that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not all, but many represent an equilibrium. An equilibrium that changes with other factors, temperature being a primary factor. Why don't you understand that?

No they do not. Equilibrium means they either stay the same or they return to the same state after following a repeating pattern like a ball at the bottom of a hill or a pendulum swinging back and forth without friction.

The problem is that in the real world there is friction. You are talking about the ocean, dumbass. As such there is no real equilibrium. When you make stupid assumptions or oversimplification what you end up with is poor forecasting.

I do not give a damn about how you rationalize the world in your pea-brain. What matters is if your model of how ocean temperatures reflect atmospheric CO2 actually makes a piss worth of sense or if we can take your predictions and they be worth anything whatsoever.

We cannot. Why? Because the notion is oversimplified bullshit. There is all kinds of reciprocity in a system of that type and you just blithely act like its just something you can read off a solubility chart. It was dumb. Real dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

No they do not. Equilibrium means they either stay the same or they return to the same state after following a repeating pattern like a ball at the bottom of a hill or a pendulum swinging back and forth without friction.

The problem is that in the real world there is friction. You are talking about the ocean, dumbass. As such there is no real equilibrium. When you make stupid assumptions or oversimplification what you end up with is poor forecasting.

I do not give a damn about how you rationalize the world in your pea-brain. What matters is if your model of how ocean temperatures reflect atmospheric CO2 actually makes a piss worth of sense or if we can take your predictions and they be worth anything whatsoever.

We cannot. Why? Because the notion is oversimplified bullshit. There is all kinds of reciprocity in a system of that type and you just blithely act like its just something you can read off a solubility chart. It was dumb. Real dumb.
Yes, other factors influence where the equilibrium will be, and yes, it changes with several factors.

The point I am making is with all other factors unchanged, that temperature changes will change the ratio of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

I hope you are not stupid enough to say I'm wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, other factors influence where the equilibrium will be, and yes, it changes with several factors.

The point I am making is with all other factors unchanged, that temperature changes will change the ratio of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

I hope you are not stupid enough to say I'm wrong.

Wow, bravo WC you stated the obvious. That is a far cry from your claim that it was the driving force. That was your initial point. Temperature drives CO2 not the other way around. Do you really want to revisit your initial post with the chart?

Just go piss off and let it go. It was dumb. Just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, bravo WC you stated the obvious. That is a far cry from your claim that it was the driving force. That was your initial point. Temperature drives CO2 not the other way around. Do you really want to revisit your initial post with the chart?

Just go piss off and let it go. It was dumb. Just stop.
My God.

I show how one factor changes things and you dance around it. Simply will not accept that I am right and you were wrong. You aren't the new and improved Boutons. You are a cross between Chump and Boutons.

Yes or no.

Does a change in ocean temperature change the solubility of CO2 and change how much it sinks?

As for the initial chart...

Keep up... there is more going on than one thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have stated before, I guess I must remind you again, I will let our future's history judge me.

Really now. Consider how equilibrium of a gas and fluid respond vs. temperature. Since the oceans contain 50 times more carbon in the carbon cycle, it should absorb about 98% of the extra we emit in the atmosphere. I say it doesn't because the ocean temperatures have increased. I say we would see nearly the same CO2 levels if we emitted zero.

Look at how rapidly (slope of change) levels increase and decrease with temperature changes:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/MaunaLoaslopes.jpg

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

Well we have to go back to your OP. This is the salient part. Yes, future has been your judge and the conclusion is your soda model was stupid and you cannot even keep up with the shit you yourself wrote.

Do you really wish to continue?

[ChumpDumper]

Did Herman Cain say the ocean is a soda?

[Wild Cobra]

Well we have to go back to your OP. This is the salient part. Yes, future has been your judge and the conclusion is your soda model was stupid and you cannot even keep up with the shit you yourself wrote.

Do you really wish to continue?
LOL...

This is an 1800+ post thread. That was not my OP. If you fail to comprehend why I used that chart, don't ask why for me to elaborate, then accuse me if stupidity, then how can we have a serious debate?

I go back to this:


Yes or no.

Does a change in ocean temperature change the solubility of CO2 and change how much it sinks?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

This is an 1800+ post thread. That was not my OP. If you fail to comprehend why I used that chart, then how can we have a serious debate?

I go back to this:

Wow. We've discussed at length how using a solubility chart to describe the behavior of the ocean makes no sense. Do you really think I don't understand what you are getting at? Do you not understand how that discussion subsumes all of what you are trying to get at?

I really hope that you are trolling at this point. Are you really that stupid?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. We've discussed at length how using a solubility chart to describe the behavior of the ocean makes no sense. Do you really think I don't understand what you are getting at? Do you not understand how that discussion subsumes all of what you are trying to get at?

I really hope that you are trolling at this point. Are you really that stupid?
And you still refuse to answer my question.

Goodbye. You are a waste of time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is an 1800+ post thread. That was not my OP. If you fail to comprehend why I used that chart, don't ask why for me to elaborate, then accuse me if stupidity, then how can we have a serious debate?

I actually feel i have done far better than accuse. Along that vein lets change track a bit to get back to this chart.

You referred to the ocean as a soda and then gave us a solubility chart.

You say I fail to comprehend why you used the chart. I want a serious debate so please explain to me why you used the chart.

[Wild Cobra]

I actually feel i have done far better than accuse. Along that vein lets change track a bit to get back to this chart.

You referred to the ocean as a soda and then gave us a solubility chart.

You say I fail to comprehend why you used the chart. I want a serious debate so please explain to me why you used the chart.

And you still refuse to answer my question.

Goodbye. You are a waste of time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You accused me of being unfair. I don't understand something apparently. You do not want to explain yourself? I could be wrong. Here is your opportunity to clue me in.

[MannyIsGod]

With projections of Med water temps rising quite a bit by the end of the century, I bring you what is likely to be a more common occurrence. This falls in line with the first documented tropical storms int he southern Atlantic basin as well (Brazil's first hurricane etc).

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/9122

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With projections of Med water temps rising quite a bit by the end of the century, I bring you what is likely to be a more common occurrence. This falls in line with the first documented tropical storms int he southern Atlantic basin as well (Brazil's first hurricane etc).

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/9122

Its going to be the insurance lobby versus the oil lobby woohoo!!!

[RandomGuy]

Did Herman Cain say the ocean is a soda?

I bet the CO2 in the ocean wouldn't even fill up the Superdome. Case closed.

[Agloco]

I bet the CO2 in the ocean wouldn't even fill up the Superdome. Case closed.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Its going to be the insurance lobby versus the oil lobby woohoo!!!

Oil lobby will win that fight every time. Insurance doesn't have much to lose here assuming they raise rates appropriately. Oil on the other hand has everything to lose if money is put into renewable3s at a good rate.

[Wild Cobra]

I bet the CO2 in the ocean wouldn't even fill up the Superdome. Case closed.
well, I'm not going to figure the specifics size, but there is approximately 700 gigatons of CO2 in there ocean. What would that volume be in either solid, or gas form at 1 atmosphere?

[Wild Cobra]

I bet the CO2 in the ocean wouldn't even fill up the Superdome. Case closed.
well, I'm not going to figure the specifics size, but there is approximately 700 gigatons of CO2 in there ocean. What would that volume be in either solid, or gas form at 1 atmosphere?
I was waiting for a response, but never got one. I don't recall anyone saying that either, but you recently.

If I take 0.5% of the carbon in the ocean and give it an approximate weight for CO2, I get about 700 gigatons, or 700 petagrams. I get this by using the 2004 carbon cycle pictation in wikipedia. Most of this is in the form of carbonic acid, and since you said CO2, I used strictly CO2 which is about 0.5% of the ocean carbon equilibrium. 0.5% of 39,120 GtC is 196.6 GtC. Adding the mass of two oxygen atoms per carbon gives us 716.4 Gt of CO2, but we are scientifically stuck with 1 digit accuracy, but I will deviate. Still, I will use 716 and 3 digits, so I used 716 gigatons or 716 petagrams. It might be interesting to note that the atmosphere has real close to four times this number, which would explain why the absorption is so slow. The CO2 in the ocean must also equalize with the carbonic acid.

Now you didn't specify solid, liquid, Since gas is CO2's natural form at atmospheric pressure, until you get really cold, I continued with the gas form. The superbowl is about 3.5 million cubic meters is volume. 716 petagrams would be 362,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, which is means it would fill 103 million superdomes.

Now in solid form at -78.5C, it would only fill up 131,000 superdomes.

Someone double check my math please.

Now the 2004 number included 750 GtC carbon in the atmosphere. Some will,be methane and other trace sources, but if I attribute it all to CO2, I get 2745 gigatones or petagrams. Like I said, almost 4 times more.

Something interesting to note. If we could separate the CO2 to the bottom layer of the atmosphere, it would only be 710 centimeters thick. It would be 2.72 meters thick for atmospheric CO2.

[RandomGuy]

I was waiting for a response, but never got one. I don't recall anyone saying that either, but you recently.

If I take 0.5% of the carbon in the ocean and give it an approximate weight for CO2, I get about 700 gigatons, or 700 petagrams. I get this by using the 2004 carbon cycle pictation in wikipedia. Most of this is in the form of carbonic acid, and since you said CO2, I used strictly CO2 which is about 0.5% of the ocean carbon equilibrium. 0.5% of 39,120 GtC is 196.6 GtC. Adding the mass of two oxygen atoms per carbon gives us 716.4 Gt of CO2, but we are scientifically stuck with 1 digit accuracy, but I will deviate. Still, I will use 716 and 3 digits, so I used 716 gigatons or 716 petagrams. It might be interesting to note that the atmosphere has real close to four times this number, which would explain why the absorption is so slow. The CO2 in the ocean must also equalize with the carbonic acid.

Now you didn't specify solid, liquid, Since gas is CO2's natural form at atmospheric pressure, until you get really cold, I continued with the gas form. The superbowl is about 3.5 million cubic meters is volume. 716 petagrams would be 362,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, which is means it would fill 103 million superdomes.

Now in solid form at -78.5C, it would only fill up 131,000 superdomes.

Someone double check my math please.

Now the 2004 number included 750 GtC carbon in the atmosphere. Some will,be methane and other trace sources, but if I attribute it all to CO2, I get 2745 gigatones or petagrams. Like I said, almost 4 times more.

Something interesting to note. If we could separate the CO2 to the bottom layer of the atmosphere, it would only be 710 centimeters thick. It would be 2.72 meters thick for atmospheric CO2.

:rollin

(sighs)

This was a reference to something you or maybe Darrin said in one of the threads about the oil slick. "the oil doesn't even fill up the superdome, so why are we all worried about it?" or something similar.

It was a joke, and an obscure one at that.

Even if you didn't remember the reference, you probably should have figured out it was something of a tongue in cheek sarcasm. Probably should have made it blue text on my part to remove ambiguity. Your response is still funny though for its sciency overkill.

[Wild Cobra]

:rollin

(sighs)

This was a reference to something you or maybe Darrin said in one of the threads about the oil slick. "the oil doesn't even fill up the superdome, so why are we all worried about it?" or something similar.

It was a joke, and an obscure one at that.

Even if you didn't remember the reference, you probably should have figured out it was something of a tongue in cheek sarcasm. Probably should have made it blue text on my part to remove ambiguity. Your response is still funny though for its sciency overkill.
I see. It was an inside joke.

Without a frame of reference to me, it made no sense. It still doesn't.

Why do you like comparing apples and oranges all the time anyway?

I think one thing we all forget, is that we don't think alike. Suggesting that CO2 wouldn't fill the superdome can then be a suggestion at added CO2 is very, very bad because we can see sources that emit that much on a regular bases. What was the BP in volume? If I the numbers I just looked up are accurate, it would take 4-1/2 BP spills to fill the superdome. Radically different than CO2 since mans annual output of CO2 well exceeds 1,000 superdomes in solid form. Probably about 1,500.

[Wild Cobra]

Random. Do you have anything serious to add to this thread? Climate change is a serious matter, or do you prefer to joke about it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your response is still funny though for its sciency overkill.

[boutons_deux]

Koch-Funded Scientist On Morning Joe: ‘We’re Getting Very Steep Warming’

Dr. Richard Muller, a contrarian physicist funded by the Koch brothers to investigate the temperature record smeared by the “Climategate” campaign, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe today that “we’re getting very steep warming.” He confirmed that the disturbing warming found by the scientific community “two years ago” was correct, even though at the time he “was not convinced that global warming was real, or that it existed.” Muller cautioned that “we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.” Muller is testifying at a congressional briefing organized by House Democrats this afternoon.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/14/367613/koch-funded-scientist-on-morning-joe-were-getting-very-steep-warming/

[RandomGuy]

Random. Do you have anything serious to add to this thread? Climate change is a serious matter, or do you prefer to joke about it?

I have long since proven the point of the OP, which, you seem to have forgotten, had nothing to do with AGW's ultimate veracity as a theory, and everything to do with pointing out that no small part of the "skepticism" of this theory is little more than politically motivated bloviating, and illogical bloviating at that.

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

[RandomGuy]

mF_anaVcCXg

[Wild Cobra]

mF_anaVcCXg
I'm curious.

How many times now have you posted that video?

[RandomGuy]

I'm curious.

How many times now have you posted that video?

Quite a few.

You have yet to adequately address the logic, other than to make rather grandiose claims of infallibility about your own estimations of various forcing factors.

Since you do not allow for the possibility of you being incorrect about this, then you have sidestepped the logic in his reasoning.

I like it because one doesn't have to rely on the science to come to a fair conclusion as to what the best way to hedge ones bets when it comes to policy is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quite a few.

You have yet to adequately address the logic, other than to make rather grandiose claims of infallibility about your own estimations of various forcing factors.

Since you do not allow for the possibility of you being incorrect about this, then you have sidestepped the logic in his reasoning.

I like it because one doesn't have to rely on the science to come to a fair conclusion as to what the best way to hedge ones bets when it comes to policy is.

Nonsense. The heat was hiding in the deep oceans.

[MannyIsGod]

Well a lot of the heat IS in the deep oceans but thats not whats driving atmospheric heating.

[Wild Cobra]

Quite a few.

You have yet to adequately address the logic, other than to make rather grandiose claims of infallibility about your own estimations of various forcing factors.

Since you do not allow for the possibility of you being incorrect about this, then you have sidestepped the logic in his reasoning.

I like it because one doesn't have to rely on the science to come to a fair conclusion as to what the best way to hedge ones bets when it comes to policy is.
First of all, I never even thought about that video as a question. Incorrect about what?

1) There is no doubt in my mind that BC and solar have a greater warning effect than given by alarmists.

2) The claim of warming from the 1700's to modern day is only about 0.85C max.

3) The claim of warming from cherry picked times of the 20th century is around 0.6C

I could go on. Remember, I do not claim CO2 has no warming effect. Only that it isn't as much as claimed.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[DarrinS]

mF_anaVcCXg

wYLmLW4k4aI

[MannyIsGod]

Never miss an opportunity to lay down more bad logic, right Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Never miss an opportunity to lay down more bad logic, right Darrin?

Just showing things to scale.

[MannyIsGod]

Scale is irrelevant without context. The amount of plutonium in the largest bomb is far smaller than the total mass found in area of that bombs blast yet judging simply on scale would not give you an indication of that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its more than that. Hes studied one form of engineering so he has at least been introduced to the notion of non-linear systems. He is just a lying sophist piece of shit.

Hey Darrin why don't you link more shit from a mailer and then attribute it to NIST.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I don't know if he's lying. Just because he got a degree doesn't mean he ever understood it exceptionally well or retained anything other than what he uses on a daily basis.

Who knows.

[DarrinS]

Scale is irrelevant without context. The amount of plutonium in the largest bomb is far smaller than the total mass found in area of that bombs blast yet judging simply on scale would not give you an indication of that.


Good analogy. Not.

Plutonium is more dangerous than plant food.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't mention danger at all. I simply pointed out how your scale comment was pretty piss poor. The analogy wasn't meant to convey anything about danger at all but rather how scale and effect are not directly related in every situation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I don't know if he's lying. Just because he got a degree doesn't mean he ever understood it exceptionally well or retained anything other than what he uses on a daily basis.

Who knows.

Engineering be it mechanical, physical or whatever relies heavily on putting things in terms of linear systems. If they are not linear then they are restricted in range such that the system behaves in a nearly linear fashion.

Thats what you are doing when you shift gears in a car or bias a transistor. They beat it in to you at every single level be it thermo, mechanics, circuits etc. If he is indeed a trained engineer he knows.

He is just a sophist lying piece of shit so it very well may be that he is lying about his background. There have been times seeing his takes on things i question whether or not he is who he says he is. This place is rampant with that manner of thing and it really doesnt matter.

The truth is the truth.

[DarrinS]

I didn't mention danger at all. I simply pointed out how your scale comment was pretty piss poor. The analogy wasn't meant to convey anything about danger at all but rather how scale and effect are not directly related in every situation.


Actually, it was meant to show how small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is -- nothing more.

[MannyIsGod]

Isn't that what you implied by scale? The relative size doe not matter if the net effect is large. Is this point really this difficult for you to grasp?

I mean, CO2 is a VERY small percentage of the atmosphere a a whole yet our planet would be no where near a warm without it and it still manages to support a very large mass of vegetation.

Are you disputing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of the rise in those levels?

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, CO2 is a VERY small percentage of the atmosphere a a whole yet our planet would be no where near a warm without it and it still manages to support a very large mass of vegetation.

There again is one of the problems. You have no evidence to say it wouldn't be "nearly as warm. You cannot properly quantify it. You use research which models, which are too much based of guessing. Studies show various things about CO2 to include a few studies that show at some levels it can cool the atmosphere.


Are you disputing that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of the rise in those levels?

I am, and I believe Darrin is also. Temperature changes the solubility of sea water, and we agree the oceans are warming.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There again is one of the problems. You have no evidence to say it wouldn't be "nearly as warm. You cannot properly quantify it. You use research which models, which are too much based of guessing. Studies show various things about CO2 to include a few studies that show at some levels it can cool the atmosphere.

I am, and I believe Darrin is also. Temperature changes the solubility of sea water, and we agree the oceans are warming.

Yet you can quantify the shit in the deep oceans and from soot? You have no credibility but here's a protip: don't support arguments that undermine other arguments, dimwit.

The oceans are warming and they are providing heat too? They got a space heater down in the deep oceans? Do you have the capacity to even think things through?

[MannyIsGod]

There again is one of the problems. You have no evidence to say it wouldn't be "nearly as warm. You cannot properly quantify it. You use research which models, which are too much based of guessing. Studies show various things about CO2 to include a few studies that show at some levels it can cool the atmosphere.

I am, and I believe Darrin is also. Temperature changes the solubility of sea water, and we agree the oceans are warming.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course you can quantify it and it has been done. Also, the excess CO2 is not coming from the oceans. You can easily prove that via ph.

[RandomGuy]

wYLmLW4k4aI

Already debunked as dishonest and misleading. You aren't even trying.

Like I said, I have yet to see an adequate rebuttal to the video I posted, therefore I will continue to post it occasionally, on the slmi hope that the Deniers might happen on something that would seriously challenge it.

[Wild Cobra]

What the hell are you talking about? Of course you can quantify it and it has been done. Also, the excess CO2 is not coming from the oceans. You can easily prove that via ph.
I see you don't understand solubility and temperature relationships and/or how it applies to the carbon cycle.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, it was meant to show how small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 was-- nothing more.

I would also point out that your video is a few years old.

What happens to the relative parts when we double our yearly CO2 output? Quadruple? Octuple?

Why does it not address equilibrium values, and the implication of disequilibrium?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you don't understand solubility and temperature relationships and/or how it applies to the carbon cycle.

Yes please. We need the ocean as a soda pop argument again. It wasn't quite stupid enough the first time. Use the analogy again.

[MannyIsGod]

I see you don't understand solubility and temperature relationships and/or how it applies to the carbon cycle.

LOL I see you do not understand how dropping oxygen levels in the atmosphere indicate CO2 formed from oxidation of atmospheric carbon and not oceanic release. Hmm, I wonder where that atmospheric carbon might come from?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351


Here are a ton of graphs that I know you'll love although you'll likely not understand them at all.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/sioref4_2001.pdf

[DarrinS]

I would also point out that your video is a few years old.

What happens to the relative parts when we double our yearly CO2 output? Quadruple? Octuple?

Why does it not address equilibrium values, and the implication of disequilibrium?



It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.

By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?

[DarrinS]

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

[MannyIsGod]

Whats the primary factor in increasing ice in the Himalayas? Temp, or Precip?

[MannyIsGod]

It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.

By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?

This is just plain wrong. Antarctica is most certainly not adding ice but rather losing anywhere from 100 GT to 300 GT a year.

The latest research shows that a drop in CO2 is exactly what triggered the formation of the Antarctic Ice sheet so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. You're doing a great job of pointing out how CO2 is a huge forcing, though. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Somehow you keep throwing shit at the wall and none of it sticks. Keep trying, Darrin.

[MannyIsGod]

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

So, what would we expect out of a warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range? Would we expect it to drop more precipitation or less? Pretty funny to see the word "shocked" in there. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing says "understanding" like someone continuously say that tipping points don't exist then point to one (ice sheet formation when CO2 falls below 600 ppm) as it somehow backs up their line of thinking. :lol

To provide a bit more context of how the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is incredible, the drop from 760 ppm 45 million years ago to 600ppm that triggered the formation of the ice sheet took a bit more time than the increase we've seen today. Just a tiny bit more. 100,000 years or so.

So, in 50 years we've seen the PPM go up 80ppm or so. Half of what it took 100,000 years to lose naturally.

I'm sure Darrin was right about to provide that scale.

[DarrinS]

This is just plain wrong. Antarctica is most certainly not adding ice but rather losing anywhere from 100 GT to 300 GT a year.

The latest research shows that a drop in CO2 is exactly what triggered the formation of the Antarctic Ice sheet so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. You're doing a great job of pointing out how CO2 is a huge forcing, though. Thanks.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/

[MannyIsGod]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and you should read the study that article references. Its the most recent research I was talking about earlier. Thanks for linking me to an article that references the research I had just told you about. Its a real eye opener.

:lmao



To provide a bit more context of how the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is incredible, the drop from 760 ppm 45 million years ago to 600ppm that triggered the formation of the ice sheet took a bit more time than the increase we've seen today. Just a tiny bit more. 100,000 years or so.


At that stage the atmosphere held much more CO2 than it does now, some 600 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to today's level of 390 ppm.

SMH

[ChumpDumper]

How many Superdomes of ice are on the Himalayas?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, and you should read the study that article references. Its the most recent research I was talking about earlier. Thanks for linking me to an article that references the research I had just told you about. Its a real eye opener.

:lmao






SMH

He just links shit and doesnt read the whole thing. That guardian link he gave completely trashed his position. Hes just trolling at this point.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL I see you do not understand how dropping oxygen levels in the atmosphere indicate CO2 formed from oxidation of atmospheric carbon and not oceanic release. Hmm, I wonder where that atmospheric carbon might come from?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351


Here are a ton of graphs that I know you'll love although you'll likely not understand them at all.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/sioref4_2001.pdf
Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

[Wild Cobra]

So, what would we expect out of a warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range? Would we expect it to drop more precipitation or less? Pretty funny to see the word "shocked" in there. :lol

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It;'s Global Warming...

You guys are a joke.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

100s of stations is a few? What variables? What papers? If its been debunked why don't you provide the papers?

Cue the I'm not doing your research for you post. :lol

[RandomGuy]

It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.

By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?

I do not know what the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere is.

What is it?

Enlighten me.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It;'s Global Warming...

You guys are a joke.

The OP says who is laughable, and who is not. Perhaps you forgot about it?

I stopped counting Darrin's but have little doubt he has roughly doubled his count, and you aren't doing much better.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

Still going with the monitoring station schtick after the BEST report isolated the effects?

Why?

[Yonivore]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

I refer you to a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122)about the non-melting...


The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350.
Unless of course, you're willing to concede the IPCC is not credible. I certainly am.

[GSH]

Whats the primary factor in increasing ice in the Himalayas? Temp, or Precip?


So you're saying that the temperature was too high to keep the water that was already there frozen... but it's cold enough to freeze the new water and keep it frozen?

Or are you saying that the Himalayas are still losing a lot of ice due to warmer temperatures, but they are also adding a lot due to precipitation? So wouldn't they also be losing a share of the new (precipitation) ice to the warmer temperatures? Or is the new ice harder to melt?

So they are losing old ice, losing new ice, but adding enough extra new ice to keep up, because of "warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range"? But that same "warmer atmosphere being pushed up" hasn't accelerated the loss of both old and new ice?

There's a book that you, and a lot of others, should read. It's "Wrong", by David H. Freedman, and it goes into the reasons why many, if not most, published studies are incorrect and misleading. It's not about any ideology, left vs. right, or anything else. But it will give you a pretty good look at the crap that passes for science, and the reasons why flawed studies see the light of day. I don't remember anything about AGW in the book, but there is a great deal that pertains to the underlying studies. Not that I really expect any of the committed zealots to spend any time considering anything that doesn't fit their agenda.

BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

100s of stations is a few? What variables? What papers? If its been debunked why don't you provide the papers?

Cue the I'm not doing your research for you post. :lol
pointed out in past threads.

I think it's a waste of time to address those two papers. just one thing about the 13C/12C ratios. We don't have enough world wide samples and knowledge of the varying biology for enough understanding. Different plants absorb differently, the ocean also is abundant with plant life. Not all oil is equal. Without treating oil and gas as lots, and knowing the starting content of each lot from each well...

Sorry...

Too many unknown variables.

[GSH]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

One more thing, Manny. Much of the foundation for AGW, and the need to take urgent action, was predicated on the belief that the ice in the Himalayas was melting at a rapid rate. You can't pretend that it wasn't, now that the premise has proven false. But since you asked the above question, I'll leave it to you to decide whether Al Gore is "credible" or not. I'm guessing that you are among the faction that has disavowed Mr. Gore now?

yEICzkTUmJo

[GSH]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

6EakkaJ6gVA

"We're just talking here about... melting ice."

That was at the UN Climate Change Conference in '09. They all believed it, and shaped policy around it. Credible? It was to them. One of the hallmarks of this religion is that when any of the dogma is proven false, they simply abandon it and claim that it never existed.

If you check really close (and without the agenda) you will see that the scientists who recently announced that the Himalayas haven't lost any ice for the past decade also said that the REASON their earlier reports were WRONG was because of the technology and methodology they were using. They aren't saying that the trend has stalled or reversed - they are saying that there was no trend to begin with. Oops.

The same guys you revered so well when they were "proving" your religion, are now saying that there were inherent mistakes in their original studies. But, hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way of true religion? Blunder on. Shift the discussion to CO2.

Of course, the discussion of CO2 is moot, if the underlying ice melt is spurious.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not know what the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere is.

What is it?

Enlighten me.
Not sure if Darrin is talking about the same thing, but if I increase or decrease a gas in the air, the water will absorb or release that same gas to maintain a specified equilibrium. I'm not as versed on the biological part, but plants grow faster or slower too. I see the biological part as a non issue, because as they die, they release carbon in various gasses as they decompose.

If I double the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (280 ppm to 560 ppm), then the oceans will also double in dissolved gas, but it would take a very long time, over 1000 years to achieve equilibrium, and I would have to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate to do it.

Henry's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_Law)

Between the oceans and atmosphere, the oceans contain more than 98% of the carbon when dealing with the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle). This is not immediate, and even if all carbon sourced on land remain the same, the long cycle of the ocean currents and long term solar changed will affect the CO2 content of the atmosphere, decades and centuries after the changes. Temperature also control the solubility. As temperature increases, the ocean holds less CO2. This is why with global warming we have a net increase in CO2.

Global warming causes CO2 to increase. CO2 does not cause global warming.

The ocean contains by the linked chart which shows 750 GtC in the atmosphere, 1020 GtC in the ocean surface, 38100 in the deep ocean, and a few other values. Just using these two larger values I get a total of 39870 GtC. the 750 is less than 2% of that (1.88%) The shallow waters classed as surface are 2.56% of it. However, with equilibrium in play, the system would balance with around 2% of added CO2 staying in the atmosphere whale about 98% of it is absorbed by the oceans.

This doesn't happen because the oceans are warming.

Now we have the alarmists saying the oceans are warming because of CO2. Bullshit. They are warming because the sun has been increasing in intensity since the 1700's.

CO2 is primarily absorbed (sinked) in the polar regions where the water is cold and accepts more CO2 for equilibrium. It is released in the equatorial regions where the waters get warm, and hold less dissolved gasses. As the oceans warm, the polar regions absorb less than before and the equatorial areas source more CO2 than before. The warming and cooling of the oceans to where is has an effect that can be seen is about 800 years, because the Thermohaline circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation) is a important part of this process. To mix with the ocean as a whole for equilibrium, it takes time for this mixing.

[DarrinS]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?



Seriously?


Didn't Al Gore and the IPCC win Nobel Prizes in 2007 for claiming exactly that?

Well, I guess we both agree that the ice isn't going anywhere.

Crisis averted.

Thanks

[SnakeBoy]

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It's Climate Change...

You guys are a joke.

fify

[RandomGuy]

I refer you to a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122)about the non-melting...


Unless of course, you're willing to concede the IPCC is not credible. I certainly am.

Do you always make decisions on the validity of scientific theories based on typos, or is it just this one time?

[RandomGuy]

Not sure if Darrin is talking about the same thing, but if I increase or decrease a gas in the air, the water will absorb or release that same gas to maintain a specified equilibrium. I'm not as versed on the biological part, but plants grow faster or slower too. I see the biological part as a non issue, because as they die, they release carbon in various gasses as they decompose.

If I double the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (280 ppm to 560 ppm), then the oceans will also double in dissolved gas, but it would take a very long time, over 1000 years to achieve equilibrium, and I would have to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate to do it.

Henry's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_Law)

Between the oceans and atmosphere, the oceans contain more than 98% of the carbon when dealing with the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle). This is not immediate, and even if all carbon sourced on land remain the same, the long cycle of the ocean currents and long term solar changed will affect the CO2 content of the atmosphere, decades and centuries after the changes. Temperature also control the solubility. As temperature increases, the ocean holds less CO2. This is why with global warming we have a net increase in CO2.

Global warming causes CO2 to increase. CO2 does not cause global warming.

The ocean contains by the linked chart which shows 750 GtC in the atmosphere, 1020 GtC in the ocean surface, 38100 in the deep ocean, and a few other values. Just using these two larger values I get a total of 39870 GtC. the 750 is less than 2% of that (1.88%) The shallow waters classed as surface are 2.56% of it. However, with equilibrium in play, the system would balance with around 2% of added CO2 staying in the atmosphere whale about 98% of it is absorbed by the oceans.

This doesn't happen because the oceans are warming.

Now we have the alarmists saying the oceans are warming because of CO2. Bullshit. They are warming because the sun has been increasing in intensity since the 1700's.

CO2 is primarily absorbed (sinked) in the polar regions where the water is cold and accepts more CO2 for equilibrium. It is released in the equatorial regions where the waters get warm, and hold less dissolved gasses. As the oceans warm, the polar regions absorb less than before and the equatorial areas source more CO2 than before. The warming and cooling of the oceans to where is has an effect that can be seen is about 800 years, because the Thermohaline circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation) is a important part of this process. To mix with the ocean as a whole for equilibrium, it takes time for this mixing.

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?

Whatever dude. The ocean is clearly a soda simply releasing its CO2. I like mine with ice and fizzy. Oh and its coming from the deep oceans too.

That and all scientific journals are frauds we shouldn't believe them. We should believe WC and his gas boiler brochures.

He is literally just copying and pasting the same shit.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.
Why I refer to is irrefutable science.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?
No...

Remember I pointed out the 1700's...

The solar energy hitting the earth today is about 0.18% greater than it was then. My contention is that even without our industrialization, the earth's CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't be much different.

0.18% may seem miniscule, but for perspective.

Even though energy to temperature isn't linear, our 15C average global temperature is 288 degrees above absolute zero.

0.18% of 288 is 0.5 degrees.

The effect is linear in equations using watts/meter. The greenhouse effect, effectively circulates more than 320 watts per meter as added energy converting to more heat than is we had no atmosphere. 0.18% of this is another 0.6 watts/meter of indirect solar heating seen in the greenhouse effect. the IPCC gives a number of 0.12 watts/meter of direct solar heating. All combined, the added 0.18% increase in solar energy adds about 1 watt/meter of radiative forcing. This amounts 2/3rds the claimed total warming and to the neighborhood of 1/2 degree of warming. Leave little for CO2 when Black carbon on Ice is an easily demonstrated warming factor also. the IPCC has revised their number upward on this too... I forget, but it's something like 0.3 or 0.4 watt/meter.

[Wild Cobra]

Something else to point out:

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf)

There is not consensus. First paragraph:


Introduction

Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar,

2003, 2004).

[Wild Cobra]

Think about why Argon and preferable Krypton are used to insulate double pane windows. They are poor thermal conductors. The heavier the gas, the less vibration there is per unit of energy. CO2 is heavier than N2 and O2. Molecular weights are 44 for CO2, 32 for O2, and 28 for N2. Argon is 40 and Kryton is 84. Noble gasses are used in windows instead of others because they are nonreactive. H2O is the only really effective greenhouse gas since it's molecular weight is only 18.

[GSH]

So you're saying that the temperature was too high to keep the water that was already there frozen... but it's cold enough to freeze the new water and keep it frozen?

Or are you saying that the Himalayas are still losing a lot of ice due to warmer temperatures, but they are also adding a lot due to precipitation? So wouldn't they also be losing a share of the new (precipitation) ice to the warmer temperatures? Or is the new ice harder to melt?

So they are losing old ice, losing new ice, but adding enough extra new ice to keep up, because of "warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range"? But that same "warmer atmosphere being pushed up" hasn't accelerated the loss of both old and new ice?



There will now be a brief intermission, while certain parties consult the Holy Book of Gore for a rebuttal.

"Yea, the warming doth cause the ice to melt. But verily I say unto you - when warm moist air doth enter that same region, it shall not cause further melting. Yea, instead it shall cause more ice to form.

And it came to pass that more ice formed. And, lo, the new ice melteth not like the old, but resisted the new heat of the evil Indian Ocean and remained. And though the old ice continueth to melt, yea the new ice formeth and replaceth it. And then some.

And ice for an ice, and a truth for a truth. As it is written, so shall it be Gore. Forever and ever, amen."

[RandomGuy]

"Irrefutable science"?
It isn't the underlying science that is what I am skeptical about, it is the way you are applying it.

[RandomGuy]

Think about why Argon and preferable Krypton are used to insulate double pane windows. They are poor thermal conductors. The heavier the gas, the less vibration there is per unit of energy. CO2 is heavier than N2 and O2. Molecular weights are 44 for CO2, 32 for O2, and 28 for N2. Argon is 40 and Kryton is 84. Noble gasses are used in windows instead of others because they are nonreactive. H2O is the only really effective greenhouse gas since it's molecular weight is only 18.

How does specific heat affect that?

[Wild Cobra]

How does specific heat affect that?
That's just it. Radiative forcing isn't specific heat. The mass of molecules make a difference in thermal conductance as well.

[Wild Cobra]

"Irrefutable science"?
It isn't the underlying science that is what I am skeptical about, it is the way you are applying it.
I'm not going to attempt to explain it. If what I already have said in this thread and others isn't enough for you, I doubt you'll ever get it without a one-on-one question and answer. It's just enough complex that it would take a pretty lengthy writing to cover all of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Think about why Argon and preferable Krypton are used to insulate double pane windows. They are poor thermal conductors. The heavier the gas, the less vibration there is per unit of energy. CO2 is heavier than N2 and O2. Molecular weights are 44 for CO2, 32 for O2, and 28 for N2. Argon is 40 and Kryton is 84. Noble gasses are used in windows instead of others because they are nonreactive. H2O is the only really effective greenhouse gas since it's molecular weight is only 18.

You suck at chemistry too apparently.

[Yonivore]

Do you always make decisions on the validity of scientific theories based on typos, or is it just this one time?
Both figures are a wee bit South of Manny's prediction it would take THOUSANDS of years for the Himalayas to become bare.


Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?
The IPCC clearly predicted they'd be melted within 340 years.

If you'd worry less about digging on me and parsing my every word, maybe you'd get a clue every now and then.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's just it. Radiative forcing isn't specific heat. The mass of molecules make a difference in thermal conductance as well.

Not nearly as much as molecular structure. You even went towards it talking about noble gases but are too stupid to draw the entire line.

[Yonivore]

Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bullshit out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?

Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.

You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.

Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago. :lmao

[TheSullyMonster]

It was, people are just idiots.

[MannyIsGod]

So you're saying that the temperature was too high to keep the water that was already there frozen... but it's cold enough to freeze the new water and keep it frozen?

Or are you saying that the Himalayas are still losing a lot of ice due to warmer temperatures, but they are also adding a lot due to precipitation? So wouldn't they also be losing a share of the new (precipitation) ice to the warmer temperatures? Or is the new ice harder to melt?

So they are losing old ice, losing new ice, but adding enough extra new ice to keep up, because of "warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range"? But that same "warmer atmosphere being pushed up" hasn't accelerated the loss of both old and new ice?



I'm saying that the weather in any given place - and this is a wise area with a wide range of weather and conditions - is not the same and you can't treat it as a "point" location with a static set of conditions.

How would you gain ice over this period of time with warmer temps? Well, I'm sure if you take a look at many mountain peaks you'll see there is a point where the snow stops. On many peaks here in the United States, you have areas on the mountain that melt throughout the year while you may have mountain glaciers in other areas that do not.

So if you raise the temp and move the snow line up in the summer months, then you will melt areas but you will not melt the entire mass of ice because there is not enough energy to do so. In other words, the mountains do not experience the same amount of melt in all locations and this is not the case all year round. In the winter months, you're still going to see most if not all of the mountain snow covered to date even though it has warmed.

That explains how you can have lower elevation melt while not necessarily seeing the same conditions at all places in the range.

As for the snow fall, its not a very difficult explanation either. Water vapor content of a parcel of air is tied to its temperature. The warmer the air, the more water it is able to hold. As air is pushed over mountains, you get adiabatic cooling as that air rises. This is what leads to higher precipitation amounts on mountains and rain shadows behind them. In essence, they squeeze the moisture out of the air that is pushed over them because of they incredible amounts of lift they provide.

No where is this more evident than the areas surrounding the Himalayan range. Those mountains are the direct cause of the greatest monsoon on earth. So, with global warming, the atmosphere is now able to hold more water vapor. When this air is then moved over the mountains, the air rises and cools forcing out the excess water in the form of precipitation.

If these new amounts of precipitation are enough to overcome the melt at the lower elevations then you will obviously see a net increase in the snow and ice amounts in the area.

Any questions?



There's a book that you, and a lot of others, should read. It's "Wrong", by David H. Freedman, and it goes into the reasons why many, if not most, published studies are incorrect and misleading. It's not about any ideology, left vs. right, or anything else. But it will give you a pretty good look at the crap that passes for science, and the reasons why flawed studies see the light of day. I don't remember anything about AGW in the book, but there is a great deal that pertains to the underlying studies. Not that I really expect any of the committed zealots to spend any time considering anything that doesn't fit their agenda.


Not interested in generalized crap about how most studies are wrong or misleading. The vast majority of studies are dry technical papers that don't have an agenda of any sort with the exception of informing you of new - and most likely - incredibly boring findings and research. Hearing someone say this tells me they are very much not familiar with peer review work much less "most" of peer reviewed science.

However, if you are interested in pointing to specific studies and telling me why those studies are flawed, misleading, or have errors then I would be completely open to that.



BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.

I will discuss any aspect of AGW theory with you that you wish and we can beat it into the ground as much as you'd like. The insinuation that I'm somehow running from things I can't back up is fairly laughable. If you have any specific subject you want to talk about it, then you need simply bring it up.

[MannyIsGod]

pointed out in past threads.

I think it's a waste of time to address those two papers. just one thing about the 13C/12C ratios. We don't have enough world wide samples and knowledge of the varying biology for enough understanding. Different plants absorb differently, the ocean also is abundant with plant life. Not all oil is equal. Without treating oil and gas as lots, and knowing the starting content of each lot from each well...

Sorry...

Too many unknown variables.

I called it. The schtick has become predictable.

[MannyIsGod]

One more thing, Manny. Much of the foundation for AGW, and the need to take urgent action, was predicated on the belief that the ice in the Himalayas was melting at a rapid rate. You can't pretend that it wasn't, now that the premise has proven false. But since you asked the above question, I'll leave it to you to decide whether Al Gore is "credible" or not. I'm guessing that you are among the faction that has disavowed Mr. Gore now?

yEICzkTUmJo


I disavowed Al Gore a long long time ago. Instead of making a fool of yourself, you should read the previous posts in this thead.

Now, the first point you made is just utterly and completely false. Would you like to try back it up?

[MannyIsGod]

6EakkaJ6gVA

"We're just talking here about... melting ice."

That was at the UN Climate Change Conference in '09. They all believed it, and shaped policy around it. Credible? It was to them. One of the hallmarks of this religion is that when any of the dogma is proven false, they simply abandon it and claim that it never existed.

If you check really close (and without the agenda) you will see that the scientists who recently announced that the Himalayas haven't lost any ice for the past decade also said that the REASON their earlier reports were WRONG was because of the technology and methodology they were using. They aren't saying that the trend has stalled or reversed - they are saying that there was no trend to begin with. Oops.



The same guys you revered so well when they were "proving" your religion, are now saying that there were inherent mistakes in their original studies. But, hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way of true religion? Blunder on. Shift the discussion to CO2.

Of course, the discussion of CO2 is moot, if the underlying ice melt is spurious.

My religion, huh? :lol

The trend hasn't stalled or reversed and nothing they published recently has indicated nearly as much? If you want to provide a link to where they say the trend never existed then please do so.

The idea that the Himalayan region is adding ice in a very short term is not some kind of bullet to the head of AGW theory for many reasons. Not the least of which are the time frame and the regional scale of the event.

What you're doing is akin to saying that a terminal patient is not going to die because his hair is still growing. Its tunnel vision to the max.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously?


Didn't Al Gore and the IPCC win Nobel Prizes in 2007 for claiming exactly that?

Well, I guess we both agree that the ice isn't going anywhere.

Crisis averted.

Thanks

You seriously think the IPCC was claiming the entire continent of Antartica was going to melt in a short time span? Only an idiot would think that, Darrin. Whats the sea level rise over the next 100 years published by the IPCC? Now, how much do you think that would be if the entirety of that continents ice were to melt? It would be an incredible amount higher.

So if you would like to provide links showing there the IPCC ever claimed that then I would love to see them.

[MannyIsGod]

I refer you to a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122)about the non-melting...


Unless of course, you're willing to concede the IPCC is not credible. I certainly am.

Really? A fucking typo is the best you have? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

There will now be a brief intermission, while certain parties consult the Holy Book of Gore for a rebuttal.

"Yea, the warming doth cause the ice to melt. But verily I say unto you - when warm moist air doth enter that same region, it shall not cause further melting. Yea, instead it shall cause more ice to form.

And it came to pass that more ice formed. And, lo, the new ice melteth not like the old, but resisted the new heat of the evil Indian Ocean and remained. And though the old ice continueth to melt, yea the new ice formeth and replaceth it. And then some.

And ice for an ice, and a truth for a truth. As it is written, so shall it be Gore. Forever and ever, amen."


Oh wow. I'm sorry I couldn't respond on your time frame. Since you have so much time maybe you should spend some of it reading the thread instead of looking like a dumb ass when you continue to bring up Al Gore after I've continuously said he's not a climate scientist.

[MannyIsGod]

Both figures are a wee bit South of Manny's prediction it would take THOUSANDS of years for the Himalayas to become bare.


You're illiterate. :lmao

Go back and read that "prediction" I made and then tell me it was about the Himalayan range. It was about Antarctica.

Reading is hard, isn't it?




The IPCC clearly predicted they'd be melted within 340 years.

If you'd worry less about digging on me and parsing my every word, maybe you'd get a clue every now and then.

:lmao

Maybe you should stop telling people to get a clue until you have one.

[MannyIsGod]

Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bullshit out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?

Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.

You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.

Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago. :lmao

Its always a pleasure to see someone own themselves so hard. Amazing how its not the first time for you in this position, Yoni?

:lmao x 3409384903849038409384093

[MannyIsGod]

It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.

By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?


This is just plain wrong. Antarctica is most certainly not adding ice but rather losing anywhere from 100 GT to 300 GT a year.

The latest research shows that a drop in CO2 is exactly what triggered the formation of the Antarctic Ice sheet so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. You're doing a great job of pointing out how CO2 is a huge forcing, though. Thanks.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/


Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?


Yoni, since its apparent going through posts pushes you beyond your limits, here is the timeline presented for you in one concise place.

Don't strain yourself.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/glaciers-himalayas-climate-change-live-qanda?intcmp=122

The scientist responded today about his paper in a Q&A they had.

His first comment?




frustratedartist
9 February 2012 1:08PM
Next to this story I notice there is a link to a story about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers over the last 50 years- a slightly longer timescale. Glaciers in other parts of the world are also retreating, causing serious problems to water supply in mountain cities like La Paz, Bolivia.

So- two questions I'd like to ask professor Bamber: question 1: Is it reasonable to assume that the general tendency is that, globally, glaciers are retreating?

And also, question 2 : for people studying climate change, what is the most meaningful timescale? Does it make most sense to look at changes (in whatever indicators are being measured) on a year-by-year basis, a decade by decade basis, a century by century basis- or some other timescale?

@frustratedartist. Here's my answer two your two good questions

1) Yes. If you look at the larger glaciers systems (Alaska, Canadian Arctic, Patagonia, Antarctica, Greenland) they all show a significant -ve trend that is larger than the uncertainty. For the smaller systems such as the Alps, where there is relatively good in-situ observations, these also show a -ve trend. The uncertainties in the GRACE estimates for these smaller systems are about the same size as the signal, which is why hard to use them to determine smaller loss terms.

2) So what is the right timescale? This all depends on the system you're interested in and what you want to know. For example, the deep, abyssal circulation in the ocean takes thousands of years, while mesoscale eddies at the surface come and go over a few weeks. Generally, 30 years is considered to be a reasonable period for looking at climatological means that are controlled be atmospheric processes. In other words, over this timescale, inter-annual variability is reduced so that trends should be visible. In my article, and in the authors paper, we acknowledge that 8 years is a short time period and it is important, therefore, not to over-interpret the results.

Hmm, regional scale and time scale. Who would have thought.

[MannyIsGod]

When you guys are done looking at the Himalayan glacier situation then maybe you can look at the rest of the work done by GRACE in analyzing the ice around the world and its changes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1278

[GSH]

When you guys are done looking at the Himalayan glacier situation then maybe you can look at the rest of the work done by GRACE in analyzing the ice around the world and its changes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1278



Heh... more deflection and subject-changing. I can see why you would want to move away from the Himalayas. But let's not just yet. Instead, how about just answering some very simple questions about your faith?

I'll ask again. If the Himalayas were losing ice due to rising temperature, how can they retain the ice from the new water you claim is being deposited?

And if there is warm, humid air coming up from the Indian Ocean, why is all that additional heat not accelerating the ice melt that was supposedly already present?

Oddly, you claim that the "new ice" in the Himalayas is from this warm, humid air. So what you were really saying, although you didn't take the time to think about it, is that the ice was disappearing from lack of water. Because as soon as there was additional water, the ice quit disappearing. It didn't even matter that the water was in the form of warm, humid air. Somehow it froze, yet didn't add to the "warming" that was supposedly taking place.

The only alternative is that you somehow believe that this new ice is more resistant to warming. You don't believe that, do you?



Oh wow. I'm sorry I couldn't respond on your time frame. Since you have so much time maybe you should spend some of it reading the thread instead of looking like a dumb ass when you continue to bring up Al Gore after I've continuously said he's not a climate scientist.


If you can't answer my questions, you're the one who looks like a dumbass. And you can't answer them, because there's no way you can twist logic far enough to encompass everything that's wrong with the "Indian Ocean humidity" theories.

No - Al Gore is no climate scientist. And yet, there he is, standing in front of the UN, IPCC, etc., and shaping climate policy around the world. You zealots used to worship him, until he got exposed for the charlatan he is. Now you've tossed him under the bus. You used to refer to AGW, like it was the Holy Grail of Science. Now you've thrown it under the bus in favor of Global Climate Change. Every time something gets proven false, you simply say that it never really existed in your religion, and move on to the next thing.

When the link you posted is proven false, you'll deny any connection to it as well. There will always be another mercenary willing to supply you with some new holy relics.

[GSH]

As for the snow fall, its not a very difficult explanation either. Water vapor content of a parcel of air is tied to its temperature. The warmer the air, the more water it is able to hold. As air is pushed over mountains, you get adiabatic cooling as that air rises. This is what leads to higher precipitation amounts on mountains and rain shadows behind them. In essence, they squeeze the moisture out of the air that is pushed over them because of they incredible amounts of lift they provide.




Not interested in generalized crap about how most studies are wrong or misleading. The vast majority of studies are dry technical papers that don't have an agenda of any sort with the exception of informing you of new - and most likely - incredibly boring findings and research. Hearing someone say this tells me they are very much not familiar with peer review work much less "most" of peer reviewed science.


Oh, and nice try with the adiabatic cooling. But not with saturated air from the warm Indian Ocean rising up, as you describe. Of course, you need it to be adiabatic, to explain why it wouldn't be accretive to the supposed warming problem already in place. You either don't understand the process, our you do and you didn't think anyone could call you on it. As it is, you just made yourself look either stupid or dishonest. I'm going with the latter, as that is the way things are done in your religion.

I knew you wouldn't be interested in reading anything that challenges your religious beliefs. If you had said that you were familiar with it, or that you might read it, I would have given you some credit. Instead, you proved to be the typical religious zealot, unwilling to challenge dogma.

I'll leave you alone, and let you spew your nonsense at people who don't know any better. You simply aren't worth the time.

[MannyIsGod]

Heh... more deflection and subject-changing. I can see why you would want to move away from the Himalayas. But let's not just yet. Instead, how about just answering some very simple questions about your faith?

I'll ask again. If the Himalayas were losing ice due to rising temperature, how can they retain the ice from the new water you claim is being deposited?



I'll answer again. They lose ice at lower elevations where its warmed enough to melt ice. They gain ice when the humid air precipitates more heavily in the higher elevations that have not yet warmed enough to thaw the ice. The result is a net gain in ice because more snow falls than ice melts.



And if there is warm, humid air coming up from the Indian Ocean, why is all that additional heat not accelerating the ice melt that was supposedly already present?


Because as air rises it cools. Google adiabatic lapse rates and learn a thing or two about it.



Oddly, you claim that the "new ice" in the Himalayas is from this warm, humid air. So what you were really saying, although you didn't take the time to think about it, is that the ice was disappearing from lack of water. Because as soon as there was additional water, the ice quit disappearing. It didn't even matter that the water was in the form of warm, humid air. Somehow it froze, yet didn't add to the "warming" that was supposedly taking place.



Ice was never disappearing. It was melting. And of course the water favor in the air can freeze. Once again, look up what happens when warm air is forced over 20,000 feet into the air because of the world's largest mountain range. Orographic lift from the biggest mountain range in the world tends to be quite large.



The only alternative is that you somehow believe that this new ice is more resistant to warming. You don't believe that, do you?


Yes, this new ice has a melting point much higher. Its super ice that has resulted due to climate change. The water is infused with CO2 which has led to mightier water molecules than has ever been seen.

You're either incredibly stupid or you're trolling.




If you can't answer my questions, you're the one who looks like a dumbass. And you can't answer them, because there's no way you can twist logic far enough to encompass everything that's wrong with the "Indian Ocean humidity" theories.


I can answer them and I can break it down for you very simply but its either not working because you have a very poor understanding of spatial differences in temperature and basic atmospheric sciences. You think that the somehow a mountain is the same temp at 25,000 ft as it is at its base.




No - Al Gore is no climate scientist. And yet, there he is, standing in front of the UN, IPCC, etc., and shaping climate policy around the world. You zealots used to worship him, until he got exposed for the charlatan he is. Now you've tossed him under the bus. You used to refer to AGW, like it was the Holy Grail of Science. Now you've thrown it under the bus in favor of Global Climate Change. Every time something gets proven false, you simply say that it never really existed in your religion, and move on to the next thing.

When the link you posted is proven false, you'll deny any connection to it as well. There will always be another mercenary willing to supply you with some new holy relics.

I worshiped him? When exactly? My religion?

Nothing like someone with an extremely poor understanding of science giving lectures like this. Seems to happen quite a bit in this forum. And yet, somehow, all those with scientific training don't ever seem to side with people like you. I wonder why?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and nice try with the adiabatic cooling. But not with saturated air from the warm Indian Ocean rising up, as you describe. Of course, you need it to be adiabatic, to explain why it wouldn't be accretive to the supposed warming problem already in place. You either don't understand the process, our you do and you didn't think anyone could call you on it. As it is, you just made yourself look either stupid or dishonest. I'm going with the latter, as that is the way things are done in your religion.


:lmao

Yeah, I don't understand one of the most basic processes involved in our atmosphere. Its adiabatic because the only reason its temp is dropping is not because heat is being removed but because the air is being forced up into an upper level of the atmosphere where the pressure is lower. Thus, the parcel of air in question expands while also dropping in pressure. So, there is no heat transfer but the temp still drops. Open a bottle of soda and watch the same process in place.

http://is2104.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/orographic-lift-jpg2.jpeg


Orographic precipitation occurs on the windward side of mountains and is caused by the rising air motion of a large-scale flow of moist air across the mountain ridge, resulting in adiabatic cooling and condensation. In mountainous parts of the world subjected to relatively consistent winds (for example, the trade winds), a more moist climate usually prevails on the windward side of a mountain than on the leeward or downwind side. Moisture is removed by orographic lift, leaving drier air (see katabatic wind) on the descending and generally warming, leeward side where a rain shadow is observed.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(meteorology)

In other words, Delta U is equal to the negative W of the expanding gas since Q is 0. You get this, right?


But yes, I'm just making shit up that I don't understand. :lol





I knew you wouldn't be interested in reading anything that challenges your religious beliefs. If you had said that you were familiar with it, or that you might read it, I would have given you some credit. Instead, you proved to be the typical religious zealot, unwilling to challenge dogma.

I'll leave you alone, and let you spew your nonsense at people who don't know any better. You simply aren't worth the time.

:lol

Oh no please, continue. This is quite entertaining.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, I knew many of you were damn stupid and disputed some of the basic tenets of climate science but this is the first person I've come across who disputes something as basic as the adiabatic nature of orgraphic lift.

SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

So, how high does air that is 80 degrees F have to go if it is saturated with water vapor in order to get down to the freezing point of water? 4500 meters or so. How high are the Himalayas again?

Just a bit higher than that, right? Just a bit.

[GSH]

One last thing before I go, dumbshit. Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?

And those audiences that Gore presented to? They were FULL of climate scientists. But not one of them stood up and refuted, or even questioned, any of the junk "science" being vomited by Gore and company. Instead, they all corroborated, and insisted that the "science" was irrefutable. At least until Jeffry Kargel exposed them. Jeffry Kargel - a freaking adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. But it had to be an adjunct, because everyone else was afraid of the backlash.

They ALL said the Himalayas were melting, or at least went along with it.

The one irrefutable truth is that climate "science" has become an academic circle-jerk. And every time the intellectual dishonesty is exposed, they close ranks and jerk faster. And then there's people like you, who would just love to get in the circle.

Adiabatic cooling my ass. In an open system. With saturated air from the AGW-warmed Indian Ocean. And that sounds believable to you? Like I said, you're either a fake, or a liar. Either way, I'm not interested in your local circle-jerk. I just wanted to give the other people here a little info that I knew you would neglect. B'bye.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Adiabatic cooling can't happen with saturated air?

Holy shit this is gold!

[MannyIsGod]

One last thing before I go, dumbshit. Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?

And those audiences that Gore presented to? They were FULL of climate scientists. But not one of them stood up and refuted, or even questioned, any of the junk "science" being vomited by Gore and company. Instead, they all corroborated, and insisted that the "science" was irrefutable. At least until Jeffry Kargel exposed them. Jeffry Kargel - a freaking adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. But it had to be an adjunct, because everyone else was afraid of the backlash.

They ALL said the Himalayas were melting, or at least went along with it.

The one irrefutable truth is that climate "science" has become an academic circle-jerk. And every time the intellectual dishonesty is exposed, they close ranks and jerk faster. And then there's people like you, who would just love to get in the circle.

Adiabatic cooling my ass. In an open system. With saturated air from the AGW-warmed Indian Ocean. And that sounds believable to you? Like I said, you're either a fake, or a liar. Either way, I'm not interested in your local circle-jerk. I just wanted to give the other people here a little info that I knew you would neglect. B'bye.

:lol Dude complains about subject changing then does it. Scientists didn't stand up and interrupt an Al Gore speech so therefore climate science is a circle jerk.

I don't blame for tucking tail and taking off, GSH. I just think it makes you a pussy as well as stupid.

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/weatherpapers/118/index.html

Most scientists believe that over the long term those glaciers will melt. 8 years of observations that show a small gain don't change that anymore than a cold day in winter means that it won't warm up in Summer.

[Wild Cobra]

Can we all just acknowledge MannyIsGod blows AGW bullshit out his ass and treat all his posts on the topic with the ridicule and derision they've always deserved?

Seriously, to boldly claim it would take THOUSANDS of years for the ice to melt off the Himalayas -- EVEN IF TEMPERATURES ROSE TO INCREDIBLE LEVELS -- has got to be the nail in this forum's pompous self-described climate expert's coffin.

You really take the cake, Manny. Well, you and Algore.

Hey, I thought this science was settled years ago. :lmao
He's a shill for the AGW crowd. I don't think he has ever been able to explain things in his own words. just always linking other people's work. I doubt he even understands it.

[GSH]

I decided to write this before going to bed, to give Manny a chance to humiliate himself. I'll post when I wake up, and everyone else can see if my predictions are right. I'd bet on it. Climate zombies are a pretty predictable lot.


Manny claims that "no climate scientist" believes that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt quickly. I handed him the specific name of an Argentinian climate scientist who published a paper for the UN that said they will melt by 2035, and a bunch of others who obviously believed it, or they would have questioned it. Manny will ignore that, and simply say that nobody believes it today (and by inference that they didn't believe it before). In other words, completely ignore the facts. And the fact, Manny, is that they totally bought the idea that the glaciers would melt by 2035. They believed it because it conformed with their agenda. They even made climate policy based on it. The reason they no longer believe it is because they got exposed by a simple adjunct professor in Arizona. And now they say, "We knew it all along." Just like you.

BTW dipshit - nobody questions that adiabatic cooling takes place, but it isn't the ONLY thing that takes place. You tried to change the subject again. The question is whether the heat from the (supposedly) AGW-warmed air would further contribute to the ice melt. You took the position that adiabatic cooling would be sufficient to make that a reality - that it would cause additional ice to form on the slopes, thereby masking the true warming taking place, but not causing any additional warming. That's just incredibly stupid. I could point you to a dozen easy real-life examples, but nothing is going to shake your faith in the true religion.



When I get up tomorrow, I'll just hit "post". If I'm wrong, and Manny admitted that the climate scientists believed that the glaciers were rapidly melting, I guess I'll look pretty stupid. Somehow, I'm not worried about it happening. Tomorrow I'll be back to important things - like basketball.

[MannyIsGod]

I decided to write this before going to bed, to give Manny a chance to humiliate himself. I'll post when I wake up, and everyone else can see if my predictions are right. I'd bet on it. Climate zombies are a pretty predictable lot.


Manny claims that "no climate scientist" believes that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt quickly. I handed him the specific name of an Argentinian climate scientist who published a paper for the UN that said they will melt by 2035, and a bunch of others who obviously believed it, or they would have questioned it. Manny will ignore that, and simply say that nobody believes it today (and by inference that they didn't believe it before). In other words, completely ignore the facts. And the fact, Manny, is that they totally bought the idea that the glaciers would melt by 2035. They believed it because it conformed with their agenda. They even made climate policy based on it. The reason they no longer believe it is because they got exposed by a simple adjunct professor in Arizona. And now they say, "We knew it all along." Just like you.


Links please.



BTW dipshit - nobody questions that adiabatic cooling takes place, but it isn't the ONLY thing that takes place. You tried to change the subject again. The question is whether the heat from the (supposedly) AGW-warmed air would further contribute to the ice melt. You took the position that adiabatic cooling would be sufficient to make that a reality - that it would cause additional ice to form on the slopes, thereby masking the true warming taking place, but not causing any additional warming. That's just incredibly stupid. I could point you to a dozen easy real-life examples, but nothing is going to shake your faith in the true religion.



LOL?




When I get up tomorrow, I'll just hit "post". If I'm wrong, and Manny admitted that the climate scientists believed that the glaciers were rapidly melting, I guess I'll look pretty stupid. Somehow, I'm not worried about it happening. Tomorrow I'll be back to important things - like basketball.

LOL

[RandomGuy]

There will now be a brief intermission, while certain parties consult the Holy Book of Gore for a rebuttal.

"Yea, the warming doth cause the ice to melt. But verily I say unto you - when warm moist air doth enter that same region, it shall not cause further melting. Yea, instead it shall cause more ice to form.

And it came to pass that more ice formed. And, lo, the new ice melteth not like the old, but resisted the new heat of the evil Indian Ocean and remained. And though the old ice continueth to melt, yea the new ice formeth and replaceth it. And then some.

And ice for an ice, and a truth for a truth. As it is written, so shall it be Gore. Forever and ever, amen."

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.

[DarrinS]

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.



Wow. Did you just punt?

[RandomGuy]

One last thing before I go, dumbshit. Just in case the other people here don't know it. Al Gore is definitely not a climate scientist. But the IPCC Working Group II, that came out with the outrageous lies about the Himalayas most certainly had climate scientists on board. In fact, one of them was from Argentina. Maybe you know of Vicente Barrios? Published at least 50 peer reviewed papers on climate? Professor of Climatology at the University of Buenos Aires? I know you won't impugn the credentials of a fellow Argentine. Or will you throw him under the bus, too?


It would help if you spelled his name correctly, and if the gentleman involved actually wrote any papers on the Himalayas at all.

From what I could find of his work, it appears to be focused on the hydrology of South America.

Can you actually provide a link to any of his papers and cite the actual work where he claims that Himilayan glaciers will melt by 2035?

FWIW, here is an IPCC statement on the subject, admitting they fucked up.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

Here is the paragraph:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at
the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)"


The 2035 figure was from a WWF paper that repeated what amounts to a typo in the 2001 IPCC assessment that has come back to haunt them.


Here is a pretty good article in the Christian Science Monitor about it:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0121/Himalayan-glaciers-gone-by-2035-IPCC-mistaken/(page)/2


"People are not reading the details and they are only looking at the executive summaries and commenting," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi.

But he also worries that those trumpeting the IPCC mistake are also jumping to false conclusions. "The glacier debate is playing into the hands of the polluters – by rubbishing the IPCC report, which I think it correct to question. But to say that climate change is not happening because someone wrote 2035 in chapter 10 is taking it too far."
-----------------------------------------------------


I think hanging one's hat on what amounts to a typo that no one caught in a thousand page report in order to claim to have debunked the all the work of thousands of other scientists over decades is a bit of a stretch.

Is that what you are implying?

[RandomGuy]

Wow. Did you just punt?

Not really. But you are cute for thinking so.

(rubs the top of your pointy head)

[TeyshaBlue]

Thread delivers.

[Wild Cobra]

Meh. Whether or not CO2 is warming the planet or not is made irrelevant by the simple fact that the burning of fossil fuels is going to get increasingly expensive due to simple depletion factors in the very near future.

True.


Until the science is a bit better resolved, it would also seem to be the most conservative public policy option to limit or moderate our CO2 emissions, simply because we don't fully understand the risks involved.

Just because 90% or more of the people don't understand, isn't cause. Even if people like me are wrong, that oil depletion will hamper continued used of fossil fules and make the scare tactics of the AGW crowd meaningless anyway.


Such a policy option would have the added benefit of not only increasing economic growth and energy security, but shielding us from the economic disruption that will be caused by the downslope of the production curves for coal, gas, and oil.

It appears coal will last the longest, but it isn't portable like oil and gas. At some point, new technologies and/or nuclear will naturally take the place of fossil fuel.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. Did you just punt?
If that was a punt, he was at least reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

If that was a punt, he was at least reasonable.

I still think the science, typos aside, provides enough evidence to conclude w that 1) We are probably the cause of the CO2 spike in our atmosphere, and 2) the CO2 is probably driving a warming trend.

That is why it was not a punt, as I have not seen anything presented that will outweigh the work of the actual scientists involved.

I can note, that the debate about the issue is moot in my mind, and hijacked by people with ideological axes to grind on both sides, one far more so than the other, as noted by the OP's theme.

[Wild Cobra]

I still think the science, typos aside, provides enough evidence to conclude w that 1) We are probably the cause of the CO2 spike in our atmosphere, and 2) the CO2 is probably driving a warming trend.

And we disagree. now i will concede that CO2 is higher than the equilibrium point, but that's only because equilibrium isn't instantaneous. With a system as large as our globe, equilibrium takes a pretty long time.


That is why it was not a punt, as I have not seen anything presented that will outweigh the work of the actual scientists involved.

What about them ignoring the factors that would detract from their end result?


I can note, that the debate about the issue is moot in my mind, and hijacked by people with ideological axes to grind on both sides, one far more so than the other, as noted by the OP's theme.

My biggest concern is the economic expenditures of trying to force a world agenda that is expense, and will do no good in the end. If that's an ideological agenda, then so be it.

[RandomGuy]

My biggest concern is the economic expenditures of trying to force a world agenda that is expense, and will do no good in the end. If that's an ideological agenda, then so be it.

"do no good in the end"

Shifting now to renewables and cutting CO2 will insulate ourselves from the disruption that will be caused by the depletion of the cheap fossil fuels that is just on the horizon.

Let other countries have the coal power plants and gasoline cars, and spend their money on infrastructure for energy that gets more expensive at faster and faster rates.

This, unfortunately, is a long-term trend that short-term focused private-market companies will ignore until it is too late to avoid a lot of disruption.

"stay the course" didnt work out too well for Captain Edward Smith. :)

I would hate for people who can't internalize the fact that their underlying assumptions are faulty and that the world has changed around them drive our public policy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.

You fucking disgusting hypocrite. You are the one trying to pigeonhole this discussion to ice on the Himalayans. You are the one trying to say that the NIST report claims the warming has stopped using cooked graphs from mailers.

This is tired bullshit. If you read the NIST reports or any of the others the scientists do not fixate on a single region of the world. Thats what you and your handlers do.

[Wild Cobra]

"do no good in the end"

Shifting now to renewables and cutting CO2 will insulate ourselves from the disruption that will be caused by the depletion of the cheap fossil fuels that is just on the horizon.

This is a process that will happen naturally through the laws of supply and demand economics. It doesn't need to be forced upon us.

[Agloco]

:lmao

Adiabatic cooling can't happen with saturated air?

Holy shit this is gold!

Indeed. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Thank God for Global warming, or it would really be cold!

Danube River freezes for first time in 25 years (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120210/danube-river-freezes-over-europe-deep-freeze)

Venice's canals freeze over (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/venice-freezes-over/3817186)

Scenes From Europe's Frozen Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/02/scenes-europes-frozen-cities/1190/)

Europe's Danube freezes over (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Europe+Danube+freezes+over/6130398/story.html) One of the greatest rivers in Europe

The Black Sea freezes over! (http://www.weather.com/weather/videos/news-41/top-stories-169/the-black-sea-freezes-over-25996)

[MannyIsGod]

Indeed. :lol

:lol

You obviously don't understand the process, Agloco.

[MannyIsGod]

Congrats to the Black Sea!!! The Arctic ocean, on the other hand.........

[Agloco]

:lol

You obviously don't understand the process, Agloco.

:cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thank God for Global warming, or it would really be cold!

Danube River freezes for first time in 25 years (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120210/danube-river-freezes-over-europe-deep-freeze)

Venice's canals freeze over (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/venice-freezes-over/3817186)

Scenes From Europe's Frozen Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/02/scenes-europes-frozen-cities/1190/)

Europe's Danube freezes over (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Europe+Danube+freezes+over/6130398/story.html) One of the greatest rivers in Europe

The Black Sea freezes over! (http://www.weather.com/weather/videos/news-41/top-stories-169/the-black-sea-freezes-over-25996)

You do this every winter and every year after the aggregate data is accumulated you are made to look like an asshat once again. Whats another year, I guess.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty funny how known of you climategate twits felt the need to post shit about the Heartland institutes files this week. Par for the course.

Pretty funny how Yonivore never decided to drag himself back into the mess he made in this thread.

I'm shocked. No really, I'm shocked.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

No guys, really the agenda doesn't lie with the multibillion dollar mulitnationals trying to protect their industry. It lies with the grad students who are getting rich off working on climate studies while working on a MS or PhD. Follow the money!

[Wild Cobra]

No guys, really the agenda doesn't lie with the multibillion dollar mulitnationals trying to protect their industry. It lies with the grad students who are getting rich off working on climate studies while working on a MS or PhD. Follow the money!
Now this I can agree with. The money is going into convincing people that AGW is rampant.

[DarrinS]

Pretty funny how known of you climategate twits felt the need to post shit about the Heartland institutes files this week. Par for the course.

Pretty funny how Yonivore never decided to drag himself back into the mess he made in this thread.

I'm shocked. No really, I'm shocked.

:lol


You mean fakegate? :lmao

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mean fakegate? :lmao

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/

Way to cite something that cites the Koch Foundation and the Heartland Institute. Good thing that its actually in the link otherwise you probably would lie about what the sources actually were.

[DarrinS]

Way to cite something that cites the Koch Foundation and the Heartland Institute. Good thing that its actually in the link otherwise you probably would lie about what the sources actually were.

I'm sure the media will be all over this "smoking gun". :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

The money trail is completely legit, dumbass. Own up to the bullshit you spew and dont run from it, darrin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groups-operate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html?tid=pm_business_pop

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sure the media will be all over this "smoking gun". :lmao

That you lie as a matter of course or that the sources cited were from the oil lobby?

The little 'he said, she said' drama that you shill does not interest me. If their is an objective source then thats great but you did not link one.

[MannyIsGod]

The money trail is completely legit, dumbass. Own up to the bullshit you spew and dont run from it, darrin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/leaked-docs-provide-insight-into-how-climate-skeptic-groups-operate/2012/02/16/gIQAn8BKIR_blog.html?tid=pm_business_pop

[Obstructed_View]

75 pages and it reads just like a religious debate. Pretty much what I said 60 odd pages ago. People that don't understand science pretending that they do, and people thinking that only one side has any money to make from it.

[MannyIsGod]

Money to be made on both sides. Hansen is rich. Yet one side is funded way more than the other. Let me know the next time jesus has peer review backing him up, though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

75 pages and it reads just like a religious debate. Pretty much what I said 60 odd pages ago. People that don't understand science pretending that they do, and people thinking that only one side has any money to make from it.

I am willing to bet that the demographics of those that deny climate change also go to a protestant church every Sunday. The combination of the religious right and oligarchs made into the GOP is one of the worst things to happen to this country.

[ElNono]

Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents

"Bloggers around the world have been commenting on recently leaked Heartland Institute documents (https://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/15/1515208/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-reveal-opposition-to-science) that reveal their internal strategies to discredit climate science. These posters are now under threat of legal action. (http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents) According to the Heartland Institute 'the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages'"

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents

"Bloggers around the world have been commenting on recently leaked Heartland Institute documents (https://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/15/1515208/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-reveal-opposition-to-science) that reveal their internal strategies to discredit climate science. These posters are now under threat of legal action. (http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents) According to the Heartland Institute 'the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages'"
LOL...

According to Heartland, one document is a complete fake, and others are altered.

Where is the PDF...

I will assume the actions happens as heartland say they did. I hope the people responsible go to jail. Identity theft is a crime.

[DarrinS]

Where is the MSM on this Heartland scandal? :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Why would the media want to show that the funding going to the HLI paints a clear picture of an agenda? They're too busy taking scientists out of context. Pretty much like you.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh Manny, don't you get it?

The liberal media has been slapped hard with fake documents in the past. Remember Rathergate?

[Agloco]

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000065000002000022000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1063/PT.3.1431&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1


Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers



Receiving an email with a statement like “You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.

Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography, among other disciplines— have begun to fight back. “I think the community is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose work has largely focused on identifying the human influence on global climate, and who once answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep.

[Wild Cobra]

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000065000002000022000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1063/PT.3.1431&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1
Interesting. If real, the shoe is of the other foot as the skeptics of AGW warming have already been fired in many places. Now they know what it's like.

[MannyIsGod]

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000065000002000022000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1063/PT.3.1431&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1

Ridiculous. Never thought becoming a scientist meant this kind of shit.

[ElNono]

LOL...

According to Heartland, one document is a complete fake, and others are altered.

Where is the PDF...

I will assume the actions happens as heartland say they did. I hope the people responsible go to jail. Identity theft is a crime.


the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages

So you think merely commenting on the documents 'constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses'?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think merely commenting on the documents 'constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses'?
It depends on who is commenting and how they are doing so. If someone of prominence comments on them as if they are actual documents, without the attempt to verify, then yes. I believe liability for damages would apply.

Think about how the media usually frames things. Even when we know someone is guilty of something, they say "alleged."

Context matters.

[DarrinS]

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000065000002000022000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1063/PT.3.1431&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1

http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

[DarrinS]

Hey, it made HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html


Lol at zero comments.

[DarrinS]

Hey, it made HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html


Lol at zero comments.


EDIT> My bad. "Comments are closed for this entry" -- I wonder why?
Maybe he doesn't want someone to leave a dead rat on his doorstep. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There has already been a Washington Post article linked in the thread several days ago.

Pay attention.

[RandomGuy]

So you think merely commenting on the documents 'constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses'?

Sounds an awful lot like somebody is paying good money for lawyers.

If I were a multi-trillion dollar industry and was backing various "skeptics", I would not be all that happy if the "skeptics" I funded led a paper trail back to me either.

[RandomGuy]

Gleick writes that he initially tried to confirm whether this strategy document was real. When he couldn’t, he contacted the Heartland Institute directly using a fake e-mail account (Heartland has said that Gleick was impersonating a board member). The group then inadvertently sent him a slew of additional fund-raising and budget memos, which Gleick, in turn, forwarded to various blogs and reporters.

Gleick says that this latter batch of internal fund-raising documents are authentic and unchanged. “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication,” he writes.

A number of journalists, particularly the AP’s Seth Borenstein, have confirmed many of the details in the budget documents, such as the fact that the Heartland Institute is working to set up a climate-skeptic science curriculum for high schools. Most of Heartland’s attempts to dispute mainstream climate science, such as its annual conferences in Washington, are not a secret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/climate-researcher-says-he-lied-to-obtain-heartland-documents/2012/02/21/gIQA5WnCRR_blog.html


So basically the strategy and fundraising memos were legit, but the guy lied to get them.

Bad on him, but it shows the kinds of nakedly cynical shit that passes for "climate change skepticism".

I stand by the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

Wow...

Searching the title of one of the broken links, I found this:

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now)

[Wild Cobra]

When I said the Oregon Climatologist was fired, he effectively was.

Global Warming Skeptics Shunned (http://cnsnews.com/node/7306)

The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.

A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.

That view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce "greenhouse gases," which are considered by many researchers to be the chief cause of global warming.
Now rather than firing George Taylor, the governor had his position removed. All who followed the story knew it was because Taylor was a "denier." It would be political suicide to fire him over this disagreement, so the strategic move, was to eliminate the job. There was plenty of local news on the issue.

[DarrinS]

Hey, it made HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html


Lol at zero comments.



Doh!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/gleick-removed-from-agu-task-force-on-scientific-ethics/

[DarrinS]

What do you need to become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?

Evidently, just a credit card.

https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/SPageNavigator/join_donate_lbox.html

:lmao :downspin:


If you join with $35 dollars, you get a free mouse pad.

https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/images/content/pagebuilder/2011Lightbox_mousepad.jpg

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

If they plan to seek civil damages in criminal charges against Gleick, I'd say his goose is cooked.

[TeyshaBlue]

I want that mouse pad.

[DarrinS]

Scientists resurrect Ice Age plant after 30,000 years in deep freeze

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094952/Scientists-resurrect-Ice-Age-plant-after-30000-years-in-deep-freeze.html





...located 125 feet (38 meters) below the present surface in layers containing bones of large mammals, such as mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, horse and deer.




Guess it was a bit warmer back then.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

Searching the title of one of the broken links, I found this:

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now)

I can't blame you for not wanting the conversation to linger on the fact that a well-funded industry sock-puppet was putting together actively misleading propaganda campaigns.

It is kinda funny the way you and Darrin are so desperately trying to change the subject.

Does the fact that this is so obviously a propaganda machine bother you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hell, i am waiting for a link that actually says one of those guys actually got fired. So far we have a link stating that a climatologist was supposedly CONSIDERED being fired with a completely hypothetical cause for something that never happened and a blog by some random guy saying that people should be fired.

What I do not see is any shred of evidence that anyone actually was fired or threatened for being fired much less an individual singled out and threatened. WC the guy you linked doesn't even work for the Oregon state government.

And for fucks sake Darrin are you able to link something that is not sourced from the Guardian, Koch Foundation or the Heritage Foundation. I actually started clicking on those links and sure enough it was WUWT, Heritage Foundation, your weekly mailer from the Guardian etc.

Some evidence comes out that what is already obviously a oil lobby propaganda machine actually is just that and you pull that shit.... gmafb

[MannyIsGod]

Scientists resurrect Ice Age plant after 30,000 years in deep freeze

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094952/Scientists-resurrect-Ice-Age-plant-after-30000-years-in-deep-freeze.html





Guess it was a bit warmer back then.


Yeah - I hear the wooly mammoth and wooly rino were tropical animals.

[ElNono]

It depends on who is commenting and how they are doing so. If someone of prominence comments on them as if they are actual documents, without the attempt to verify, then yes. I believe liability for damages would apply.

Context matters.


Sounds an awful lot like somebody is paying good money for lawyers.

If I were a multi-trillion dollar industry and was backing various "skeptics", I would not be all that happy if the "skeptics" I funded led a paper trail back to me either.

I don't see how stating opinion (commenting) isn't protected by the 1st amendment. You know, the other side doesn't have to like the speech.


Think about how the media usually frames things. Even when we know someone is guilty of something, they say "alleged."

smh

[DarrinS]

AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.

AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.




I agree with the AGU that climate change is occurring. Has been occuring for the past 4½ billion years.

[Wild Cobra]

Does the fact that this is so obviously a propaganda machine bother you?
I guess this goes back to what you want to call propaganda. I followed several of those links, and I find them to be less propaganda type material than anything from the IPCC, which is clearly intent of the AGW scare, regardless of facts.

[Agloco]

http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

:lol equating harrassment to legitimate skepticism.

[boutons_deux]

Beyond .350: Measuring New Thresholds of Global Collapse

Human civilization has had a stable childhood. Over the past 10,000 years, as our ancestors invented agriculture and built cities, the Earth remained relatively stable. The average global temperature fluttered slightly, never lurching towards a greenhouse climate or chilling enough to enter a new Ice Age. The pH of the oceans remained steady, providing the right chemical conditions for coral reefs to grow and invertebrates to build shells. Those species, in turn, helped support a stable food web that provided plenty of fish for us humans to catch. The overall stability of the past 10,000 years may have played a big part in humanity’s explosion.

Now, ironically, civilization has become so powerful that it can reshape the planet itself. “We have become a force to contend with at the global level,” as Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Center in Sweden, puts it. Humans have changed the chemistry of Earth’s oceans, lowering their pH and causing ocean acidification. We are shifting the composition of the atmosphere, raising levels of carbon dioxide higher than they’ve been in at least the past 800,000 years.

A number of scientists have warned in recent years that if we keep pushing the planet this way, we will cause sudden, irreversible damage to the systems that made human civilization possible in the first place. Typically, they’ve just focused on one of these tipping points at a time. But in today’s issue of the journal Nature, Rockstrom and 27 of his fellow environmental scientists argue that we have to conceive of many tipping points at once. They propose that humans must keep the planet in what they call a “safe operating space,” inside of which we can thrive. If we push past the boundaries of that space — by wiping out biodiversity, for example, or diverting too much of the world’s freshwater — we risk catastrophe.

http://www.alternet.org/water/154268/beyond_.350:_measuring_new_thresholds_of_global_co llapse?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

[DarrinS]

The new and improved Climate Change -- now with even more tipping points.

[RandomGuy]

The new and improved Climate Change -- now with even more tipping points.

That is awfully ironic for someone who claims that climate science doesn't understand climate well enough to be able to predict anything.

That is a sword that cuts both ways, isn't it?

"Our climate is too complext to model accurately because we don't understand it well enough, but I can sure say we understand it well enough to say that all this talk about tipping points is baloney".

Does that about sum up what you are getting at?

[RandomGuy]

75 pages and it reads just like a religious debate. Pretty much what I said 60 odd pages ago. People that don't understand science pretending that they do, and people thinking that only one side has any money to make from it.

False equivalence, IMO.

That is a bit like saying that the flat earth theory and the round earth theory are on the same footing, or that creationism/ID has as much evidence supporting it as evolution.

Not all arguments are created equal, as I have attempted to show.

I have hewed very closely to admitting the weaknesses in the evidence and arguments regarding AGW theory, but have not really gotten anything approaching a consistant level of intellectual honesty from people who profess skepticism on the subject.

You came closest to doing so, but were unable to admit the flaws of your own thinking.

[Winehole23]

-h2GOmeHouw

[Winehole23]

W2yIkDVs0cA

[DarrinS]

That is awfully ironic for someone who claims that climate science doesn't understand climate well enough to be able to predict anything.

That is a sword that cuts both ways, isn't it?

"Our climate is too complext to model accurately because we don't understand it well enough, but I can sure say we understand it well enough to say that all this talk about tipping points is baloney".

Does that about sum up what you are getting at?

No.

For such a smart person, you sure are pretty thick sometimes.

[DarrinS]

That is a bit like saying that the flat earth theory and the round earth theory are on the same footing, or that creationism/ID has as much evidence supporting it as evolution.


And you follow this statement with this?



I have hewed very closely to admitting the weaknesses in the evidence and arguments regarding AGW theory, but have not really gotten anything approaching a consistant level of intellectual honesty from people who profess skepticism on the subject.

[RandomGuy]

No.

For such a smart person, you sure are pretty thick sometimes.

That is not what you meant to imply, but it sure was what you ended up essentially saying.

I don't blame you for not wanting to admit it.

[RandomGuy]

And you follow this statement with this?

Let's outline the weaknesses, as I see it in AGW, and the strengths of your arguments, when you bother to make them in between logical fallacies.

Climate modeling is imprecise. Basing public policy solely on imperfect models is not a good idea. (notice I started with your favorite schtick)

For all we have studied our climate, our overall knowledge is fairly small, and what we know could turn out to be wrong or invalidated by something we learn tomorrow.

There is no shortage of melodramatic doom and gloom from many people in the environmental movement about the ultimate negative effects. We don't really know what exactly is going to happen.


This is what an honest skeptic would say. Neither you, WC and especially Yonivore are honest skeptics however, and you usually go much further into the swamp of bad logic, bad science, and conspiracy theory to try and make your case.


The main difference now is that neither you, WC, nor Yonivore can, or will, similarly state what you think the strongest arguments of those proposing AGW are. You all seem to be, as implied by the OP and demonstrated by your continued posting, patently incapable of such honesty.

[DarrinS]

For all we have studied our climate, our overall knowledge is fairly small, and what we know could turn out to be wrong or invalidated by something we learn tomorrow.


So there is reason to be a skeptic. It's not like being a flat-Earther or a Holocaust denier. Apology accepted.

[RandomGuy]

That said, none of those rise to the level of a fatal flaw.

Models, although not useful in and of themselves, do provide a tool for thinking about complex systems.

Our knowledge is impercise, but is getting better as we learn and study our climate and its systems.

There sure is a lot of meladrama, but consideration of worst case scenarios is simply prudent risk management, ESPECIALLY when one is operating from a position of ignorance.

I don't have to understand the science fully, or get perfect information to make decisions and reasonably mitigate risks.

*If* you were honest, you would admit that one overriding principle.

[RandomGuy]

So there is reason to be a skeptic. It's not like being a flat-Earther or a Holocaust denier. Apology accepted.

It is the way you do it. You did notice the title of the OP, right?

Don't flatter yourself, CosmoDarrin.

[Agloco]

So there is reason to be a skeptic.


Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience

Lost in translation imo.

[MannyIsGod]

So there is reason to be a skeptic. It's not like being a flat-Earther or a Holocaust denier. Apology accepted.

You don't need to be able to reproduce a model of the earth's surface down to the smallest unit of accuracy to acknowledge the earth is essentially a sphere. Thats essentially what you're doing with the climate. Because we don't have the resolution to predict every move of the temp gauge in ever place on earth accurately then we can't acknowledge that increasing the amount of energy stored on earth will raise the global temp?

There's reason to be skeptical of certain aspects. If someone tells you they can tell you exactly whats going to happen to San Antonio in the coming 100 years as result of climate change there's a huge reason to be skeptical.

If someone tells you that increasing the CO2 levels of the atmosphere will lead to a higher global temp there is no scientific reason to express reasonable doubt.

[MannyIsGod]

I also take issue when people say shit like our knowledge of the climate is "small". Really? Get a PhD in climatology and tell me the knowledge is small by any stretch of the imagination. Because there are questions in how certain aspects of the system works does not somehow decrease the level of overall knowledge and understanding we have over the climate system.

[MannyIsGod]

Remember that time Darrin claimed Antarctica was gaining ice?

:lol

I do.

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

Based off of the study he was pimping regarding the Himalayan glaciers. The GRACE information shows that we've lost 4.2 trillion tons of ice over the past 8 years world wide but somehow the real story was that over that same period 400 billions of expected loss in the Himalayan area didn't occur.

Remember when some of you who are so knowledgeable about atmospheric dynamics discounted what I said regarding the short term gain in ice?


The results aren't a complete surprise: scientists had already reported that the westerlies which feed the Karakoram have brought cooler, cloudier and snowier conditions to some regions (Archer & Caldeira, 2008) which may or may not be a long term effect but could partly explain how the very highest glaciers are storing water (Scherler et al, 2011).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279

But yeah, I don't understand the science behind it. Nope.

[Agloco]

Your knowledge is small Manny, just deal with it.




























:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Your knowledge is small Manny, just deal with it.

























:lol



That's not what she said. BOOM!

[DarrinS]

Remember that time Darrin claimed Antarctica was gaining ice?

:lol

I do.

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

Based off of the study he was pimping regarding the Himalayan glaciers. The GRACE information shows that we've lost 4.2 trillion tons of ice over the past 8 years world wide but somehow the real story was that over that same period 400 billions of expected loss in the Himalayan area didn't occur.

Remember when some of you who are so knowledgeable about atmospheric dynamics discounted what I said regarding the short term gain in ice?



http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279

But yeah, I don't understand the science behind it. Nope.




The Wilkins Ice Shelf is receding, but the net Antarctic ice is increasing.

You can email these guys and tell them they are retarded.

http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, since you're obviously well versed in the scientific literature regarding ice loss on Antarctica's cryosphere what does the vast majority of it say?

[DarrinS]

Darrin, since you're obviously well versed in the scientific literature regarding ice loss on Antarctica's cryosphere what does the vast majority of it say?

I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dipshit's blog.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg

[RandomGuy]

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is receding, but the net Antarctic ice is increasing.

You can email these guys and tell them they are retarded.

http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf



Even allowing a G30 Gt yrK1 fluctuation in
unsurveyed areas [ Note: study did not survey 24% of the ice sheet, as noted below when they account for that with an estimated range-RG ], they provide a range of K35–C115 Gt yrK1. This range equates to a sea level contribution of K0.3–C0.1 mm yrK1 and so Antarctica has provided, at most, a negligible component of observed sea-level rise. In consequence, the data places a further burden on accounting (Munk 2003) for the twentieth century rise of 1.5–2 mm yrK1. What is clear, from the data, is that fluctuations in some coastal regions reflect long-term losses of ice mass, whereas fluctuations elsewhere appear to be short-term changes in snowfall.

Translation:

"The Antarctic is not the cause of the observed seal level rise, we need to find what is driving that trend".


A bit more detail on the subject:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm


It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean


In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.

FWIW.

[RandomGuy]

I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dipshit's blog.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg

You of all people should be appreciative of the fact that even dipshits can post valid science done by real scientists.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate modeling is imprecise. Basing public policy solely on imperfect models is not a good idea. (notice I started with your favorite schtick)

I see the problem with modeling as being impossible to make a proper model. In mathematics. Models are only as accurate as the people making them. When you start with assumptions, they make your model such that those assumptions hold true.

We are dealing with simple algebra. We are dealing with 4th degree equations in some cases and far too many variables. This may help:

Algebra; undetermined systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_algebra#Undetermined_systems)


This is what an honest skeptic would say. Neither you, WC and especially Yonivore are honest skeptics however, and you usually go much further into the swamp of bad logic, bad science, and conspiracy theory to try and make your case.

No, I am skeptical. I just gravitate towards AWG being far less than that the alarmists say, because that's where the evidence leads when you stop relying on models that tell you what you want them to.


The main difference now is that neither you, WC, nor Yonivore can, or will, similarly state what you think the strongest arguments of those proposing AGW are. You all seem to be, as implied by the OP and demonstrated by your continued posting, patently incapable of such honesty.

Try me. What argument?

[MannyIsGod]

I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dipshit's blog.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg

:lol

Can you post any other scientific papers on that subject that support your POV that somehow Antarctica is gaining ice? There's a reason you completely ignored my question because you know what the answer is yet you default to the one piece of scientific literature that goes that way.

In any event, you should not throw rocks when you're in an obvious glass house. You want scientific research? I'll be more than happy to provide it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5768/1754.abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/press/2006GL026369.pdf
http://ps.uci.edu/scholar/velicogna/files/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html
http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf

Oh, and lets not forget this one.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html

You want more?

Now what do you have?

[Wild Cobra]

I also take issue when people say shit like our knowledge of the climate is "small". Really? Get a PhD in climatology and tell me the knowledge is small by any stretch of the imagination. Because there are questions in how certain aspects of the system works does not somehow decrease the level of overall knowledge and understanding we have over the climate system.
LOL...

LOL...


LOL...

A meteorologist with a few extra creds....

LOL...

LOL...

can't even predict changes under a month...

Those extra credits in school and extra PHD style studying makes you capable of godhood...

Really now.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[MannyIsGod]

Translation:

"The Antarctic is not the cause of the observed seal level rise, we need to find what is driving that trend".


A bit more detail on the subject:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm





FWIW.

The paper Darrin posted does in fact say that Antarctica land ice is increasing. Its not talking about sea ice. However, its the only paper that comes to that conclusion. Furthermore, the methods used in that paper have been shown to underestimate ice loss in other places such as Greenland.

So, while the paper supports Darrin's belief, its the only one to do so when everyone else is publishing the opposite. Furthermore, Darrin himself has posted the results from the GRACE measurements of late say the Himalayas have not lost ice but also say Antarctica is losing large amounts of ice and contradict his belief in this scenario.