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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I read the paper and it said that there was warming on the exterior of the continental shelves but that that there was increased snow fall at the higher altitudes on the interior of the continent beyond certain gradients and that was causing a net gain overall.

He disputes sea level rise and not that the earth is warming. He actually goes into detail about long term trends causing the shift in precipitation on the whole versus the short term warming on the extremities.

Anyone have a different take on DJ Wingham's paper?

[Wild Cobra]

Remember that time Darrin claimed Antarctica was gaining ice?

Yes, and you are either being scientifically ignorant, or scientifically disingenuous.

Ice sheets are dependent of the ocean temperature as one of several variables. Warmer water will melt the ice more. The ice pack itself doesn't care about the water temperature, except that we can expect the sheet to decline and more precipitation cause more snow to fall. Dry humidity will cause more sublimation and warmer oceans will in general cause more precipitation. The sun and soot also directly affect ice packs, glaciers, etc.

Your statement is a stupid one, since it uses ice sheets.

[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

1) MarkR is not John Cook, you goober.

2) MarkR posted links to the following scientific papers at the "blog", with summaries and analytics:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7347/full/nature10089.html
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
http://www.igsoc.org/annals/v52/59/a59A046.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2010/00000050/00000053/art00004
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4656981wmw2r6h81/
http://www.ep.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~heki/pdf/MatsuoHeki_EPSL.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1068.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf




I find that to be a microcosm of the entire debate.

A Denier with some study, probably found on a denier website, presents as somehow proof positive that AGW doesn't exist.

When one looks into the actual science, not onlly does that study not debunk AGW, it is fairly obvious that Denier didn't quite understand what he was posting, and either actively ignored a large amount of other papers on the subject, or just genuinely didn't know about the depth of the science on the subject.

Hell, insert the word "creationist" for "Denier" and "evolution" for "AGW" and you have the evolution "debate".

Once again, Darrin comes through for the OP.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Willingham even admits in the paper that the amount of attributed precipitation was 'generous.'

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, and you are either being scientifically ignorant, or scientifically disingenuous.

Ice sheets are dependent of the ocean temperature as one of several variables. Warmer water will melt the ice more. The ice pack itself doesn't care about the water temperature, except that we can expect the sheet to decline and more precipitation cause more snow to fall. Dry humidity will cause more sublimation and warmer oceans will in general cause more precipitation. The sun and soot also directly affect ice packs, glaciers, etc.

Your statement is a stupid one, since it uses ice sheets.

Well its obvious you still suck at thermodynamics.


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]

Yes, and you are either being scientifically ignorant, or scientifically disingenuous.

Ice sheets are dependent of the ocean temperature as one of several variables. Warmer water will melt the ice more. The ice pack itself doesn't care about the water temperature, except that we can expect the sheet to decline and more precipitation cause more snow to fall. Dry humidity will cause more sublimation and warmer oceans will in general cause more precipitation. The sun and soot also directly affect ice packs, glaciers, etc.

Your statement is a stupid one, since it uses ice sheets.


If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm



Seems like them scientists are doing scienc-y things and figuring stuff out.


As they do, I think it will be harder and harder for hacks to cloud the issue, like the creationists attempting to sneak in their belief system in the name of "teachign the controversy" when there really isn't one in the scientific community.

[Wild Cobra]

"The Antarctic is not the cause of the observed seal level rise, we need to find what is driving that trend".

There are other factors besides the balance of ice. I'm not discounting ice, I just don't want people to forget the others.

We are constantly bombarded by hydrogen in the solar winds, which combine with oxygen and make water.

Rivers are constantly putting more sediment in the ocean, making the levels rise a little.

The magma of the earth is moving. Some features of land actually rise and others actually lower.

I am not attempting to quantify these to belittle the sea rise because of melting ice, I just don't want people to forget there are other causes.

[MannyIsGod]

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...

EDIT - changing image to a simple URL due to page being totally screwed on my computer and annoying the shit out of me.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-58070679164175/MiniCooperPartsDiagram.JPG

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, and you are either being scientifically ignorant, or scientifically disingenuous.

Ice sheets are dependent of the ocean temperature as one of several variables. Warmer water will melt the ice more. The ice pack itself doesn't care about the water temperature, except that we can expect the sheet to decline and more precipitation cause more snow to fall. Dry humidity will cause more sublimation and warmer oceans will in general cause more precipitation. The sun and soot also directly affect ice packs, glaciers, etc.

Your statement is a stupid one, since it uses ice sheets.

I hear the ocean under the ice sheets ON the continent of Antarctica plays a big role.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

There are other factors besides the balance of ice. I'm not discounting ice, I just don't want people to forget the others.

We are constantly bombarded by hydrogen in the solar winds, which combine with oxygen and make water.

Rivers are constantly putting more sediment in the ocean, making the levels rise a little.

The magma of the earth is moving. Some features of land actually rise and others actually lower.

I am not attempting to quantify these to belittle the sea rise because of melting ice, I just don't want people to forget there are other causes.

Hooooooooooooooly shit. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I hear the ocean under the ice sheets ON the continent of Antarctica plays a big role.

:lol
Again...

Ice sheets are different than the ice on the continent.

Can you comprehend that? Your supplied comeback that I responded to was only sea ice.

Buy a clue please.

Remove that huge pic also. I hate scrolling to read sentences.

[Wild Cobra]

The paper Darrin posted does in fact say that Antarctica land ice is increasing. Its not talking about sea ice.
Sea ice doesn't change the ocean level by any meaningful degree. It floats for a reason.

[RandomGuy]

I read the paper and it said that there was warming on the exterior of the continental shelves but that that there was increased snow fall at the higher altitudes on the interior of the continent beyond certain gradients and that was causing a net gain overall.

He disputes sea level rise and not that the earth is warming. He actually goes into detail about long term trends causing the shift in precipitation on the whole versus the short term warming on the extremities.

Anyone have a different take on DJ Wingham's paper?

Heh, I was a bit amused by the margin of error.

The conclusion said that 72% of the ice sheet surveyed is gaining 27 GT ice/year (plus or minus 29 GT).

Further the swing in the unsurveyed area was given as 32GT plus or minus.

Meaning that there is a huge amount of uncertainty overall.

When your range is -35GT to +115GT per year, it doesn't indicate to me a great deal of certainty.

From the study it is much more likely than not that it is gaining overall, but recent data muddies the conclusion a bit.


Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2 (in other words, every year, the rate of ice loss is increasing by 26 Gigatonnes per year) It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.

This is significant because East Antarctica contains much more ice than West Antarctica. East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 50 to 60 metres while West Antarctica would contribute around 6 to 7 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

again, same link from earlier:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

[Wild Cobra]

EDIT - changing image to a simple URL due to page being totally screwed on my computer and annoying the shit out of me.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-58070679164175/MiniCooperPartsDiagram.JPG
Thanx.

That image is 44 pixels wider than my monitor.

[Wild Cobra]

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.
So once again, you believe in consensus rather than real science... being a skeptic first...

[MannyIsGod]

Again...

Ice sheets are different than the ice on the continent.

Can you comprehend that? Your supplied comeback that I responded to was only sea ice.

Buy a clue please.

Remove that huge pic also. I hate scrolling to read sentences.

:lol

Seriously?

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

[RandomGuy]

There are other factors besides the balance of ice. I'm not discounting ice, I just don't want people to forget the others.

We are constantly bombarded by hydrogen in the solar winds, which combine with oxygen and make water.

Rivers are constantly putting more sediment in the ocean, making the levels rise a little.

The magma of the earth is moving. Some features of land actually rise and others actually lower.

I am not attempting to quantify these to belittle the sea rise because of melting ice, I just don't want people to forget there are other causes.

You should get right on quantifying them. We will wait. :p:

[MannyIsGod]

I guess Ice Sheets aren't covered in the parts changer manual.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure that was just another test, right WC?

[MannyIsGod]

BRB searching Amazon.com for a clue. Hope its not TOO expensive.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet
OK, OK...

I confused the terminology with Ice Shelf.

[Wild Cobra]

You should get right on quantifying them. We will wait. :p:
LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.

[RandomGuy]

Again...

Ice sheets are different than the ice on the continent.

Can you comprehend that? Your supplied comeback that I responded to was only sea ice.

Buy a clue please.

Remove that huge pic also. I hate scrolling to read sentences.

It would seem the definition of "ice sheet" *is* ice on the continent.

Not sure what you are attempting to get at, but this is a factual error as it stands.

[Wild Cobra]

It would seem the definition of "ice sheet" *is* ice on the continent.

Not sure what you are attempting to get at, but this is a factual error as it stands.
Yes, see post 2023...

I fucked up...

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, no need to limit the evidence to post 2023 if we want to find your fuck ups.

[RandomGuy]

There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of.

I225Vcs3X0g

Checkmate, atheists!

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, no need to limit the evidence to post 2023 if we want to find your fuck ups.
LOL...

Be my guest. I'm sure you can find one or two more.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.

:lol

Jesus Christ (pun intended)

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

Be my guest. I'm sure you can find one or two more.

The number I'm shooting for is around 29,000.

[Wild Cobra]

The number I'm shooting for is around 29,000.
Wow...

Only 1.118 per post?

That's generous, coming from you.

[Agloco]

LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

Heaven forbid you do anything remotely resembling one in support of your claims.

[Wild Cobra]

Heaven forbid you do anything remotely resembling one in support of your claims.
WTF...

I never said it was a cause to discount melting ice. I am only asking people to remember these are also factors. If I recall, previous studies suggest the oceans density change via thermal expansion, and cause about half of what we see in sea level rise as well. I forgot to include that one.

Are you going to insist on me to prove something that is known already?

How about I ask you to prove that melting ice is the only cause of the sea level rise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Heh, I was a bit amused by the margin of error.

The conclusion said that 72% of the ice sheet surveyed is gaining 27 GT ice/year (plus or minus 29 GT).

Further the swing in the unsurveyed area was given as 32GT plus or minus.

Meaning that there is a huge amount of uncertainty overall.

When your range is -35GT to +115GT per year, it doesn't indicate to me a great deal of certainty.

From the study it is much more likely than not that it is gaining overall, but recent data muddies the conclusion a bit.



again, same link from earlier:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Sure and he even admits that some of his predictions are based on models that he describes as having 'generous' predictions of contribution.

The point that i am making though is that Darrin clearly misses the forest for a tree here. The model that the Royal Society used included the warming along the exterior and at no point concluded that the continent was getting colder. If anything it concludes that the oceans are clearly warming.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

No fucking way. That would be like a research paper.

I do wonder however how much water we possibly gained, by maybe a CME that the earth's orbit went through. There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of. Proxy evidence tells us that the earths oxygen level use to be higher, which would likely be required for dinosaurs to have existed.

We have had this discussion before. How much energy would be released in the explosion and hydrogen combustion is a very very hot explosion in order to cover the entire Earth in water for 40 days? That it approaches 1000 degrees is the engineering hurdle facing realistic hydrogen propulsion as when you burn it that hot it also causes nitrogen to combust which produces nitrates which is very very bad.

That you think its possible just goes to show how fucking dumb you are.

And its obvious that you never have any intention --or capability for that matter-- of trying to take a true scholastic approach to proving your bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Does Fuzzy think the exosphere is cold?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now you are claiming that the supposed explosions which would have covered the entire earth happened in outer space? You stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

[Wild Cobra]

So now you are claiming that the supposed explosions which would have covered the entire earth happened in outer space? You stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
This is why I normally ignore you. Your statements are so far off of reality. There is normally no acceptable answer to someone as retarded as you are.

There is no explosion. Molecules combine, and take on the most favorable combinations. The thermosphere is probably more correct than the exosphere. Temperatures in the thermosphere reach 2500 Celsius.

Do you know the difference between burning an exploding? A blanket of H- from the sun would have a molecular spacing making an explosion impossible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is why I normally ignore you. Your statements are so far off of reality. There is normally no acceptable answer to someone as retarded as you are.

There is no explosion. Molecules combine, and take on the most favorable combinations. The thermosphere is probably more correct than the exosphere. Temperatures in the thermosphere reach 2500 Celsius.

Do you know the difference between burning an exploding? A blanket of H- from the sun would have a molecular spacing making an explosion impossible.

How do hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, dumbass? I'll give you a hint: its called combustion. And that caused the entire earth to be covered in water for 40 days?

And again I don't care if you ignore me if you haven't noticed your lack of response does not deter me as you are not my intended audience. i will talk to you but its more important that its clear to everyone else how contemptible your approach and methods are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So lets just make this clear. You are suggesting that the sun emmitted hydrogen ions that combined with oxygen that you think was in the exosphere to combust enough water to cover the entire earth for 40 days but that there was no explosion and that sucha reaction only occurred in the outer limits of what we call the atmosphere?

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

[Wild Cobra]

How do hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, dumbass? I'll give you a hint: its called combustion. And that caused the entire earth to be covered in water for 40 days?

And again I don't care if you ignore me if you haven't noticed your lack of response does not deter me as you are not my intended audience. i will talk to you but its more important that its clear to everyone else how contemptible your approach and methods are.

I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.

The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.

Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.

[Wild Cobra]

So lets just make this clear. You are suggesting that the sun emmitted hydrogen ions that combined with oxygen that you think was in the exosphere to combust enough water to cover the entire earth for 40 days but that there was no explosion and that sucha reaction only occurred in the outer limits of what we call the atmosphere?

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin
You inaccurately represented at least two things I said, so fuck off asshole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm pretty sure it's clear to most that you are talking out your ass.

The disk of the earth covers about 0.0000000453% of the solar radiation based on a sphere of our orbit. The emission of particles from the sun is about 1.3 E36.second. this mean the earth will collect about 1.86 E34 particles/year, most of which protium. If it were all protium, this would yield to as much as 9.3 E33 molecules of water per year, or 2.78 megatonnes.

Now this is very small as a normal increase in the earths water. Not even measurable. However, if we did go through a large ejection of stellar matter in the past, it could become a very large increase in total water volume.

So there was enough to combust to create enough water to cover the entire earth for 40 days? Thats what you are aclaiming and what am I talking out my ass about. i am only regaling what you are saying if it seems stupid there is a clear reason why.

[Wild Cobra]

So there was enough to combust to create enough water to cover the entire earth for 40 days? Thats what you are aclaiming and what am I talking out my ass about. i am only regaling what you are saying if it seems stupid there is a clear reason why.
Again, that is not what I said.

Since you are incapable of being intellectually honest. Go fuck yourself. I tried again to have a reasonable discussion with you, but you are a lost cause.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

I found WC's scientific source

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/atmosphere/

[Wild Cobra]

I found WC's scientific source

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/atmosphere/
Sorry, that's not it.

Is it worth reading?

I used solar wind data, and other facts.

Do you know what a CME is?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So where do you think the water that demontrates that there is some truth to the 40 days and 40 nights come from then? So far we have heard the exosphere and from solar radiation.

Its not my fault your theory is stupid and your inability to articulate prevents you from presenting something that makes even a smidget of sense.

Where did the oxygen that combusted with the solar wind come from?

[Wild Cobra]

So where do you think the water that demontrates that there is some truth to the 40 days and 40 nights come from then? So far we have heard the exosphere and from solar radiation.

Its not my fault your theory is stupid and your inability to articulate prevents you from presenting something that makes even a smidget of sense.

Where did the oxygen that combusted with the solar wind come from?

Idiot.

First of all, I said "There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of."

I never said the earth was covered. I intended to convey 40 continuous days of rain. The rest is your delusional prejudiced.

I corrected exosphere to thermosphere, and mentioned it reaches 2500 C when your 1000 degree units wasn't specified. Did you know there is a difference between kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit? Must I assume you don't since you didn't specify? Am I suppose to read your mind and guess?

I only mentioned this as one of several ways the ocean rises.

I mentioned proxy evidence tells us the oxygen content of our atmosphere used to be greater. i forget what it was, but the link that Manny used jokingly say it was 50% more. The hydrogen would have combined with the oxygen already in the atmosphere... My God... Just how stupid are you?

Fuzzy...

It is obvious to anyone being honest that you are a joke.

[MannyIsGod]

This shit is gold.

[Wild Cobra]

This shit is gold.
But is what I say impossible?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Idiot.

First of all, I said "There could be some truth to the forty days and forty nights of rain, the Bible speaks of."

I never said the earth was covered. I intended to convey 40 continuous days of rain. The rest is your delusional prejudiced.

I corrected exosphere to thermosphere, and mentioned it reaches 2500 C when your 1000 degree units wasn't specified. Did you know there is a difference between kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit? Must I assume you don't since you didn't specify? Am I suppose to read your mind and guess?

I only mentioned this as one of several ways the ocean rises.

I mentioned proxy evidence tells us the oxygen content of our atmosphere used to be greater. i forget what it was, but the link that Manny used jokingly say it was 50% more. The hydrogen would have combined with the oxygen already in the atmosphere... My God... Just how stupid are you?

Fuzzy...

It is obvious to anyone being honest that you are a joke.

So then the combustion occurred in the atmosphere enough to cause 40 days of continuous rain?

And where is the oxygen in our atmosphere located?

And you do not understand the difference between the temperature between individual particles and the temperature of a region of space. You also do not understand the notion of the density of a reactant and how that is directly proportional to the rate of reaction.

Quite frankly if you think that solar radiation in any amount combined with the stray particles in the outer edges of the atmosphere combusted enough to cause rain for 40 fucking days then you deserve the derision you get. Its stupid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But is what I say impossible?

Is it possible that you're an idiot?

[Agloco]

I mentioned proxy evidence tells us the oxygen content of our atmosphere used to be greater. i forget what it was, but the link that Manny used jokingly say it was 50% more. The hydrogen would have combined with the oxygen already in the atmosphere... My God... Just how stupid are you?

How much O2 was there WC?

Care to detail the combustion process for us?

[Wild Cobra]

How much O2 was there WC?

Care to detail the combustion process for us?
You're joking, right?

The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.

Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol This is so good.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol This is so good.
Elaborate please.

I may surprise you.

[MannyIsGod]

You surprise me on a daily basis.

[Wild Cobra]

You surprise me on a daily basis.
Do you want a serious discussion, or not?

[Wild Cobra]

Solar Burp (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/Solar_Burp.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/116643main_20050526_1412_eit_304.TNgif.gif

[Wild Cobra]

Triple Solar Eruption (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/News121210-tripleeruption.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/505779main_C2_triple.jpg

What will the future bring?

NASA/SOHO pick of the week (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/):

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/prom_20120209b.jpg

[Borat Sagyidev]

How much O2 was there WC?

Care to detail the combustion process for us?


http://troll.me/images/xzibit-yo-dawg/yo-dawg-i-heard-you-like-combustion-reactions-so-i-put-some-platinum-in-your-hcooh-so-you-can-have-more-reactions-when-you-react-thumb.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

http://troll.me/images/xzibit-yo-dawg/yo-dawg-i-heard-you-like-combustion-reactions-so-i-put-some-platinum-in-your-hcooh-so-you-can-have-more-reactions-when-you-react-thumb.jpg
Why have you left the peanut gallery?

Isn't this stuff above your head?

[MannyIsGod]

Its above all our heads. The water factory known as the thermosphere is straight up in the sky, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Its above all our heads. The water factory known as the thermosphere is straight up in the sky, right?
No.

We normally have a net loss of hydrogen because the suns energy in the upper atmosphere actually breaks down water and fair share of the hydrogen escapes the atmospheric bounds. However, when equilibrium is a reality, things change when in a hydrogen cloud that is more dense than the earths outer atmosphere surrounds us after a massive CME.

Still think this is above my head?

I think it's above yours.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait, the thermosphere is not above your head? Where exactly are you?

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, the thermosphere is not above your head? Where exactly are you?
On that count, technically it is.

Do you agree or disagree that water can be created in the thermosphere?

Like I said, we normally have a net loss of water. my example used the "if" qualifier. Again, if the equilibrium were to change by going through a massive CME, don't you think we would create water in the upper atmosphere rather than lose it?

[MannyIsGod]

I agree that the Thermosphere - along with many other things -is above your head.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Why have you left the peanut gallery?

Isn't this stuff above your head?

No, not at all. I guess it's good i payed attention to your post this time.

But if you expect someone to take your arguments more seriously you might want to give some more detailed reasons, like a research paper... or letter to editor.

This topic of past analysis and predicting CME isn't the most scientifically verifiable. Nice suggestion with CME to water, but I'm not so sure about the hydrogen from the sun to earth "combustion" idea works out in the magnitudes you describe.

I think it has something to do with hydrogen being everywhere in the universe and likely present at the earth's formation. You might want to try that whole creationist view point there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

The more important issue is what evidence do you have that these factors deviate from the overall effect of greenhouse gases? a pretty well vetted thermodynamic science.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree that the Thermosphere - along with many other things -is above your head.
I see...

You still have nothing serious on the topic to say.

[Wild Cobra]

No, not at all. I guess it's good i payed attention to your post this time.

But if you expect someone to take your arguments more seriously you might want to give some more detailed reasons, like a research paper... or letter to editor.

This topic of past analysis and predicting CME isn't the most scientifically verifiable. Nice suggestion with CME to water, but I'm not so sure about the hydrogen from the sun to earth "combustion" idea works out in the magnitudes you describe.

The problem lies in that it is more theoretical since we have never witnessed with the degree of science we have today, a CME event of the magnitude that I am speaking of.


I think it has something to do with hydrogen being everywhere in the universe and likely present at the earth's formation. You might want to try that whole creationist view point there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Not part of my discussion. Forget the relevance to creationism.


The more important issue is what evidence do you have that these factors deviate from the overall effect of greenhouse gases? a pretty well vetted thermodynamic science.

I don't discount the greenhouse effect at all. It is real. The term is slightly inaccurate, but I accept it for what it is. When it comes to the greenhouse effect, i say that CO2 doesn't have the degree of forcing that is claimed by the alarmists. Some papers show CO2 has a net cooling, though I don't go that far. i am open to that possibility though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

We normally have a net loss of hydrogen because the suns energy in the upper atmosphere actually breaks down water and fair share of the hydrogen escapes the atmospheric bounds. However, when equilibrium is a reality, things change when in a hydrogen cloud that is more dense than the earths outer atmosphere surrounds us after a massive CME.

Still think this is above my head?

I think it's above yours.

I still do all I am getting out of this is:


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.

You throw out the term equilibrium to the point now where I just want to slap you.

There isn't shit up in the upper atmosphere. Sure what little there is eats raw unadulerated solar radiation and is irradiated to shit but thats just it. The particles up there are so spread out that they do not have the EM interactions that we know as air pressure. Its mostly void.

You can irradiate the area but its not just going to be localized to the upperatmosphere. Thats what the whole deal with inertia is. If it doesn't hit anything then it just keeps going.

For it to last 40 days the plume would have to cover about 35 degrees because thats how much of the orbit we traverse. So basically the sun explodes and bombards us with massive amounts of protons and you think all it will do is rain for that time period.

What this is, is a bunch of horseshit that you tell yourself so you can believe what you want to believe. You admit the phenomenon you are describing has never happened nor has even a similar much reduced approximation of it. But because you want to believe something you make regurgitate this excrement. Its confirmation bias meets stupidity.

You make a wonderful minion. Once you are coopted you will make up stories and present them as truth.

Thanks equilibrium boy.

[Wild Cobra]

For it to last 40 days the plume would have to cover about 35 degrees because thats how much of the orbit we traverse. So basically the sun explodes and bombards us with massive amounts of protons and you think all it will do is rain for that time period.

What this is, is a bunch of horseshit that you tell yourself so you can believe what you want to believe. You admit the phenomenon you are describing has never happened nor has even a similar much reduced approximation of it. But because you want to believe something you make regurgitate this excrement. Its confirmation bias meets stupidity.

I understand.

You live in a sigma one world, and cannot understand events that could only be covered by looking at 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th level sigmas.

Thanks for that clarification. I will never ask you to look outside that small box you live in again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I understand.

You live in a sigma one world, and cannot understand events that could only be covered by looking at 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th level sigmas.

Thanks for that clarification. I will never ask you to look outside that small box you live in again.

WTF are you even talking about? You take a pos understanding of principles and extend that to your bullshit. Posturing with this sigma nonsense does not change that. You stupidity is outlined for very specific reasons.

Rather than try and talk about the amount of oxygen available in an area where particles are so widely dispersed they do not have em interactions or how inertia makes your notions of a localized reaction demonstrate you not knowing what the fuck your talking about, you resort to this posturing.

One thing that becomes very obvious to anyone who models natural systems, it is that they are nondeterministic. Every fucking thing you do and say reads like it comes from a middle school chemistry text book with your equilibrium and dimwitted attempts at analyzing sequences.

You stumble around trying to make rational constructs to fit your preconceived notions of how you want things to be or were told they should be and do it very very poorly.

[DarrinS]

This is precious. Warming cultists now have their own version of AttackWatch.

Climate Science Rapid Response Team

:lmao

http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/

[DarrinS]

As I see it, there are several reasons the general public have lost faith in this movement:

Al Gore's scifi docudrama
Catastrophic model predictions that don't comport with reality
Climategate
Shouting down legitimate skepticism (e.g. This thead)


Good day

[boutons_deux]

The main reason the sheeple might doubt global warming and might dislike ACA is the non-stop slander, lies, disinformation by the VRWC/UCA and their Fox/Repug hired whores.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As I see it, there are several reasons the general public have lost faith in this movement:

Al Gore's scifi docudrama
Catastrophic model predictions that don't comport with reality
Climategate
Shouting down legitimate skepticism (e.g. This thead)


Good day

The public has lost faith?

Care to show some polling or you just pulling your normal bullshit as inserting your own beliefs for the beliefs of others?

It has been demonstrated how you will lie and misrepresent as a matter of course.

[DarrinS]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/concerns-global-warming-stable-lower-levels.aspx

[MannyIsGod]

Americans have lost faith because there are a bunch of idiots walking around like Darrin. In countries with higher scientific literacy we don't see this. Furthermore, do a search while you're on Gallup on evolution. There's a reason that is low in the US as well.

[MannyIsGod]

Look at the 2nd category. Why is the US so much higher than anyone else?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/Worldwide-Blame-Climate-Change-Falls-Humans.aspx


People nearly everywhere are more likely to believe humans cause global warming. In the United States, where residents are less likely to blame humans for global warming and to see it as a threat, residents could potentially feel less empowered to act as stewards of the environment in the future.

You can thank the GOP and its war on science.

I have stated that I don't like Al Gore, but I think you're completely wrong attributing this drop on his movie. For one, I doubt you will find any coloration between the release of his movie and the drop in those polls. In actuality, I bet you would see the exact opposite.

[boutons_deux]

Look at the 2nd category. Why is the US so much higher than anyone else?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/Worldwide-Blame-Climate-Change-Falls-Humans.aspx

American sheeple, poorly educated, TV-dumbed-down, infantile, self-diseased fatties, are lost in the science-denying, doctrinaire/ideological/religious Dark Ages ushered in by VRWC and their social/religious "Christian" Taleban.

[jack sommerset]

The bible tells us at Job 37:3-13 that God controls the wind, heat, cold, clouds, sun, rain, lightening, thunder, snow, ice, and tempests. There is no passage in the Scriptures that says or implies that God gave up control of the weather to humans in the Old or New Testament. It's all good. God bless.

[MannyIsGod]

The bible tells us at Job 37:3-13 that God controls the wind, heat, cold, clouds, sun, rain, lightening, thunder, snow, ice, and tempests. There is no passage in the Scriptures that says or implies that God gave up control of the weather to humans in the Old or New Testament. It's all good. God bless.

Perfect explanation as to why Americans poll the way they do.

[boutons_deux]

Jack, WC, etc, self-ridiculers extraordinaire. Bible-thumping beats thinking any day.

[Wild Cobra]

This is precious. Warming cultists now have their own version of AttackWatch.

Climate Science Rapid Response Team

:lmao

http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/
What I find interesting about their propaganda is this:

The
Scientific Guide
to Global Warming
Skepticism (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf)

Page four has a graph that claims the oceans have 200 x 10^21 (2.00 x 10^23) more joules of energy since 1950. I don't disagree with that, but they are saying it only took 50 years for the extra greenhouse effect to add that much energy. I find that laughable since water will reflect and re-emit energy it gets at the surface. It's the deeper energy that penetrates the vibrational capturing. IR will stay at the surface and be re-emitted, but the power from the sun at other wavelengths penetrate the ocean deep. This is where most of the extra energy comes from. The IPCC claims in AR4 are based from 1750 to 2004. During this period, the amount of extra energy from the sun has increased by 0.18%. The increase in energy hitting the surface of the earth is about 1.26 x 10^23 joules annually, more than half of which is captured in the ocean waters beyond just the surface.

That's just one of several false claims they make.

Granted, I used 1750 to 2004 IPCC numbers. Still, we had a nice rise from about 1900 to 1950 in solar energy, and the warmer water takes time to circulate.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/1610to2000solardata.jpg

From 1900 to present is only about a 0.1% increase. That's still 7.03 x 10^22 joules more annual energy today, than in 1900.

[Agloco]

You're joking, right?

No. I want an explanation of this reaction would proceed. Please include the balanced chemical formula and free energy released with your proposed mechanism.




The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.

Easily? What's the reaction threshold? What about the thermosphere today? Does it still reach 2500C?


Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.

Your assertion, your proof. I'd like to see you detail how you're correct for once.

[RandomGuy]

Americans have lost faith because there are a bunch of idiots walking around like Darrin. In countries with higher scientific literacy we don't see this. Furthermore, do a search while you're on Gallup on evolution. There's a reason that is low in the US as well.

A bunch of idiots given propaganda fueled in no small part by some rather pointed special interests with little incentive to admit their product might be in some way harmful.

[DarrinS]

Michael Mann's TEDxPSU presentation

Very short on science, but long on conspiracy and politics (as he bitches about the politicization of science -- lol).


It's interesting that the graphs that show "the models have been validated" don't include data past 2005. I wonder why? I guess he can present those with a straight face.


ElI-XVGHCHs

[RandomGuy]

What I find interesting about their propaganda is this:

The
Scientific Guide
to Global Warming
Skepticism (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf)That's just one of several false claims they make.



Oh do tell.

The linked pdf pretty fairly addresses most lines of attack you have used.


Less heat is escaping
out to space
Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes
out to space, clearly observing the greenhouse
effect. A comparison between satellite data from
1970 to 1996 found that even less energy is
escaping to space at the wavelengths that
greenhouse gases absorb energy. Researchers
described this result as
.
This has since been confirmed by subsequent
measurements from several different satellites.
“direct experimental
evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s
greenhouse effect


An increased greenhouse effect means nights
should warm faster than days. During the day, the
sun warms the Earth’s surface. At nighttime, the
surface cools by radiating its heat out to space.
Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process.
If global warming was caused by the sun, we would
expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime.
Instead, what we see is the number of warm nights
increasing faster than the number of warm days.


Alexander, L. V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T. C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Tank,
A. M. G. K., Haylock, M., Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour,
A., Kumar, K. R., Revadekar, J., Griffiths, G., Vincent, L., Stephenson, D.
B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New, M., Zhai, P., Rusticucci,
M., and Vazquez-Aguirre, J. L. (2006), Global observed changes in daily
climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research
, 111(D5):D05109+.


The author of the paper cited no fewer than 68 different research papers, the vast majority of which were from the last decade or so.

You go wit' yo' bad self trying to refute all of that.

Let me know when anything you assert gets backed up by something you yourself publish for any kind of review.

[RandomGuy]

Michael Mann's TEDxPSU presentation

Very short on science, but long on conspiracy and politics (as he bitches about the politicization of science -- lol).

It's interesting that the graphs that show "the models have been validated" don't include data past 2005. I wonder why? I guess he can present those with a straight face.



"long on conspiracy".

Do you want me to post links to the posts where you mention "climategate"?

I stopped counting the number of times you allude to some massive conspiracy of scientists to keep "the real truth" from the public.

He was entirely right about the way people like you are making what should be a scientific debate into a political one.

Rather than go out and do real science it is easier to shoot the messanger I guess.

[DarrinS]

Well, unlike Fakegate, the Climategate scientists did conspire to skirt FOIA laws and corrupt the peer-review process.

No thoughts on why Mann would omit >2005 data in a presentation given in late 2011?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh do tell.

The linked pdf pretty fairly addresses most lines of attack you have used.

Yes, they address quite a few things. It is a joke though.

[Wild Cobra]

No. I want an explanation of this reaction would proceed. Please include the balanced chemical formula and free energy released with your proposed mechanism.

I'm not going to take that much time. As it is, the internet is often nothing but information overload when you search for something not knowing a specific title. You often get everything except what you're looking for. I found this which does explain a little, but not anywhere near what I was looking for:

Atmospheric Chemistry @ UEA (http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/tracegaslab/projects/index.htm)


An increase of molecular hydrogen in the atmosphere also leads to increasing H2O in the stratosphere.

As for showing chemistry work, I haven't done anything like that for more than 30 years. I'm a bit rusty. How about instead, you prove a CME cannot do as I say.

[DarrinS]

I guess Manny's interest in fake Heartland memos has waned.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[DarrinS]

http://fakegate.org/

[MannyIsGod]

I guess Manny's interest in fake Heartland memos has waned.

Well, my interest has first and foremost always been on the science. This is why you ran away with your hands up in the air like a little girl when I posted those scientific articles you asked for on Friday.

The Heartland memo's showed clearly where the money comes from to fund these things. You choose to ignore that, but considering your track record on this "debate" I don't think anyone here is surprised.

Remember when you found out that even people you agree with on this forum think that you are an idiot, Darrin? Ever stop to ponder, why?

[DarrinS]

Well, my interest has first and foremost always been on the science. This is why you ran away with your hands up in the air like a little girl when I posted those scientific articles you asked for on Friday.


:rolleyes



The Heartland memo's showed clearly where the money comes from to fund these things. You choose to ignore that, but considering your track record on this "debate" I don't think anyone here is surprised.


Epic, fucking, fail.

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


http://fakegate.org/bast-on-forged-memo/





False Claims

The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Institute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

■The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.

■“[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.

■We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer-reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.

■ We do not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.

■We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of fora, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

■We are not “cultivating more neutral voices” by reaching out specifically to Andrew Revkin or Judith Curry. I do not view Revkin as a neutral voice in the debate.

[MannyIsGod]

Congrats. Tell you what. I"ll just go ahead and admit the whole Heartland thing is a lie and doesn't prove anything.

Pardon my epic fail.

Ready to get back to the science now?

[Agloco]

Congrats. Tell you what. I"ll just go ahead and admit the whole Heartland thing is a lie and doesn't prove anything.

Pardon my epic fail.

Ready to get back to the science now?

Of course not. He'll run around like a dog with a bone for a while.

[DarrinS]

Congrats. Tell you what. I"ll just go ahead and admit the whole Heartland thing is a lie and doesn't prove anything.

Pardon my epic fail.

Ready to get back to the science now?

Ready when you are.

[MannyIsGod]

So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?

[Wild Cobra]

So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?
Who cares. The science you practice, using consensus, is not science.

[Goliadnative]

Didn't see this anywhere. Maybe there's a feedback loop that lessens the effects of global warming. Guess we won't know til 2020.

NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-046)

[MannyIsGod]

Didn't see this anywhere. Maybe there's a feedback loop that lessens the effects of global warming. Guess we won't know til 2020.

NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-046)

Will likely take much longer than that to full grasp how cloud feedback's work.

If you look on the right side of the screen you'll see a graph of the anomaly. It correlates very well with ENSO cycles, which isn't much of a surprise but thats a huge part of why a decade isn't long enough to allow for the entire range of variability.

The reason you a range in temp model prediction is largely due to the uncertainty of feedbacks and which will "win out". If negative feed backs win out then you'll see more of a stable temp but if positive feedbacks are stronger then you could see a much larger increase. This type of feedback would be good news.

I'm taking a Paleoclimate class this semester and a lot of it has to do with how feedbacks in the past worked. Its really interesting and they don't always work they way you would assume. (IE - Ice ages may/can occur by making winters warmer/summers cooler and the feedbacks those two changes bring forth)

[DarrinS]

Didn't see this anywhere. Maybe there's a feedback loop that lessens the effects of global warming. Guess we won't know til 2020.

NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-046)

The issue of feedbacks is an area where there is a lot of disagreement and uncertainty. A lot of the models assume positive feedback, hence the so-called "tipping points".

[DarrinS]

I'm taking a Paleoclimate class this semester and a lot of it has to do with how feedbacks in the past worked. Its really interesting and they don't always work they way you would assume. (IE - Ice ages may/can occur by making winters warmer/summers cooler and the feedbacks those two changes bring forth)

Massive global climate change -- before fossil fuel burning -- no tipping points reached

[MannyIsGod]

Ready when you are.


So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?


Massive global climate change -- before fossil fuel burning -- no tipping points reached

I guess you weren't ready, after all.

Also, if you think you go in and out of ice ages without tipping points then I don't believe you quite understand what is meant by a tipping point.

Hint: The formation of an ice sheet is due to a tipping point.

Also, why do you go back to this? Is any argument of AGW theory that only humans can cause climate change through raising CO2? We study past climate change precisely so we can understand the mechanisms to which climate responds to. The only one of those mechanisms at work right now - which has been at work in the past as you yourself have posted about (somehow that eludes you) - is CO2.

[DarrinS]

I guess you weren't ready, after all.

Also, if you think you go in and out of ice ages without tipping points then I don't believe you quite understand what is meant by a tipping point.

Hint: The formation of an ice sheet is due to a tipping point.

And yet, here we are, not in an ice age (I believe they are called interglacials) and without any policy making the difference.

[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?


Massive global climate change -- before fossil fuel burning -- no tipping points reached

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

And yet, here we are, not in an ice age (I believe they are called interglacials) and without any policy making the difference.

I'm not aware anyone said the we would be in an ice age without policy change in 2012 (or ever, for that matter). Maybe the Mayans, I guess.

[DarrinS]

The only one of those mechanisms at work right now - which has been at work in the past as you yourself have posted about (somehow that eludes you) - is CO2.

Did you really just post this? I guess all the other mechanisms stopped working when Henry Ford created that evil contraption.

[MannyIsGod]

I get it, Darrin. I'm wasting time discussing this with you. You will never be ready to discuss the science. The biggest epic fail in this thread is not any of the hundreds of posts you've made with bad science or short shortsightedness but rather every one of my posts that were made with an actual intent to discuss things with you.

[MannyIsGod]

Did you really just post this? I guess all the other mechanisms stopped working when Henry Ford created that evil contraption.

The industrial revolution didn't start with the car.

In any event, if you can attribute the current global change to orbital variations or solar output changes then your free too. Hell, prove its either of those and you'll probably win a Nobel prize!

[DarrinS]

I get it, Darrin. I'm wasting time discussing this with you. You will never be ready to discuss the science. The biggest epic fail in this thread is not any of the hundreds of posts you've made with bad science or short shortsightedness but rather every one of my posts that were made with an actual intent to discuss things with you.

Whatever. The class sounds interesting -- the kind I would audit if I had the time. But I don't suppose my views would be welcome.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I don't think most would give a shit about your views considering they are there learn from the guy with the PhD and decades of actual research in the field. I couldn't tell you a damn thing about what the students around me believe one way or another. (aside from the 2 or so graduate students in the class who's research I'm familiar with)

The professor himself doesn't agree with many of the commonly held beliefs in the field but he's made it a point to explain why when this is the case and give the baseline theory itself. These are usually very minor disagreements in the greater view of things, however (IE - details in how tree ring analysis is done).

Honestly, come to think of it I've never even heard him mention his views on AGW. I guess he's not indoctrinating us correctly.

=

[DarrinS]

Well, I don't think most would give a shit about your views considering they are there learn from the guy with the PhD and decades of actual research in the field. I couldn't tell you a damn thing about what the students around me believe one way or another. (aside from the 2 or so graduate students in the class who's research I'm familiar with)

The professor himself doesn't agree with many of the commonly held beliefs in the field but he's made it a point to explain why when this is the case and give the baseline theory itself. These are usually very minor disagreements in the greater view of things, however (IE - details in how tree ring analysis is done).

Honestly, come to think of it I've never even heard him mention his views on AGW. I guess he's not indoctrinating us correctly.

=

A lot of phd's didn't accept continental drift until fairly recently and it was proposed by a -- meteorologist.

I hope that you learn that volume of science doesn't necessarily mean good science. That's why I didn't respond to "what do vast majority say about Antarctica".

[MannyIsGod]

A lot of phd's didn't accept continental drift until fairly recently and it was proposed by a -- meteorologist.

I hope that you learn that volume of science doesn't necessarily mean good science. That's why I didn't respond to "what do vast majority say about Antarctica".

This is completely disingenuous. What makes the one study you supported somehow better than the others? You don't read the studies and make sense of them, Darrin. You simply pick the ones that happen to say what you want. You do this so poorly, that the studies then come back and bite you when you later want to argue something that contradicts them.

Explain to me why the studies you cite are good science and others aren't if you want me to believe this is the case. I'm not holding my breath.

[DarrinS]

This is completely disingenuous. What makes the one study you supported somehow better than the others? You don't read the studies and make sense of them, Darrin. You simply pick the ones that happen to say what you want. You do this so poorly, that the studies then come back and bite you when you later want to argue something that contradicts them.

Explain to me why the studies you cite are good science and others aren't if you want me to believe this is the case. I'm not holding my breath.

Links to the others? I'll look them over.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't see this anywhere. Maybe there's a feedback loop that lessens the effects of global warming. Guess we won't know til 2020.

NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-046)
One more thing I bet the AGW alarmists didn't count on. Wouldn't it be funny if what solar and soot didn't cause in warming, an unmonitored rise in average cloud height did... before they were measuring...

[Agloco]

So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?


Who cares. The science you practice, using consensus, is not science.

Why do you think the vast majority of literature agrees on Antarctica? Feel free to skip the conspiracy rant.

And thanks for not answering my question. Expected tbh.

[Agloco]

A lot of phd's didn't accept continental drift until fairly recently and it was proposed by a -- meteorologist.

I hope that you learn that volume of science doesn't necessarily mean good science. That's why I didn't respond to "what do vast majority say about Antarctica".

What do the good articles say about Antarctica Darrin?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What do the good articles say about Antarctica Darrin?

The ones he cites admit to warming just that there is increased precipitation at lower latitudes.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think the vast majority of literature agrees on Antarctica? Feel free to skip the conspiracy rant.

And thanks for not answering my question. Expected tbh.
Majority doesn't matter, especially when most are looking for things they are biased over. the true test is to have open Peer Reviews. There is something wrong when the skeptics aren't convinced after reading what should be conclusive.

If it isn't conclusive, it should net be taught as fact. Climate Science in the universities is a farce, because they are not teaching fact. they are teaching assumptions and agenda.

[GSH]

My How The "Science" Doth Change

The Fear-Mongering:
Tim Flannery, ABC Lateline, June 10, 2005:

Flannery: I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . .

Maxine McKew: But. . . we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?

Flannery: . . . they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.

McKew: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with—if that’s right—back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?

Flannery: That’s right.

The Fallout
ABC 7.30 Report, July 12, 2005:

MAXINE McKEW: As Australian cities have steadily watched their dam levels fall and amid predictions of continued irregular rain patterns . . . for NSW Premier Bob Carr that moment of truth has come with his surprise announcement to build a $2 billion desalination plant to remove the salt from the seawater.


The Reality
ABC 702, yesterday:

A FLOOD watch has been issued for parts of Sydney with continued heavy rain falling in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment expected to “fill and spill” over Warragamba Dam.


Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 said we’d never again get dam-filling rain, and Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide could need desalination plants by as early as 2009. Now, with the country awash, dams near full and desalination plants left idle, Flannery has fled:

A commission spokeswoman yesterday said Professor Flannery was in Germany, but said droughts were expected to become more frequent and ”just because it is raining does not mean we should not think ahead and prepare for a drier future.”

That is a classic. Just because it’s raining, doesn’t mean it won’t.

The Bureau of Meterology is still waiting for that drier future. They predict a wetter autumn for much of northern and eastern Australia. But... wasn't the science of climate change, and never-ending drought settled back in 2005? If that's the best that science can do over seven years, what chance to they have for 100, 200 years? The only thing that is settled is that they simply don't know. Perhaps they will agree to chip in some of the money from their current grants to pay for that $2 billion de-salination plant?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your 'reality' portion was long on generalities and very short on specifics. I am noticing a trend with you. Oh btw did you compile that yourself or where did you get it from? You have a bit of Darrin in you as well?

[GSH]

Your 'reality' portion was long on generalities and very short on specifics. I am noticing a trend with you. Oh btw did you compile that yourself or where did you get it from? You have a bit of Darrin in you as well?

I don't live here like some of you, so I don't now Darrin. Obviously it's someone you think you have discredited. You'd like to associate me with him, and discredit me by association. You guys are pathetically predictable. Sorry, I'm not swimming in your pool of logical fallacies.

As for specifics - the water reservoirs and catchments that were supposed to be permanently dry are now flooded to overflowing. You people claim predictive science, but your predictions are proving wrong at an alarming and increasing rate. As such, you are forced to modify the science. As in, "We never, ever said 'Global Warming'. It's been 'Global Climate Change' from the very beginning."

Too many of you are just like Boutons - the facts don't matter, because you have "right" on your side. You are absolute carbon copies of religious fanatics.

[MannyIsGod]

Find me the place in the IPCC reports where it said those reservoirs would be dry at this time. Thanks.

PS When you're done with that tell us all again how adiabatic processes don't work in saturated air. :lmao x 30498349038

[Wild Cobra]

Find me the place in the IPCC reports where it said those reservoirs would be dry at this time. Thanks.

Interesting.

You only believe your side if the IPCC said it?

How many times have they revised their own statements?

Manny... You are a fool.

[DarrinS]

A good take on warmistas, skeptics, and deniers


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name. html#ixzz1nssN7mLR




February 29, 2012
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name


Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists -- also divided into three parts. On the one side are the "warmistas," with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the "deniers." Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.

In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That's how we're trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications -- just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.

In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects -- at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore "inconvenient truths" and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views -- and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.

Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.

I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fourth in a series, published in 2007. Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I've had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 -- so let me discuss this "evidence" in some detail.

IPCC-AR4 uses only the global surface temperature (GST) record (shown in fig. 9.5 on page 648). It exhibits a rapid rise in 1910-1940, a slight decline in 1940-1975, a sharp "jump" around 1976-77 -- and then a steady increase up to 2000 (except for the temperature "spike" of the 1998 Super-El Niño). No increase is seen after about 2001.

Most everyone seems to agree that this earlier increase (1910-1940) is caused by natural forces whose nature the IPCC does not specify. Clearly, the decline of 1940-1975 does not fit the picture of an increasing level of carbon dioxide, nor do the "jump" and "spike." So the IPCC uses the increase between 1978 and 2000 as evidence for human (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW).

Their argument is somewhat strained, and their evidence is questionable. They claim that their models simulating the temperature history of the 20th century show no warming between 1970 and 2000 -- when they omit the warming effect of the steady, slow CO2 increase. But once they add the CO2 increase into the models, they claim good agreement with the reported global surface temperature record. Ergo evidence for AGW.

There are three things wrong with the IPCC argument. It depends very much on detailed and somewhat arbitrary choices of model inputs -- e.g., the properties and effects of atmospheric aerosols, and their temporal and geographic distribution. It also makes arbitrary assumptions about clouds and water vapor, which produce the most important greenhouse forcings. One might therefore say that the IPCC's evidence is nothing more than an exercise in curve-fitting. According to physicist Freeman Dyson, the famous mathematician John von Neumann stated: "Give me four adjustable parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more, and I can make his trunk wiggle."

The second question: can the IPCC fit other climate records of importance besides the reported global surface record? For example, can they fit northern and southern hemisphere temperatures using the same assumptions in their models about aerosols, clouds, and water vapor? Can they fit the atmospheric temperature record as obtained from satellites, and also from radiosondes carried in weather balloons? The IPCC report does not show such results, and one therefore suspects that their curve-fitting exercise may not work, except with the global surface record.

The third problem may be the most important and likely also the most contested one. But first let me parse the IPCC conclusion, which depends crucially on the reported global surface warming between 1978 and 2000. As stated in their Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

But what if there is little to no warming between 1978 and 2000? What if the data from thousands of poorly distributed weather stations do not represent a true global warming? The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean. And even the so-called proxy record -- from tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, stalagmites, etc. -- shows mostly no warming during the same period.

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn't been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.

Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can't see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.

I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.

•"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." -Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

•"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." -Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

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

•"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

•"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't live here like some of you, so I don't now Darrin. Obviously it's someone you think you have discredited. You'd like to associate me with him, and discredit me by association. You guys are pathetically predictable. Sorry, I'm not swimming in your pool of logical fallacies.

As for specifics - the water reservoirs and catchments that were supposed to be permanently dry are now flooded to overflowing. You people claim predictive science, but your predictions are proving wrong at an alarming and increasing rate. As such, you are forced to modify the science. As in, "We never, ever said 'Global Warming'. It's been 'Global Climate Change' from the very beginning."

Too many of you are just like Boutons - the facts don't matter, because you have "right" on your side. You are absolute carbon copies of religious fanatics.

You need to learn what association implies. The association that i made was on the basis of behavior ie you do the same actions he does not that you are him or that you hang out with him.

And as i have pointed out, you are long on generalities and short on facts. NASA, NIST, BEST etc all say that its warming. You try to frame this bullshit as if we are claiming that the temperature is not going up. You accuse people of trying to frame the debate and then try and fixate completely on a specific locality and once again refuse to talk in anything other than generalities. Similar to the mailer that you quoted a couple of days ago.

How about you answer the question though its quite specific: where did you get the compilation of the news reports because it reads very much like a Guardian mailer. I equated that to Darrin because him quoting said mailers and then not attributing then to the source is something he does. That is a very specific behavior and not a general association.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other articles on the main page of Darrin's blog:

Obama and the End of American Exceptionalism

Ten Indications That Obama Is Scared

Socialism without Guns

Strangling American Capitalism with the Zuckerberg Tax

Infanticide on Demand

That last one is awesome as it of course evokes Nazis.

[DarrinS]

You need to learn what association implies. The association that i made was on the basis of behavior ie you do the same actions he does not that you are him or that you hang out with him.

And as i have pointed out, you are long on generalities and short on facts. NASA, NIST, BEST etc all say that its warming. You try to frame this bullshit as if we are claiming that the temperature is not going up. You accuse people of trying to frame the debate and then try and fixate completely on a specific locality and once again refuse to talk in anything other than generalities. Similar to the mailer that you quoted a couple of days ago.

How about you answer the question though its quite specific: where did you get the compilation of the news reports because it reads very much like a Guardian mailer. I equated that to Darrin because him quoting said mailers and then not attributing then to the source is something he does. That is a very specific behavior and not a general association.



Where do you get your information? Lol "mailers".


Yes, the surface temp (as measured by land stations) does show a small increase. The stations are not well distributed and are mostly in the US and Western Europe. If those stations represent the entire globe (land is only 30% of the Earth), then I suppose the entire globe has warmed.

[DarrinS]

Other articles on the main page of Darrin's blog:

Obama and the End of American Exceptionalism

Ten Indications That Obama Is Scared

Socialism without Guns

Strangling American Capitalism with the Zuckerberg Tax

Infanticide on Demand

That last one is awesome as it of course evokes Nazis.


None of those articles are written by Fred Singer. You fail -- again.


http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where do you get your information? Lol "mailers".


Yes, the surface temp (as measured by land stations) does show a small increase. The stations are not well distributed and are mostly in the US and Western Europe. If those stations represent the entire globe (land is only 30% of the Earth), then I suppose the entire globe has warmed.

BEST wrote a nice refutation to that old denier schtick where they quantified your assertions and found the claim unfounded but by all means repeat it. Additionally the BEST data was not only from those stations as you damn well know and yes mailers ie those things the Guardian sends you and you are kind enough to quote and 'borrow' from yet often fail to link.

an example would be the one that you got and quoted a graph from claiming was from BEST when in fact it was numbers compiled using unknown methods from the Guardian but you claimed came from BEST anyway.

You refused to link the source and kept on repeating that it was from BEST until someone else linked the mailer and you just went away.

its pretty obvious that you get your 'science' from places like the American Thinker who is a blatant political blog and oil and mining interests ie Heritage, Koch and the Guardian. Your a fucking tool and a lying one to boot.

Bravo!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

None of those articles are written by Fred Singer. You fail -- again.


http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/

I cited the type of material your blog also puts out so people can have context. If they want context on that guy then why didn't you link his works too:

Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
Obama Skins the Cat
The Heartland Institute Flap
Hormuz Hysteria
Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
Durban Climate Conference: The Dream Fades
Why BEST Will Not Settle the Climate Debate
Cain's Valuable 9-9-9 Plan
EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding is Endangered
A World Food Crisis?
Science and Smear Merchants

Yeah he seems like a really objective source doesn't he?

You call me fail. I call you a deceptive piece of shit.

[boutons_deux]

Arctic Death Spiral Continues: Thick, Multi-Year Sea Ice Melting Faster, NASA Study Finds

“The average thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover is declining because it is rapidly losing its thick component, the multi-year ice. At the same time, the surface temperature in the Arctic is going up, which results in a shorter ice-forming season,”

http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/1980.jpg?w=468&h=263

http://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012.jpg?w=468&h=263

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/01/435318/the-arctic-death-spiral-continues-thick-multi-year-sea-ice-melting-faster/

[DarrinS]

I cited the type of material your blog also puts out so people can have context. If they want context on that guy then why didn't you link his works too:

Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
Obama Skins the Cat
The Heartland Institute Flap
Hormuz Hysteria
Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
Durban Climate Conference: The Dream Fades
Why BEST Will Not Settle the Climate Debate
Cain's Valuable 9-9-9 Plan
EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding is Endangered
A World Food Crisis?
Science and Smear Merchants

Yeah he seems like a really objective source doesn't he?

You call me fail. I call you a deceptive piece of shit.



I posted a link, you stupid fuck.

"Yeah he seems like a really objective source doesn't he?"

Would he be objective if he agreed with the IPCC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I posted a link, you stupid fuck.

"Yeah he seems like a really objective source doesn't he?"

Would he be objective if he agreed with the IPCC?

That has nothing to do with it. The point is that with his Obama jab and the obvious political rightwing rhetoric of the rest of his fellow bloggers its obvious where he comes from. He is a political commentator and not anything science related.

By linking his actual blog titles I demonstrated clearly that Flinger is obviously the same shit as the rest of the blog. WUWWT, Guardian, American Thinker, Guardian, Heritage et al is where you get your ideology from.

You know its fucked up and frowned upon so you try obfuscation rather then get ridiculed. Your methods are now transparent just as my methods of an off the cuff adversarial asshole are transparent.

Deal with it.

[DarrinS]

BEST wrote a nice refutation to that old denier schtick where they quantified your assertions and found the claim unfounded but by all means repeat it. Additionally the BEST data was not only from those stations as you damn well know and yes mailers ie those things the Guardian sends you and you are kind enough to quote and 'borrow' from yet often fail to link.

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#about




It appears that Berkeley Earth's analysis shows a temperature rise greater than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?

Berkeley Earth has not yet begun to analyze ocean temperatures (we hope to do this in the next year), so the plotted data is land only. Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.

...




They also don't include satellite data.

[DarrinS]

You refused to link the source and kept on repeating that it was from BEST until someone else linked the mailer and you just went away.

its pretty obvious that you get your 'science' from places like the American Thinker who is a blatant political blog and oil and mining interests ie Heritage, Koch and the Guardian. Your a fucking tool and a lying one to boot.

Bravo!


http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

[DarrinS]

That has nothing to do with it. The point is that with his Obama jab and the obvious political rightwing rhetoric of the rest of his fellow bloggers its obvious where he comes from. He is a political commentator and not anything science related.

By linking his actual blog titles I demonstrated clearly that Flinger is obviously the same shit as the rest of the blog. WUWWT, Guardian, American Thinker, Guardian, Heritage et al is where you get your ideology from.

You know its fucked up and frowned upon so you try obfuscation rather then get ridiculed. Your methods are now transparent just as my methods of an off the cuff adversarial asshole are transparent.

Deal with it.




As opposed to the VERY objective, and non-partisan, non-activist, James Hansen


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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/NASA_Scientist_James_Hansen_Arrested.jpg/400px-NASA_Scientist_James_Hansen_Arrested.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#about




They also don't include satellite data.

You conveniently left out the rest of the FAQ bullet point that went right to the heart of your assertion that initially had me bring up BEST:


We started with the land data for several reasons:

It is the data that is most greatly affected by the most contentious issues: data selection bias, urban heat island, and station integrity issues. These are major concerns that we wanted to address.
The temperature rise on land is greater than in the oceans, greatly due to the oceans distribution of heat over the mixed layer thereby reducing the temperature rise. Because land keeps the heat mostly on the surface, the land temperature is actually more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is the world temperature.
With 1.6 billion measurements, culling land temperature data was a major effort. It made sense to divide the project into two stages.

And address them they did. Noone questions the ocean surface temperatures its only dipshits like WC that claim that the ehat is coming from the deep ocean and not from the sun.

OTOH, you did not address their rebuttal but instead simply restated the original refutation. Its always the same shit from you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As opposed to the VERY objective, and non-partisan, non-activist, James Hansen


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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/NASA_Scientist_James_Hansen_Arrested.jpg/400px-NASA_Scientist_James_Hansen_Arrested.jpg

You should have included an Al Gore pic too. Same shit different day.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

Yeah remember when it was big news because of what BEST eventually concluded. Shall we look at the material from the rest of what they sponsor or you just going to try and frame it more like this?

You don't even want to discuss science and Im bored. Later, liar.

[DarrinS]

You conveniently left out the rest of the FAQ bullet point that went right to the heart of your assertion that initially had me bring up BEST:


I was the first person to bring up BEST in this entire thread. I like what they are doing, but they have only used LAND DATA to date. You fail -- again.

[DarrinS]

Yeah remember when it was big news because of what BEST eventually concluded. Shall we look at the material from the rest of what they sponsor or you just going to try and frame it more like this?

You don't even want to discuss science and Im bored. Later, liar.


Later self-pwnage.

[MannyIsGod]

I was the first person to bring up BEST in this entire thread. I like what they are doing, but they have only used LAND DATA to date. You fail -- again.

Do you know what BEST stands for?

[GSH]

Find me the place in the IPCC reports where it said those reservoirs would be dry at this time. Thanks.

PS When you're done with that tell us all again how adiabatic processes don't work in saturated air. :lmao x 30498349038


Again, typical of you religious zealots. Re-write what someone says, and then tell them it's wrong.

You wanted to pretend that a huge mass of extra-warm (because of AGW), saturated air being pushed up the Himalayas would not cause additional snow melt. And the reason, you said, was because of adiabatic cooling. As if the magic of adiabatic cooling could account for all that localized heat. That's absolutely juvenile.

Of course adiabatic cooling works in saturated air. But you siezed on adiabatic cooling because there is no heat transfer. I think you're smart enough to know that it can't account for everything that would happen in the scenario you described - especially with fully saturated air. You just didn't expect anyone to call you on it.

I never said the process doesn't work... did I? Just that you trying to use that to explain the "disappearance" of all that heat was ridiculously stupid. And I don't think you're stupid - just disingenuous.

So instead, you also chose the logical fallacy route, just like FuzzyLump. (Who could have guessed.) You created a straw man, and proceeded to knock it down. But it's your own argument you knocked down, not mine. I laughed at your use of "adiabatic process" like it's some kind of magic that makes all the heat in the world just disappear. You want to use warming when it suits you, and disregard it when it's inconvenient. Just like all the other religious zealots.

[DarrinS]

Do you know what BEST stands for?

Yes. Are oceans part of the Earth's surface?

[Wild Cobra]

An I the only skeptic here?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, typical of you religious zealots. Re-write what someone says, and then tell them it's wrong.

You wanted to pretend that a huge mass of extra-warm (because of AGW), saturated air being pushed up the Himalayas would not cause additional snow melt. And the reason, you said, was because of adiabatic cooling. As if the magic of adiabatic cooling could account for all that localized heat. That's absolutely juvenile.

Of course adiabatic cooling works in saturated air. But you siezed on adiabatic cooling because there is no heat transfer. I think you're smart enough to know that it can't account for everything that would happen in the scenario you described - especially with fully saturated air. You just didn't expect anyone to call you on it.

I never said the process doesn't work... did I? Just that you trying to use that to explain the "disappearance" of all that heat was ridiculously stupid. And I don't think you're stupid - just disingenuous.

So instead, you also chose the logical fallacy route, just like FuzzyLump. (Who could have guessed.) You created a straw man, and proceeded to knock it down. But it's your own argument you knocked down, not mine. I laughed at your use of "adiabatic process" like it's some kind of magic that makes all the heat in the world just disappear. You want to use warming when it suits you, and disregard it when it's inconvenient. Just like all the other religious zealots.

What logical fallacy am i culpable of and be very specific. If you think its the fallacy of association you need to look it up and reread my rebuttal or at the very least attempt to address it some way. If its not then you need to reread your little diatribe here about repeating oneself mindlessly.

Further, are you going to just leave the adiabatic cooling process argument to a blanket generalization and then dismissal? Why cannot the reduction of air pressure as air rises account for lowered temperatures? At a certain height it will freeze. How do HVAC work?

If anything you should prove that the amount of warming is so much that despite the lowering pressures at higher altitudes will not freeze all the way to the top of the mountains. He showed work demonstrated that it still freezes over the top. Your response is a blanket dismissal and ad hominem in the form of 'juvenile.'

You should also look up strawmen arguments while you are at it. I fail to see how his response to your 'look its snowing in the Himalayans global warming is a lie' argument with a discussion of what happens to air as it rises in response to encountering fucking mountains is a strawman.

And I want to take an extra special moment to tell you to go fuck yourself because you sat there and chastised us about trying to frame the debate in a certain way and look at you now: you're still trying to make this all about the Himalayas.

So heres an extra special fuck you, dickhead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you know what BEST stands for?

I don't see what difference it makes. I actually pored through the BEST data when he was lying about the source of the chart so I am familiar with it. I at no point used BEST as a source claiming that the oceans were warming. i just talked about it to bring up an example of how he is a lying piece of shit.

This IS a strawman.

Now I did cite his Royal Society Paper which did say that the oceans warming the exterior of anatarctica were responsible for the retreat of the shelves on the exterior. This is interesting because it also talked about how the lower temperature at certain latitudinal gradients still precipitated snowfall on the interior.

This is interesting in the sense that over certain altitude or pressure gradients snow still precipitates in the Himalayans just as it always has and that coupled with the higher energy at lower altitudes picking up more water means that more snow past those gradients.

[MannyIsGod]

Again, typical of you religious zealots. Re-write what someone says, and then tell them it's wrong.

You wanted to pretend that a huge mass of extra-warm (because of AGW), saturated air being pushed up the Himalayas would not cause additional snow melt. And the reason, you said, was because of adiabatic cooling. As if the magic of adiabatic cooling could account for all that localized heat. That's absolutely juvenile.

Of course adiabatic cooling works in saturated air. But you siezed on adiabatic cooling because there is no heat transfer. I think you're smart enough to know that it can't account for everything that would happen in the scenario you described - especially with fully saturated air. You just didn't expect anyone to call you on it.

I never said the process doesn't work... did I? Just that you trying to use that to explain the "disappearance" of all that heat was ridiculously stupid. And I don't think you're stupid - just disingenuous.

So instead, you also chose the logical fallacy route, just like FuzzyLump. (Who could have guessed.) You created a straw man, and proceeded to knock it down. But it's your own argument you knocked down, not mine. I laughed at your use of "adiabatic process" like it's some kind of magic that makes all the heat in the world just disappear. You want to use warming when it suits you, and disregard it when it's inconvenient. Just like all the other religious zealots.


:lol

I "seized" at that process because thats the process at work. Keep digging your hole deeper. I enjoy it quite a bit.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't see what difference it makes. I actually pored through the BEST data when he was lying about the source of the chart so I am familiar with it. I at no point used BEST as a source claiming that the oceans were warming. i just talked about it to bring up an example of how he is a lying piece of shit.

This IS a strawman.

Now I did cite his Royal Society Paper which did say that the oceans warming the exterior of anatarctica were responsible for the retreat of the shelves on the exterior. This is interesting because it also talked about how the lower temperature at certain latitudinal gradients still precipitated snowfall on the interior.

This is interesting in the sense that over certain altitude or pressure gradients snow still precipitates in the Himalayans just as it always has and that coupled with the higher energy at lower altitudes picking up more water means that more snow past those gradients.

Well the BEST study was meant to just reconstruct surface station temperature records so he's absolutely using it as a straw man. Satellite observations completely show the trend is the same and he's well aware of that.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes. Are oceans part of the Earth's surface?

Earth is obviously meant to impart land. I would think that would be obvious in this situation.

You're more than welcome to disregard BEST and go off of satellite observations, however. They show the same thing.

[DarrinS]

Earth is obviously meant to impart land. I would think that would be obvious in this situation.

You're more than welcome to disregard BEST and go off of satellite observations, however. They show the same thing.


Earth is 70% ocean.

Why is BEST planning to incorporate ocean data in future analyses?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Earth is 70% ocean.

Why is BEST planning to incorporate ocean data in future analyses?

Still going with the strawman I see. I still fail to see what BEST not having compiled the ocean data available has to do with you lying about where you got the Guardian mailer chart from.

Might as well bring up Hansen again while your at it.

[DarrinS]

Still going with the strawman I see.

You can tell BEST to cancel their use of ocean data.




I still fail to see what BEST not having compiled the ocean data available has to do with you lying about where you got the Guardian mailer chart from.



WTF are you talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can tell BEST to cancel their use of ocean data.





WTF are you talking about?

For the first where do i attribute BEST to ocean figures. As for the latter when I get home i will dig it up out of this thread. We both know what I am talking about either that or your memory is shit. It basically went like this:

Me: where did you get the chart from.
you: BEST
Me: Can you link it for me?
you: BEST.org
me: I am poring over this data and I am finding it nowhere. is it in a particular study or dataset.
you: what you want me to do your work for you?
WC: This is the link to the mailer Darrin got it from: guardian.uk.co/linktoshittymailer

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg


Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.

Here is NASA's

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Here is the explanation of their methodology.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/


The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F


You gave unlinked charts, dickhead. The only stupidity was that.

Now that i know the source I feel that more explanation is in order. Which study is that chart from? The reason is clear as for example http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf this study only analyzes urban surfaces and not the aggregate. Note how the GIS chart clearly labels land/ocean.

You gave us some random chart, dickhead. What do the temperature points actually reflect?


You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.


Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.


Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?


What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?


Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.

HERE (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf) is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.

If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.

We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.

Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?


Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html)

[DarrinS]

Another fail from FuzzyDouchebag

Data from both graphs is from BEST. They are different time scales and the first graph stops near year 2000.

[DarrinS]

But you sure showed me. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another fail from FuzzyDouchebag

Data from both graphs is from BEST. They are different time scales and the first graph stops near year 2000.

No actually if you look at the link at the bottom the graphs data was compiled by the Global Warming Policy Foundation using BEST's dataset. That is not remotely the same thing.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is funded by the coal mining lobby. Its a sad day when WC shows more integrity that you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From that link describing the second graph:


But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

[RandomGuy]

But you sure showed me. :lmao

BEST used several datasets.

the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" has a very definite narrative, and didn't really specificy which data set they used or how they arrived at their second graph.

Good critical thinking would lead one to ask if the dataset was cherry-picked.

Cherry picking data is one of the things that people with agendas tend to do.

The links you tend to provide do this rather regularly.

Given this track record, I think a bit of skepticism of your chosen sources is fair.

Don't get all whiny about it. That is the consequences of being a hack. Suck it up.

(edit)

If you don't know how the graph was arrived at, you should ask yourself why the Global Warming Policy Foundation wasn't forthcoming or transparent in presenting their methodology.

I am not going to hold my breath waiting though. I doubt you looked even if such information was presented. I ain't lookin' for it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BEST used several datasets.

the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" has a very definite narrative, and didn't really specificy which data set they used or how they arrived at their second graph.

Good critical thinking would lead one to ask if the dataset was cherry-picked.

Cherry picking data is one of the things that people with agendas tend to do.

The links you tend to provide do this rather regularly.

Given this track record, I think a bit of skepticism of your chosen sources is fair.

Don't get all whiny about it. That is the consequences of being a hack. Suck it up.

thats the whole point of him trying to keep saying it was from BEST. look at the dates. he probably still had the link in his inbox to tell him about GWPF's new stuff.

[Wild Cobra]

Check it out yourself.

Berkeley Earth releases new version of the BEST dataset; February 17, 2012 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/berkeley-earth-releases-new-version-of-the-best-dataset/)

The above site links to BEST which in turn has links of their data sets.

[DarrinS]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.
No Darrin. They have their panties in a wad, so it's something to them. The evidence simply shows what they wish not to believe.

[boutons_deux]

Current Rate of Ocean Acidification Worst in 300 Million Years

We first wrote about this issue in early 2007, and this section, which quoted Stormy from Angry Bear, will help bring readers up to speed:

….there are side effects to our love affair with CO2 that are not often mentioned. In fact, whether the earth cools or warms is absolutely irrelevant to these effects. I repeat: Absolutely irrelevant.

One of the most startling effects is the acidification of the oceans. Since 1750, the oceans have become increasingly acidic. In the oceans, CO2 forms carbonic acid, a serious threat to the base of the food chain, especially on shellfish of all sizes. Carbonic acid dissolves calcium carbonate, an essential component of any life form with an exoskeleton. In short, all life forms with an exoskeleton are threatened: shell fish, an important part of the food chain for many fish; coral reefs, the habitat of many species of fish….

The formation of carbonic acid does not depend upon temperature. Whether the oceans warm or cool is irrelevant. Of concern only is the amount of CO2 that enters the oceans.

Consider the scope of the paper in Science, per a very good discussion in ars technica:

A new paper in Science examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification…The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification…They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/03/current-rate-of-ocean-acidification-worst-in-300-million-years.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[boutons_deux]

Economist William Nordhaus Slams Global Warming Deniers, Explains Cost of Delay is $4 Trillion

http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/william%20norhaus.JPG

Yale economist William Nordhaus has eviscerated the 16 scientists who wrote a disinformation-filled Wall Street Journal piece in late January. Yes, three dozen climatologists already debunked the posers (see “Dentists Practicing Cardiology”), as did I.

But Nordhaus’s blunt piece — “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong” – is worth reading because he is no climate hawk. You may recall his October article that found “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.” It use an uber-low, uber-lame, uber-outdated “price” for CO2:

We use the social cost of carbon for the year 2000. This cost will rise over time as greenhouse gases accumulate and marginal damages increase. We assume that the central estimate of the social cost of carbon is $27 per ton of carbon (Nordhaus 2008b).

The actual social cost of carbon today is at least 5 times that price and more than 10 times that in the near future (or now, see here). The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted back in 2008 that just to stabilize at 550 ppm (roughly 3°C or 5.4F warming), which would likely still be catastrophic for humanity, you’d need a price of “$90/tonne of CO2 in 2030,” which is to say $330 a metric ton of carbon. You need a 2030 CO2 price of “$180/tonne in the 450 Policy Scenario” — $660 a metric ton of carbon.

So when a guy like Nordhaus slams disinformers hard, that’s a big deal. Let me excerpt his key rebuttals and then his economic analysis:

The first claim is that the planet is not warming…. The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by the models…. In reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”
The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.”… In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.
The fourth contention by the sixteen scientists is that skeptical climate scientists are living under a reign of terror about their professional and personal livelihoods…. The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting from the clamor about climate change…. One of the worrisome features of the distortion of climate science is that the stakes are huge here—even larger than the economic stakes for keeping the cigarette industry alive. Tobacco sales in the United States today are under $100 billion. By contrast, expenditures on all energy goods and services are close to $1,000 billion. Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses. Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

Its pretty obvious what they did. They didn't adjust the signal for random noise and then cherry picked a certain segment. Thats why you see so many data points however when you go into what BEST actually does when looking for trends they do a bounded convolution sum. BEST does a good job of showing the sigmas in their data and the evolution of the graphs from the raw data with all the noise to one year averages, three year averages etc.

They then use their own statistically justified normalization. What GWPF most likely did is take raw data for individual data points, showed the noise and then tried to call it a day. Nothing to see here its getting cold in january global warming is a lie.

The point is that the GWPF who made the graph is not BEST and when asked what the context and where the graph came from you said it was BEST.

When someone wants to find that graph they go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

and not

http://berkeleyearth.org/

That you see no problem with trying to mislead people like that may not be surprising but it demonstrates quite clearly what kind of person that you are: a deceptive one.

[MannyIsGod]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

I can put together a graph of data points of a single day and put it up against a graph of a longer time frame and show whatever I want. The graph of the decade is meaningless on its own in a climate context. When used in that manner, its either an obvious tool for deception or one made out of complete ignorance.

Either way, it really doesn't do your case any good.

[DarrinS]

Its pretty obvious what they did. They didn't adjust the signal for random noise and then cherry picked a certain segment. Thats why you see so many data points however when you go into what BEST actually does when looking for trends they do a bounded convolution sum. BEST does a good job of showing the sigmas in their data and the evolution of the graphs from the raw data with all the noise to one year averages, three year averages etc.

They then use their own statistically justified normalization. What GWPF most likely did is take raw data for individual data points, showed the noise and then tried to call it a day. Nothing to see here its getting cold in january global warming is a lie.

The point is that the GWPF who made the graph is not BEST and when asked what the context and where the graph came from you said it was BEST.

When someone wants to find that graph they go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

and not

http://berkeleyearth.org/

That you see no problem with trying to mislead people like that may not be surprising but it demonstrates quite clearly what kind of person that you are: a deceptive one.


So much hot air -- so little said.

[DarrinS]

I can put together a graph of data points of a single day and put it up against a graph of a longer time frame and show whatever I want. The graph of the decade is meaningless on its own in a climate context.


Like I said, you can debate about whether a decade is meaningful.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not really. A decade is fairly meaningless in context.

[TeyshaBlue]

Even I can grok that.

[TeyshaBlue]

So much hot air -- so little said.

So much said -- so little comprehension.

:facepalm.

[MannyIsGod]

Like I said, you can debate about whether a decade is meaningful.

You can debate whether a stove is hot too. Or if water is wet. Or whether or not you're a good poster.

See the trend?

[DarrinS]

You can debate whether a stove is hot too. Or if water is wet. Or whether or not you're a good poster.

See the trend?


When all else fails, take the low road paved by boutons and FuzzyLumpturd.

[MannyIsGod]

Im sorry youre angry the low standard you maintain upsets you darrin. Ive practically begged you for a bit of introspection. You shouldnt expect more out of others than you expect out of yourself.

[DarrinS]

Im sorry youre angry the low standard you maintain upsets you darrin. Ive practically begged you for a bit of introspection. You shouldnt expect more out of others than you expect out of yourself.


You're hurling insults and I'M the one who's angry? Mmmkay.

[DarrinS]

Historical Station Distribution

See any potential issues?

6J-LDAA_HBE

[Wild Cobra]

Historical Station Distribution

See any potential issues?

6J-LDAA_HBE
Darrin, are you crazy?

These people can't see outside their own little box. How do you expect them to comprehend that?

[MannyIsGod]

You're hurling insults and I'M the one who's angry? Mmmkay.


When all else fails, take the low road paved by boutons and FuzzyLumpturd.

lol?

Do you even realize what you post?

[MannyIsGod]

Historical Station Distribution

See any potential issues?

6J-LDAA_HBE

Satellites.

[Wild Cobra]

Satellites.
LOL...

Not comparable to actual physical reading. You do understand that, right?

[DarrinS]

Satellites.

??

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So much hot air -- so little said.

Yeah because talking about how the statistics are normalized compared to what is presented by the mining lobby says nothing. Talking about how taking random noise from a small sample is meaningless when looking for trends.

In your world blanket dismissals is more compelling than actually looking at what is being done. You behave like a shill.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Historical Station Distribution

See any potential issues?

6J-LDAA_HBE

So one side of your brain makes this argument and the other side of your brain claims to appreciate what BEST has done.

I present:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-station-quality.pdf

I will just cut to the chase:


Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the
contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we
conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates
of land surface average monthly temperature trends. No similar study is possible for
the rest of the world because we do not have indicators of good/bad station quality;
however, the lack of a significant difference in US stations suggests that such effects
may be minimal.

You really do not appreciate what they are doing. You just give it lip service and then try in action to discredit their findings. As I say, you behave like a shill.

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously, the oceans are the source of the CO2 because they are like a soda.

/WC

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oceans-acidic-shift-may-be-fastest

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously, the oceans are the source of the CO2 because they are like a soda.

/WC

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oceans-acidic-shift-may-be-fastest
How can you expect anyone to take you serious with such nonsense?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can you expect anyone to take you serious with such nonsense?

You did equate the ocean to a fizzing soda or are you really trying to denigrate SciAm?

[Wild Cobra]

You did equate the ocean to a fizzing soda or are you really trying to denigrate SciAm?
Not the way you guys are making it sound asshole. Temperature and solubility apply the same way, just to a lesser degree in the oceans than in a soda, beer, champagne, etc. I only used an example that those unfamiliar with the sciences can relate to. Your wanting to use it as a tool against me is a joke. It proves you cannot discuss this by merit when you resort to such tactics.

Go ahead. Keep digging yourself a deeper whole by purposely misunderstanding. And if you Aren't purposely misunderstanding, then I pity you.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Ocean Ph going up because its a soda and is releasing CO2

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Ocean Ph going up because its a soda and is releasing CO2
You are just too stupid to argue on the facts, aren't you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not the way you guys are making it sound asshole. Temperature and solubility apply the same way, just to a lesser degree in the oceans than in a soda, beer, champagne, etc. I only used an example that those unfamiliar with the sciences can relate to. Your wanting to use it as a tool against me is a joke. It proves you cannot discuss this by merit when you resort to such tactics.

Go ahead. Keep digging yourself a deeper whole by purposely misunderstanding. And if you Aren't purposely misunderstanding, then I pity you.

Oh I understand the science, chachi. I just asked you a question which you were claiming. You did say the ocean was a big soda. i never asked anything like, 'So is the surf like the fizz?' or similar.

The only problem with your theory is the oceans ph is going down and not up and you do not even attempt to quantify it. CO2 dissociates carbonates and leaves a net ph decrease. You need more CO2 dissolved to lower the ph. The oceans ph is going down. Your theory falls apart really easily.

It did when you were arguing it years ago too. Its things like this that make people say you are dumb. We have talked about these various things over the years and you bring up the introductory arguments again like thos e preceding discussions never happened. People just ridicule you because either you are intentionally ignoring what was said which is not very nice or you are unable to recall with your mental faculties what was said so you just start over.

You could change your tactics or you can continue to be made fun of.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh I understand the science, chachi. I just asked you a question which you were claiming. You did say the ocean was a big soda. i never asked anything like, 'So is the surf like the fizz?' or similar.

The only problem with your theory is the oceans ph is going down and not up and you do not even attempt to quantify it. CO2 dissociates carbonates and leaves a net ph decrease. You need more CO2 dissolved to lower the ph. The oceans ph is going down. Your theory falls apart really easily.

It did when you were arguing it years ago too. Its things like this that make people say you are dumb. We have talked about these various things over the years and you bring up the introductory arguments again like thos e preceding discussions never happened. People just ridicule you because either you are intentionally ignoring what was said which is not very nice or you are unable to recall with your mental faculties what was said so you just start over.

You could change your tactics or you can continue to be made fun of.
There are more factors involved, including time and the oceans circulation. The equilibrium of the carbon and calcium combinations change with temperature and pH independently as well. You cannot show cause an effect without accounting for all variables.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are more factors involved, including time and the oceans circulation. The equilibrium of the carbon and calcium combinations change with temperature and pH independently as well. You cannot show cause an effect without accounting for all variables.

Oh but you can make the claim that the ocean is a soda and releasing net CO2 but its becoming more acidic anyway because of calcium? Calcium is an antacid which is not the same as a base. You just parrot the same shit that you have read elsewhere without fully understanding it once again.

[Wild Cobra]

How little you understand.


Oh but you can make the claim that the ocean is a soda and releasing net CO2 but its becoming more acidic anyway because of calcium?
That is not my claim, you have spun it to being absolutely wrong from my point. This is one reason I often ignore you.

Calcium is an antacid which is not the same as a base.
No Shit Sherlock.

You just parrot the same shit that you have read elsewhere without fully understanding it once again.

There you go again, assuming, and incorrectly.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This new tactic of him trying to be mysterious is kind of funny if it were not for all the stupid shit that led up to it. His perception of the oceans chemical composition is just so beyond the likes of you and I.

[Wild Cobra]

This new tactic of him trying to be mysterious is kind of funny if it were not for all the stupid shit that led up to it. His perception of the oceans chemical composition is just so beyond the likes of you and I.
Nothing new. You simply keep insisting I say things I didn't. You keep reinterpreting my words incorrectly. I never said the ocean is a net source of CO2. It is a net sink. How can I debate someone as dishonest as you are?

I keep wondering, just how stupid are you to continually do this. Why do you fail to understand my points after I clarify them.

[Agloco]

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/64500/George-Clooney-Eating-Popcorn-at-Movies--64616.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Peanuts... Popcorn...

[Agloco]

I don't see peanuts tbh; though at this point they would probably add a lot of value to this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see peanuts tbh; though at this point they would probably add a lot of value to this thread.
Well, I figure since you are part of the peanut gallery lately... Afterall, you didn't add any substance. Are you capable of Global Warming topics?

[MannyIsGod]

We're all just here to bask in your glory, WC.

[DarrinS]

Three stooges ganging up on WC. Impressive.


Another article on Fakegate

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/climate-experts-pants-on-fire





Climate expert’s pants on fire
Lorrie Goldstein
Saturday, March 03, 2012, 8:00 PM

Question: If a world-famous climate scientist lied to obtain documents fraudulently, would he lie about other things? Like his research?

It’s a reasonable question to ask in light of the ongoing controversy over the recent public confession of prominent U.S. climate scientist and water expert Peter Gleick.

Gleick is now on temporary leave from the presidency of California’s Pacific Institute, which he co-founded, after admitting he lied about his identity in order to obtain internal documents from the climate skeptical Heartland Institute (Gleick calls them climate deniers) based in Chicago.

He’s also resigned, somewhat ironically, from the chairmanship of the American Geophysical Union’s task force on scientific ethics.

Gleick said he posed as a member of the Heartland board of directors to obtain the documents and expose what he described as its campaign to falsely discredit climate science.

Gleick apologized for what he called “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”

But he’s also defended his actions by arguing he was driven to them by well-funded, co-ordinated and often anonymous attacks on climate science. He’s also thanked supporters in the ensuing controversy for their support, so his apology is a qualified one.

To be fair, Gleik’s never been accused of misrepresenting his scientific research, as far as I can determine.

But as any lawyer will tell you, once a witness is caught in a lie on the stand, all of his testimony becomes suspect, not just that directly related to the lie.
That’s the thing about ethics. People tend to believe you either have them, or you don’t.

Knowing the serious issues Gleick’s conduct raises about the integrity of climate science, his defenders have been trying to change the subject from what he did, to Heartland’s conduct.

Thus the same people who insisted in Climategate that information obtained from climate scientists via stolen emails should not be subject to public scrutiny, have now done a 180-degree turn to demand Heartland explain the documents Gleick obtained through his deception.

Problem is, they really aren’t that big a deal, or all that surprising, and the people who tend to obsess the most about Heartland are climate scientists to begin with.

For example, the financial statements Gleick obtained show Heartland — often accused of being a nefarious, powerful front group for super-rich, mega-corporations related to the fossil fuel industry — had revenues of $4.6 million last year.

That’s chump change compared to what many environmental organizations raise annually.

Besides, anyone familiar with this issue knows that while fossil fuel companies have funded climate sceptics, the millions of dollars they’ve spent pale in comparison to the billions earmarked by governments to the public and private sectors for climate change research and, supposedly, ameliorating its effects.
(See Premier Dalton McGuinty’s ongoing green energy financial disaster in Ontario, as recently documented by the province’s auditor general.)
Indeed, the big money in climate science has never been in scepticism, but in orthodoxy.

Gleick’s other big “find”, according to Heartland’s critics, was a plan to infiltrate public schools with educational programs promoting climate denial.
But for heaven’s sake, if Al Gore and his minions are going to be welcomed into schools to scare the bejeebers out of children on climate change, what’s the big deal about Heartland sending in a few troops to say Gore’s full of hooey?

Of course, it would be better to allow neither side in and instead teach young people to think critically, so they can decide these issues for themselves.
Gleick said he started his campaign of subterfuge because someone anonymously sent him a two-page strategy document from Heartland that worried him and prompted him to want to expose the organization.
Heartland says that document was a forgery, probably created by Gleick, which Gleick denies.

Of course, once you’ve told one lie …

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nothing new. You simply keep insisting I say things I didn't. You keep reinterpreting my words incorrectly. I never said the ocean is a net source of CO2. It is a net sink. How can I debate someone as dishonest as you are?

I keep wondering, just how stupid are you to continually do this. Why do you fail to understand my points after I clarify them.

Uh-huh, so clarify then how the ocean is like a big soda going flat which is what you said and it at the same time be a net sink? Remember your bullshit about CO2 not driving warming but rather warming driving CO2?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Three stooges ganging up on WC. Impressive.


Another article on Fakegate

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/climate-experts-pants-on-fire

Well at least you linked a major publication and not the mouthpiece for a energy lobby even if it is just an editorial.

I would rather be told what to think about rather than what to think.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh-huh, so clarify then how the ocean is like a big soda going flat which is what you said and it at the same time be a net sink? Remember your bullshit about CO2 not driving warming but rather warming driving CO2?
You really need an explanation to that? Think about how temperature and partial pressure changes solubility. Both have increased. If you can't think that one out, then I doubt you would understand anyway. Especially since you keep repeating my statements back incorrectly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You really need an explanation to that? Think about how temperature and partial pressure changes solubility. Both have increased. If you can't think that one out, then i doubt you would understand anyway.

i will ask again. explain how the ocean is like a giant soda going flat when the CO2 composition of it is increasing? Quit babbling about science you read from someone else that you obviously only partially understand and stick to the fucking point. i already understand what you are claiming as is I am just trying to point to the 400 lbs gorilla.

[Wild Cobra]

Three stooges ganging up on WC. Impressive.


Another article on Fakegate

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/climate-experts-pants-on-fire
Good article. Finally read it. Most these "trusted" climate science places have been caught in very questionable circumstance. I agree with treating them like a witness in court. All they say becomes suspect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good article. Finally read it. Most these "trusted" climate science places have been caught in very questionable circumstance. I agree with treating them like a witness in court. All they say becomes suspect.

So when witness lies then you treat all subsequent witnesses the same? Thats how you think perjury is handled huh?

[Wild Cobra]

i will ask again. explain how the ocean is like a giant soda going flat when the CO2 composition of it is increasing? Quit babbling about science you read from someone else that you obviously only partially understand and stick to the fucking point. i already understand what you are claiming as is I am just trying to point to the 400 lbs gorilla.
My God, are you really that dumb?


Since mankind has put more CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans have absorbed around half of it making the oceans a net sink. However, temperature increases of the ocean changed the equilibrium of solubility between the atmosphere and ocean. If the ocean temperature had remained unchanged, the ocean would have absorbed nearly all the CO2 mankind put in the atmosphere. If we never industrialized, or in some other way, never generated CO2 like we do, I say the atmosphere would have sill more CO2. It is only under these conditions I claimed the ocean would be (not is) a net source of CO2, because as water warms, it holds less dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, etc.

Can't you figure that out yourself?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God, are you really that dumb?


Since mankind has put more CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans have absorbed around half of it making the oceans a net sink. However, temperature increases of the ocean changed the equilibrium of solubility between the atmosphere and ocean. If the ocean temperature had remained unchanged, the ocean would have absorbed nearly all the CO2 mankind put in the atmosphere. If we never industrialized, or in some other way, never generated CO2 like we do, I say the atmosphere would have sill more CO2. It is only under these conditions I claimed the ocean would be (not is) a net source of CO2, because as water warms, it holds less dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, etc.

Can't you figure that out yourself?

So then you admit that warming does not drive CO2 and that the unlike a Coke going flat the net CO2 content of the ocean is going up?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

AND YET, its holding MORE and will CONTINUE to hold more even as it warms.

SMH.

[Wild Cobra]

So then you admit that warming does not drive CO2 and that the unlike a Coke going flat the net CO2 content of the ocean is going up?
I knew you would not understand.

No, that is not my claim. Ocean warming does drive CO2. That is an irrefutable fact. CO2 probably has some positive feedback to warming, but their are studies that shows it has a net cooling effect as well.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

AND YET, its holding MORE and will CONTINUE to hold more even as it warms.

SMH.
Do you understand equilibrium?

[MannyIsGod]

Lol!

[MannyIsGod]

I knew you would not understand.

No, that is not my claim. Ocean warming does drive CO2. That is an irrefutable fact. CO2 probably has some positive feedback to warming, but their are studies that shows it has a net cooling effect as well.



Lololololol

[Wild Cobra]

Lololololol
You haven't had anything valuable to add for a very long time. What say you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lololololol

I sometimes wonder if hes trolling but then i have seen him troll. i suspect he doesn't remember what he initially posted on the subject. what i really want to know is whether or not his girlfriend who is thinking of moving to Arizona even knows his name.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You haven't had anything valuable to add for a very long time. What say you?

lol like you have. Oceans as sodas and the thermosphere combusting to cause flooding for 40 days have been your major contributions.

[MannyIsGod]

The net sink is druving CO2. Lololololol

[Wild Cobra]

lol like you have. Oceans as sodas and the thermosphere combusting to cause flooding for 40 days have been your major contributions.
I used an unrelated example to explain to those not understanding science, an example of how temperature affects CO2 solubility, in a manner they have probably witnessed. Also... don't you know that chemical reactions can take place without combustion? I also never said it caused the 40 day flood, I started with something like "I wonder if there is some truth..."

Fuzzy... I'm getting tired of explaining these things to your dumb ass. You never learn.

[Wild Cobra]

The net sink is druving CO2. Lololololol
You also don't understand I see.

It is a net sing, but the net quantity of sinking is still less than the sourcing we have.

The temperature has changed the balance such that if the atmosphere wasn't already being supplied with more CO2, the ocean would supply it instead.

[MannyIsGod]

You also don't understand I see.

It is a net sing, but the net quantity of sinking is still less than the sourcing we have.

The temperature has changed the balance such that if the atmosphere wasn't already being supplied with more CO2, the ocean would supply it instead.



Lolol. Keep it coming please

[Wild Cobra]

Lolol. Keep it coming please
How about telling me why I'm wrong so I can smack you down.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I used an unrelated example to explain to those not understanding science, an example of how temperature affects CO2 solubility, in a manner they have probably witnessed. Also... don't you know that chemical reactions can take place without combustion? I also never said it caused the 40 day flood, I started with something like "I wonder if there is some truth..."

Fuzzy... I'm getting tired of explaining these things to your dumb ass. You never learn.

The act of dissolving is not a chemical change. Chemical changes involving oxidation are by definition combustion. Please tell me how I do not understand some more.

Basically what this should tell you is that despite the water being less soluble, more stuff is getting dissolved. That makes the rate of change more significant and not less.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you really that dense?

Man....

I pity you.


The act of dissolving is not a chemical change.
No shit Sherlock. You addressed more than one thing. I answered more than one thing.


Basically what this should tell you is that despite the water being less soluble, more stuff is getting dissolved. That makes the rate of change more significant and not less.

Yes.

The water at a slightly warmer temperature will dissolve a smaller ratio than at a colder temperature. however, with mankind adding CO2 to the air, the equilibrium is altered by this added source. Therefor, to achieve balance, the ocean absorbs more. However, it absorbs less than it would if it hadn't raised in temperature.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

---edit---

changed lower to warmer in the above text.

[MannyIsGod]

Absorbing less =! releasing CO2, soda boy. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Stick to changing out parts from a guide. You're really bad at all physics, it seems.

[MannyIsGod]

Or Chemistry for that matter.

[Agloco]

Well, I figure since you are part of the peanut gallery lately... Afterall, you didn't add any substance. Are you capable of Global Warming topics?

Touche.

You've pushed this beyond salvage tbh. I choose to observe in this thread....and point out when basic physical laws are misinterpreted.

Carry on.

[RandomGuy]

http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

BEST was funded in no small part by the Koch brothers.

That is one of the things that makes its statements satisfying the honest skepticism all the more credible, generally.

BEST debunked several of your favorite memes. Yet I noted that you repeated at least one of them (i.e. location of some monitoring stations materially altering entire data sets to the point of unreliability) that I can remember.

Why?

[RandomGuy]

Fuzzy and RG having fits over nothing. That graph was attempting to show that there has not been any warming in the last decade. You can debate whether or not that is meaningful, but it is not generally disputed that there has been no significant warming since 1998. If you can show that some nefarious coal mining group altered BEST's data, thats a different matter.

I don't think saying I am generally skeptical of the way you present things and what you tend to present qualifies as a "fit".

You are assuming the second part of the graph was an honest and accurate depiction of BEST data, and have stated that much here, almost explicitly.

I am not sure it is an honest depiction. Given your pattern of presenting sources who very obviously cherry-pick data, skepticism of your claims is the only logical response, until proven otherwise.

Can you show that is a honest depiction of the data? Reproducing the graph would suffice to say yes, or alternately, a blurb from the BEST report along those lines would work.

[RandomGuy]

Are you really thatb dense?

Man....

I pity you.

No shit Sherlock. You addressed more than one thing. I answered more than one thing.

Yes.

The water at a slightly lower temperature will dissolve a smaller ratio than at a colder temperature. however, with mankind adding CO2 to the air, the equilibrium is altered by this added source. Therefor, to achieve balance, the ocean absorbs more. However, it absorbs less than it would if it hadn't raised in temperature.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

um, okaaay.

How does this affect GW? (or not cause it, or whatever it is you are trying to imply, I honestly haven't been following along)

[RandomGuy]

The main difference [between intellectually honest skepticism, and dishonest pseudoscience] is that neither you, WC, nor Yonivore can, or will, similarly state what you think the strongest arguments of those proposing AGW are.


Try me. What argument?

Um...

What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?

I can't answer your question, 'cause I ain't in yer head. :p:

[101A]

FWIW.

I didn't have to shovel my driveway EVEN ONCE this entire winter.

Again, I'm no longer a denier of AGW. I'm a proponent.

[MannyIsGod]

You'll think twice if you read this:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL050762.shtml

[RandomGuy]

FWIW.

I didn't have to shovel my driveway EVEN ONCE this entire winter.

Again, I'm no longer a denier of AGW. I'm a proponent.

Fair enough. :lol

I seem to remember a poll about AGW and the belief in the theory seems to wax/wane with the temperature in the U.S.

Not reassuring.

[Wild Cobra]

Absorbing less =! releasing CO2, soda boy. :lol
Absorbing less as a ratio can be more when the total being equalized is greater.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Absorbing less as a ratio can be more when the total being equalized is greater.

It can be but its not in this case and not even close. Thats the point: anthropocentric CO2 production is increasing the amount dissolved despite forces working in the opposite direction.

[DarrinS]

You'll think twice if you read this:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL050762.shtml




We find a consistent and statistically significant increase in the intensity of future extreme winter precipitation events over the western United States, as simulated by an ensemble of regional climate models (RCMs) driven by IPCC AR4 global climate models (GCMs). All eight simulations analyzed in this work consistently show an increase in the intensity of extreme winter precipitation with the multi-model mean projecting an area-averaged 12.6% increase in 20-year return period and 14.4% increase in 50-year return period daily precipitation. In contrast with extreme precipitation, the multi-model ensemble shows a decrease in mean winter precipitation of approximately 7.5% in the southwestern US, while the interior west shows less statistically robust increases.



I'll wait for the real data

[RandomGuy]

I'll wait for the real data

I hope you get to live long enough to see it.

I notice neither you nor WC have stated what you think the strongest aspects of the IPCC report are.

I will put the same question to you:

What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?

[DarrinS]

I hope you get to live long enough to see it.

I notice neither you nor WC have stated what you think the strongest aspects of the IPCC report are.

I will put the same question to you:

What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?



I wouldn't say any of them are strong. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to be a skeptic.

[Wild Cobra]

It can be but its not in this case and not even close. Thats the point: anthropocentric CO2 production is increasing the amount dissolved despite forces working in the opposite direction.
Have I claimed otherwise? Not to my knowledge. Are you ASSuming again?