Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

Well, sorry, I didn't read your link. Probably because it came from you. Your 'bolded' text in it:

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."

Nobody disputes this, and the lower levels I point out are not in conflict with this statement. After I actually looked at this study, from a posting on a forum, by a person why has the integrity which you lack... I read it.

(shrugs)

Haven't had the time to read it yet. If not having the time to read something is somehow indicative of a lack of integrity, you have an odd definition of integrity.

Seems interesting to me, so I will probably take the time, especially since you want to be a tool about it.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more on adjustments on raw data when it comes to arriving at finished data sets:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-adjust-temperature-records-and-how-you-can-too-36825

[FuzzyLumpkins]

hint.

It's the 0.2 W/m^2 for the 22 ppm increase.

It's only about 2/3rds the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC et. al.


If we use the IPCC accepted radiative formula:

5.35 x ln(392/370) = 0.31 W/m^2.

However, it is reduced now to 0.2 W.m^2.

0.2 / 0.31 x 5.35 = 3.45

This places a doubling of CO2 at:

3.45 x ln(2) = 2.39 W/m^2 instead of the previous 3.71 W/m^2.


It changes the previous assessment of IPCC warming covering 1750 to 2011 from 1.82 W/m^2 to 1.18 W/m^2.


LOL...

I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.

Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:

The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.

5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66

The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.

5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82

I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:

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


I'll need to take a look at it. I suspect ferreting out the bad logic will require spending more time than I currently have.

[boutons_deux]

Looks like BigOil/BigCarb/US COC/Repug/right wing hate media AGW-denying isn't working too well with Repug voters

Fit To Print: The GOP's Deepening Climate Change Divide

The Republican party's deep divisions on climate change and the environment were on full display at the recently-concluded Conservative Political Aciton Committee (CPAC). How the GOP presidential contenders attempt to navigate these divisions is an important news story that deserves media attention in the weeks and months ahead.

Several weeks ahead of CPAC,

a poll (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html) came out showing that 48% of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports taking action on climate change, compared to just 24% who would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

The poll also showed that GOP supporters are inclined to oppose candidates who view climate change as a "hoax" by the same 2-to-1 ratio.

While many self-described Republicans support climate action, it seems unlikely that the same can be said of the conservative activists and donors who attended this year's CPAC.

CPAC attendees are far more engaged (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-house-gop-vs-homeland-security-netanyahu-speech-rift/) than rank-and-file Republicans, and the GOP presidential contenders know that winning support -- financial (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/acus-spending-might-be-cpacs-biggest-splash/) and otherwise (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/02/25/cpac-2016-presidential-race-republicans/23942653/) -- from the CPAC base will be crucial if they hope to emerge from a crowded primary field and ultimately capture the presidency. But trying to appease the CPAC crowd's anti-environmental extremism without alienating most Americans -- and even many Republicans -- could prove to be an insurmountable task.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/05/fit-to-print-the-gops-deepening-climate-change/202772

so the ST AGW deniers are becoming more and more of an extreme fringe, duh

[Nero5]

Have anything intelligent to say, or are you a Fuzzy II???

Oh come on at least try for some wit!

[DarrinS]

Manny sighting :lol

What's up?

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like BigOil/BigCarb/US COC/Repug/right wing hate media AGW-denying isn't working too well with Repug voters

Fit To Print: The GOP's Deepening Climate Change Divide

The Republican party's deep divisions on climate change and the environment were on full display at the recently-concluded Conservative Political Aciton Committee (CPAC). How the GOP presidential contenders attempt to navigate these divisions is an important news story that deserves media attention in the weeks and months ahead.

Several weeks ahead of CPAC,

a poll (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html) came out showing that 48% of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports taking action on climate change, compared to just 24% who would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

The poll also showed that GOP supporters are inclined to oppose candidates who view climate change as a "hoax" by the same 2-to-1 ratio.

While many self-described Republicans support climate action, it seems unlikely that the same can be said of the conservative activists and donors who attended this year's CPAC.

CPAC attendees are far more engaged (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-house-gop-vs-homeland-security-netanyahu-speech-rift/) than rank-and-file Republicans, and the GOP presidential contenders know that winning support -- financial (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/acus-spending-might-be-cpacs-biggest-splash/) and otherwise (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/02/25/cpac-2016-presidential-race-republicans/23942653/) -- from the CPAC base will be crucial if they hope to emerge from a crowded primary field and ultimately capture the presidency. But trying to appease the CPAC crowd's anti-environmental extremism without alienating most Americans -- and even many Republicans -- could prove to be an insurmountable task.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/05/fit-to-print-the-gops-deepening-climate-change/202772

so the ST AGW deniers are becoming more and more of an extreme fringe, duh




Nothing new with this poll.

Most republicans agree global warming is happening. They just have more important issues than global warming.

Once again, B-Shit and his material is misleading. The 48% came from this:

If a candidate said:

“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”

Most people agree with shifting away from fossil fuels, and that's the extent of the "action" listed here. The only problem I see with this statement is agreeing it is saying "mainly because." If it was "partially," or some other word not implying most;y, the percentage would have been greater.

[boutons_deux]

"Most republicans agree global warming is happening."

Not the Repug politicians, because their policies are dictated by their BigCarbon financiers, not by ignorant voters who vote Repug for social issues (guns, gods, LGBT, abortion, s-s marriage)

[Wild Cobra]

"Most republicans agree global warming is happening."

Not the Repug politicians, because their policies are dictated by their BigCarbon financiers, not by ignorant voters who vote Repug for social issues (guns, gods, LGBT, abortion, s-s marriage)

No, they are just level headed about the known facts. They don't buy into the hype like weak minded liberals do.

Maybe if the alarmists were level headed and used s0-called facts that didn't keep pan out, they would be listened to. Climatology is becoming more and more a joke every day.

[DarrinS]

"Most republicans agree global warming is happening."

Not the Repug politicians, because their policies are dictated by their BigCarbon financiers, not by ignorant voters who vote Repug for social issues (guns, gods, LGBT, abortion, s-s marriage)


I went to your favorite source.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/21/3614028/so-much-senate-climate-change-trolling/

[boutons_deux]

I went to your favorite source.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/21/3614028/so-much-senate-climate-change-trolling/

Repugs STILL made him chairman: " he was the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_ Public_Works) and was its chairman from 2003 to 2007, then regained the chairmanship in January 2015."

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

Repugs will DO NOTHING to slow, stop, or reverse AGW from industrial GHG. In fact, they will weaken or kill any and all such regulations, and block any new regulations. They are rolling back, killing RETs, renewable energy targets, in red states.

so, GFY

[DarrinS]

Repugs STILL made him chairman: " he was the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_ Public_Works) and was its chairman from 2003 to 2007, then regained the chairmanship in January 2015."

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

Repugs will DO NOTHING to slow, stop, or reverse AGW from industrial GHG. In fact, they will weaken or kill any and all such regulations, and block any new regulations. They are rolling back, killing RETs, renewable energy targets, in red states.

so, GFY

Senate Votes 98-1 That ‘Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax’

[boutons_deux]

Senate Votes 98-1 That ‘Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax’

and Repugs made AGW-is-Hoax asshole/BigOilShill Senator the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_ Public_Works). :lol

[Winehole23]

Senate Votes 98-1 That ‘Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax’

Nobody told Florida:


The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.


But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.


DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.


The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.


“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”


Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

[Winehole23]

so much for denial being a mythical media creation, in Florida it's politically enforced

[boutons_deux]

so much for denial being a mythical media creation, in Florida it's politically enforced

Freedom!

[boutons_deux]

Nobody told Florida:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html


sloppy seconds http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220853&page=19&p=7862658&viewfull=1#post7862658

[Winehole23]

sorry, you said something in another thread? don't know how I missed that.

[DarrinS]

so much for denial being a mythical media creation, in Florida it's politically enforced

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/09/no-florida-state-government-did-not-ban-the-term-climate-change/

[boutons_deux]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/09/no-florida-state-government-did-not-ban-the-term-climate-change/

A search of the Florida DEP web site for the term “global warming” yields, according to the site, 244 results (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/search/results_iframe.htm?cx=017397462006214747590%3Acwbs afh0c8o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming&sa=New+Search&siteurl=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Fsearch%2Fsearch_ifra me.htm&ref=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Frookery%2Fissues%2F&ss=1533j271293j14). And, according to the site, another 1,640 (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/search/results_iframe.htm?cx=017397462006214747590%3Acwbs afh0c8o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Climate+change&sa=New+Search&siteurl=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Fsearch%2Fsearch_ifra me.htm&ref=www.dep.state.fl.us%2F&ss=3801j1216843j14)for “climate change.”

They haven't had time to scrub the truth from their websites.

[Winehole23]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/09/no-florida-state-government-did-not-ban-the-term-climate-change/from the article:


Now, maybe there is something going on at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

[DarrinS]

A search of the Florida DEP web site for the term “global warming” yields, according to the site, 244 results (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/search/results_iframe.htm?cx=017397462006214747590%3Acwbs afh0c8o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming&sa=New+Search&siteurl=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Fsearch%2Fsearch_ifra me.htm&ref=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Frookery%2Fissues%2F&ss=1533j271293j14). And, according to the site, another 1,640 (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/search/results_iframe.htm?cx=017397462006214747590%3Acwbs afh0c8o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Climate+change&sa=New+Search&siteurl=www.dep.state.fl.us%2Fsearch%2Fsearch_ifra me.htm&ref=www.dep.state.fl.us%2F&ss=3801j1216843j14)for “climate change.”

They haven't had time to scrub the truth from their websites.




lol

[Winehole23]

climate change denial is real. one political party feeds it red meat under the table, your feeble protests that it doesn't exist totally notwithstanding.

[Winehole23]

climate change trolling, DarrinS style:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3koOUFp4crU/maxresdefault.jpg

[boutons_deux]

words count

AGW is real, climate change is amorphous, vague.

[Wild Cobra]

so much for denial being a mythical media creation, in Florida it's politically enforced
I think the key is in the last sentence.

"true fact."

This is a tougher standard.

[Winehole23]

thanks for your support

[Wild Cobra]

thanks for your support

LOL...

Not sure what your intent is.

I'm actually surprised Florida isn't using the scare to tax more to protect the beaches.

[Winehole23]

considering which party runs Florida right now, that's not so surprising.

[Wild Cobra]

considering which party runs Florida right now, that's not so surprising.

Really?

States often look out for themselves first.

Maybe they are actually afraid of land values dropping if they agree with consensus.

What ever the truth is, it is probably more self-centered than playing on one team or the other.

[boutons_deux]

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/03/Exxon-funding-cc-denial.png

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/09/merchants-doubt-easier-sell-truth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Wild Cobra]

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/03/Exxon-funding-cc-denial.png

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/09/merchants-doubt-easier-sell-truth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Who cares?

With the right selection criteria, you can connect almost anyone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who cares?

With the right selection criteria, you can connect almost anyone.

Exxon is paying scientists and politicians and you cannot figure out why someone might think that important?

What is troubling is that scientists are publishing papers and not reporting industry financial contributions. Deceit is a common denominator. Tell us again how you never denied CO2 as a positive forcing.

[DarrinS]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a "denier"?

Lol


https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

[boutons_deux]

Global Warming Could Hit Rates Unseen in 1,000 Years


We are standing on the edge of a new world where warming is poised to accelerate at rates unseen for at least 1,000 years.
That’s the main finding of a paper published Monday in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2552.html), which looked at the rate of temperature change over 40-year periods. The new research also shows that the Arctic, North America and Europe will be the first regions to transition to a new climate, underscoring the urgent need for adaptation planning.

http://ccentralassets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/http_assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/3_9_15_Brian_SmithPaperFigure_1050_1712_s_c1_c_c.p ng


The research comes on the heels of two recent papers (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-spurt-looms-will-it-change-minds-on-climate-change-18716) — one which Mann co-authored (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988) — projecting that rapid warming is likely to resume in the next decade. That growing body of research has hypothesized that oceans have been stashing extra heat in their depths, leading to a slowdown in the rise of surface temperatures around the globe. But a coming shift in the Pacific trade winds could remove the cap holding that heat down and lead to increased surface warming.
Smith’s work didn’t specifically address this issue, but he said the global warming slowdown isn’t surprising given its comparatively short time frame. That’s partly why he chose to focus on 40-year intervals, which strip away year-to-year noise and represent an important time horizon for infrastructure planning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-could-hit-rates-unseen-in-1-000-years/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150310

Rick Scott's "nuisance tides" gonna wipe out Miami

[DarrinS]

^Observe the observed

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a "denier"?

Lol


https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

Well he is calling deniers out. You ran away and dissembled when people have called deniers out here over the last year or so. "I'm not an AGW denier. I'm an AGW impact denier." "I've never denied AGW."

I guess we might as well start cutting down some timber for your cross.

[DarrinS]

Lol, climate McCarthyism

[Winehole23]

lol comparing mere criticism and online activism with Congressional witchhunts like HUAC

[Winehole23]

thin-skinned?

[DarrinS]

lol comparing mere criticism and online activism with Congressional witchhunts like HUAC

Lol, not knowing the more general use of the term

[Winehole23]

please define it for us. I'm all ears.

[Winehole23]

you sounded like a whiny victim. did I take you amiss? are AGW deniers like yourself being politically persecuted?

[DarrinS]

please define it for us. I'm all ears.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mccarthyism

[Winehole23]

where's the unfairness? whose dissent or criticism has been restricted and by whom?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you sounded like a whiny victim. did I take you amiss? are AGW deniers like yourself being politically persecuted?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mccarthyism

Unfair?

I only use quotes of you to make my case.


http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297668743121_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=420x


Hmm, I'm conservative and believe in all of those things. With respect to anthropogenic climate change, I just don't think it's effects will be catastrophic, but that's enough to be labeled a "denier".

Here is you in 2008 waving your hands at sea ice which is pretty stupid because it's the land/glacial ice going into the sea which is a big part of the problem. Here it is obvious that you are trying to con people into believing there is no warming.


Meanwhile, artic sea ice growing at fastest pace on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

Here is you waving your hands at a snowstorm at a Pelosi climate rally.


Sweet irony.


http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44320

Here is you in 2009 saying its natural variation.


UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html

Here is you posting a story about someone deciding to not believe in climate change. It's particularly shitty and goes a long way to showing how science is not high on your list of priorities. Apparently this circumstance of changing beliefs is something that is of interest to you though.


http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/i-no-longer-quite-believe/2/

More warming denial:


The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?


When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.

Here is you positing that the scientific community is scandalous:


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Here is you denying that climate models are legitimate science.


An excellent article on climate models.

Why Climate Modeling Is Not Climate Science

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-climate-modeling-not-climate-science




http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/climate_modeling-ruddman.jpg

More:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted

Not warming you say? Fuck that Darrin has us cooling now:


Global Warming or Cooling?

117 years of Failed Climate and Environmental Predictions

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890

The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,

The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912


Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age - Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," - New York Times - May 30, 1947

Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.

Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970

“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971

New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972

A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974

Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - October 10, 1975

A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature - March 6, 1975

Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978

One of the questions that nags at climatologists asks when and how fast a new ice age might descend. A Belgian scientist suggests this could happen sooner and swifter than you might think. - Christian Science Monitor - Nov 14, 1979

Evidence has been presented and discussed to show a cooling trend over the Northern Hemisphere since around 1940, amounting to over 0.5°C, due primarily to cooling at mid- and high latitudes - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - November 1980

A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry farmland and disease, the experts said... Under this scenario, the resort town of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85 feet within the next 25 years - San Jose Mercury News - June 11, 1986

Greenhouse Effect Culprit May Be Family Car; New Ice Age by 1995?...As the tropical oceans heat up (due to increased greenhouse gases), more of their moisture is evaporated to form clouds. The increasing pole-tropic wind systems move some of these additional clouds toward the poles, resulting in increased winter rainfall, longer and colder winters and the gradual buildup of the polar ice sheets. This phenomenon has come to be widely recognized by climatologists in recent years. What most of them do not recognize is that this process may be the engine that drives the 100,000-year cycle of major ice ages, for which there is no other plausible explanation....we may be less than seven years away, and our climate may continue to deteriorate rapidly until life on earth becomes all but unsupportable.... New York Times - Larry Ephron , Director of the Institute for a Future - July 15, 1988

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

'New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,' - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990's) are not difficult to make... Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001

"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002

Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002

(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005

NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an "above normal" year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year's, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. -- Seed Magazine 5/19/06

This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007

Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted - The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team's forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. - ScienceDaily April 3, 2007

Warm (2007 – 2008) Winter Predicted for United States - NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country - ScienceDailyOct. 11, 2007

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

This next quote was after you had denied that you thought that the Earth was cooling and when RG called you on it with quotes you defined your position as:


I think the Earth has warmed an insignificant amount in the past 100 years and that this study confirms that.

But hey now that you have gone the hedge route what is to stop you from backtracking onto your old shit just a few weeks later? Nothing of course:


I don't think 10 years of data proves anything either. Serious question: how many consecutive years of "stable" or downward trending temps would be needed to "falsify" AGW theory?


Whatever Happened to Global Warming?


It is true that we are currently experiencing a "pause" in warming.

[DarrinS]

All those things are consistent with non-alarmist view.

^took only a few seconds

[DarrinS]

Good effort Fuzzy

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All those things are consistent with non-alarmist view.

^took only a few seconds

That and denialist are not mutually exclusive. In fact all denialists are non-alarmists.

You suck at logic.

You clearly are saying that it is natural variation or that it was not happening for other reasons repeatedly.

[Winehole23]

All those things are consistent with non-alarmist view.

^took only a few secondsnot only has no one stifled or suppressed your point of view, your critics have done you the courtesy of reposting it, in detail.

lol McCarthyism

[DarrinS]

not only has no one stifled or suppressed your point of view, your critics have done you the courtesy of reposting it, in detail.

lol McCarthyism


Yeah, because I said the McCarthyism applied to me, personally. :rolleyes

GTFOH

[Winehole23]

to whom does it apply?

[Winehole23]

who are the victims of AGW McCarthyism?

[boutons_deux]

Here’s the movie you should send your climate-apathetic friends to see


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc

There are a few things about Merchants of Doubt, a new documentary about the scientists who are paid to deny human-made climate change,

The crux of the film is that the “climate change debate” is not a scientific one — it’s entirely political. People don’t deny climate change because they hate science or because they are stupid — they deny it because they’re afraid of government, and, ultimately, any change that would disrupt life as they know it.

The obvious response to that is, well, several meters’ worth of sea level rise will be pretty disruptive to human life — but hey, why think about it?

None of this is news (http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-you-actually-havent-found-a-way-to-reach-conservatives-on-climate-change/), probably, for regular Grist readers, but that’s not the point. And though it’s well done overall, it’s not a feel-good movie.

But the worst part is that one gets the impression that the people who actually need to see this film just … won’t.

http://grist.org/living/heres-the-movie-you-should-send-your-climate-apathetic-friends-to-see/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

I read where the (deep red state) Outer Banks are already disappearing.

[DarrinS]

who are the victims of AGW McCarthyism?

Seven scientists were singled out by Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, based on the heresy of holding non-alarmist views:

David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Roger Pielke Jr., Steven Hayward and Richard Lindzen


American Meteorological Society was not too happy about it

http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/letter_on_challenges_to_academic_freedom_Feb15.pdf



Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers. Further, requesting copies of the researcher’s communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.

[Winehole23]

gotta admit, you've got one leg to stand on. any other examples come to mind?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

gotta admit, you've got one leg to stand on. any other examples come to mind?

He is obviously quoting part of an article with the names and not linking as he is wont to do. If you google it, it pulls up again a whos who of climate denial rags. This is typical Darrin. Of course he cites the good source.

What he is not mentioning is that the hearing is not a withc hunt but was called after Soon, a Harvard researcher and denialist congressional expert, was found to have not disclosed a conflict of interest.

http://www.nature.com/news/documents-spur-investigation-of-climate-sceptic-1.16972

That is an article discussing the issue when it arose. The local denialists have ignored and buried any mention of it here when it was brought up several weeks ago in favor of this 'what is a denialist' semantic argument.

The congresswoman is asking if any of these other scientists giving similar testimony as Soon also have a conflict of interest. A witch hunt implies you are searching for a mythical figure when in this case there is a huge smoking gun.

[DarrinS]

He is obviously quoting part of an article with the names and not linking as he is wont to do. If you google it, it pulls up again a whos who of climate denial rags. This is typical Darrin. Of course he cites the good source.

What he is not mentioning is that the hearing is not a withc hunt but was called after Soon, a Harvard researcher and denialist congressional expert, was found to have not disclosed a conflict of interest.

http://www.nature.com/news/documents-spur-investigation-of-climate-sceptic-1.16972

That is an article discussing the issue when it arose. The local denialists have ignored and buried any mention of it here when it was brought up several weeks ago in favor of this 'what is a denialist' semantic argument.

The congresswoman is asking if any of these other scientists giving similar testimony as Soon also have a conflict of interest. A witch hunt implies you are searching for a mythical figure when in this case there is a huge smoking gun.


Hey, dumbfuck, here you go

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=7844939&viewfull=1#post7844939


Here is a link to my "article"

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, dumbfuck, here you go

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=7844939&viewfull=1#post7844939


Here is a link to my "article"

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research

:lol Darrin's mad.

Well, sophist, let's see. first your link does not have those quotes in it. You didn't get it there. this is what makes you look like such a duplicitous piece of shit. You clearly are posting quotes without citation. it's typical Darrin.

And again I said that it was buried with a litany of 'what is a denier' posts from dumbass and yourself. I never said it wasn't posted.

[DarrinS]

:lol Darrin's mad.

Well, sophist, let's see. first your link does not have those quotes in it. You didn't get it there. this is what makes you look like such a duplicitous piece of shit. You clearly are posting quotes without citation. it's typical Darrin.

And again I said that it was buried with a litany of 'what is a denier' posts from dumbass and yourself. I never said it wasn't posted.

WTF are you talking about?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/[email protected]

[Phenomanul]

Interesting data set from the perspective of satellite imagery (1979 to present):

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Ice sheets may have already passed point of no return

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.VQdvZY7F8-g

[boutons_deux]

Updated ice sheet model matches wild swings in past sea levels
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/updated-ice-sheet-model-matches-wild-swings-in-past-sea-levels/

There a lot of scientists watching the land ice sheets, glaciers very carefully, and they aren't a happy bunch.

[Wild Cobra]

Ice sheets.

Yawn...

Just another alarmists prediction.

Tired of Chicken Little papers. If ever a doomsday prediction of theirs is corrtect, they doomed us all by all their Chicken Little antics.

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting article from the Greenpeace founder...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Kind of mirrors my sentiment. Climate changes. Trying to blame global warming on man generated CO2 (even though there has been no warming in 10 years) has become an academic cash cow where you are either on the global warming team or you are ostracized for questioning the quack science. I could give a shit that Boo and Fuzzyboo lite will now call me stupid for being a skeptic. No matter how loudly you shout it the science is not "settled".

[CosmicCowboy]

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.

[boutons_deux]

How Big Oil and Big Tobacco get respected scientists to lie for them

By the 1950s, Big Tobacco knew smoking caused cancer. By the 1960s, the companies knew nicotine was addictive and that smoking could lead to heart disease.

But three decades later, tobacco executives stood up before Congress and, under oath, denied the facts.

The same story has played out with other major scientific issues of our time, from climate change to the health harms of various chemicals. As scientists build consensus, industry tries to obscure their findings outside the ivory tower, turning non-debates into ginned-up controversies.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/21/8267049/merchants-of-doubt

[CosmicCowboy]

when did tobacco executives testify in the 90's to congress?

They started putting warning labels on in the 60's.

OK, looked it up. 94.

Reading the transcript they testified and admitted that smoking might cause heart disease and cancer.

As for it being addictive that gets back to the same physiological vs. Psychological addiction argument used against smoking pot.

As a two pack a day smoker in my 20's I can say from personal experience that when I quit cold turkey I missed the process but suffered no physiological symptoms typical of drug addiction.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, Boo...

You claim that AGW supporters motives are as pure as Bostons 10 feet of wind driven snow?

And anyone that disagrees with AGW is a corporate whore?

How convenient for your preconceived premise.

[boutons_deux]

So, Boo...

You claim that AGW supporters motives are as pure as Bostons 10 feet of wind driven snow?

And anyone that disagrees with AGW is a corporate whore?

How convenient for your preconceived premise.

your words, not mine.

It's obvious to serious people that BigCarbon, ALEC, etc are hiring whore scientists, right-wing hate media, etc to spew FUD and LIES about AGW. The science of GHG IS SETTLED.

[CosmicCowboy]

your words, not mine.

It's obvious to serious people that BigCarbon, ALEC, etc are hiring whore scientists, right-wing hate media, etc to spew FUD and LIES about AGW. The science of GHG IS SETTLED.

Negative Boo. It is only settled in your closed mind. Clearly GHG now and always has existed and many times in the past has exceeded current levels. Where the problem comes is when you start claiming out of control AGW from GHG.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Interesting data set from the perspective of satellite imagery (1979 to present):

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

While much of Antarctica is below sea level, its mostly land. When the glaciers on land move to the sea is the problem. Sea ice floats and doesn't displace additional area.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm a AGW denier that likes to quote conservative think tanks with oilco executives on their board of directors.

:lol Heartland Institute.

[boutons_deux]

Negative Boo. It is only settled in your closed mind. Clearly GHG now and always has existed and many times in the past has exceeded current levels. Where the problem comes is when you start claiming out of control AGW from GHG.

:lol Arguing AGW with you right-wingnuts is as useless as arguing biological evoution with Mouse and the Bible humpers. Fucking deluded, duped losers! :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol fuzzyboo lite

Keeping an open mind on AGW is not a denial.

The facts to date simply don't support the global AGW apocalypse as claimed by its AGW religious acolytes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol fuzzyboo lite

Keeping an open mind on AGW is not a denial.

The facts to date simply don't support the global AGW apocalypse as claimed by its AGW religious acolytes.

Have fun beating up those strawmen. You are decidedly ignorant to the discussion. While I won't say you should read this thread i would recommend at the very least read the reports that BEST put out regarding the temperature record. It speaks better to your "IT HASN'T WARMED IN 10! YEARS DARRINDERP #NOAPCOALYPSE." It is not as if that take hasn't been discussed ad nauseam.

I also do not think on this subject as you do. It is not a function of belief as to the physical properties of CO2. Uncertainty in where it falls in the range is not a function of belief.

While you are waving your hands at worst case scenarios that did not come to pass, I will point to the flood insurance rates and state overseen actuarial data that quantify the damages warming oceans are causing Americans. Have fun with your sophistry, Heartland.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Heartland Institute.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=RxwOVfOfM8yeNvu1gmA&url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm%3FFuseAction%3DFiles.View%26FileStore_id %3D415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03&ved=0CCUQFjADOBQ&usg=AFQjCNFuTFxOSPaK5TDFWNobgD9_uYVFiw&sig2=xAVkhoHwIeBIDaH3EaEuRg

[CosmicCowboy]

Have fun beating up those strawmen. You are decidedly ignorant to the discussion. While I won't say you should read this thread i would recommend at the very least read the reports that BEST put out regarding the temperature record. It speaks better to your "IT HASN'T WARMED IN 10! YEARS DARRINDERP #NOAPCOALYPSE." It is not as if that take hasn't been discussed ad nauseam.

I also do not think on this subject as you do. It is not a function of belief as to the physical properties of CO2. Uncertainty in where it falls in the range is not a function of belief.

While you are waving your hands at worst case scenarios that did not come to pass, I will point to the flood insurance rates and state overseen actuarial data that quantify the damages warming oceans are causing Americans. Have fun with your sophistry, Heartland.

Smug little prick.

I am not ignorant just because I don't swallow your AGW religion hook line and sinker.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=RxwOVfOfM8yeNvu1gmA&url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm%3FFuseAction%3DFiles.View%26FileStore_id %3D415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03&ved=0CCUQFjADOBQ&usg=AFQjCNFuTFxOSPaK5TDFWNobgD9_uYVFiw&sig2=xAVkhoHwIeBIDaH3EaEuRg

That would have been more compelling had CC not linked him with Heartland first. I invite you to go to their website and look up their board of directors. It's a who's who of industrialists, bankers, real estate firms (re: mineral rights), and their lobbyists.

That first paper starts with him saying the IPCC will not say that AGW is certain and pointing out there is no definitive proof. He then goes on to try and baffle us with bullshit regarding a few select celestial cycles and claim that it could be natural. The BEST report I did took all the known climate signals we know with a necessary degree of certainty such as the wobble of the earth, solar cycles as well as ecological cycles like ENSO and permuted them into one signal. They determined that we should be getting colder but we are not.

I started the second paper but stopped after reading the initial Bacon quote:

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties."

His report to congress was complaining that the IPCC wasn't certain. He is a man without principle. That is clear.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Smug little prick.

I am not ignorant just because I don't swallow your AGW religion hook line and sinker.

I asked you to read the BEST report and see for yourself. Your probably too stupid to follow the material is what your problem is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah, I usually look for original content in bouton's links....but there generally isn't anything other than moonbat editorials. I applied the same to the heartland link to find the actual content. It is what it is. :tu

[boutons_deux]

. It is what it is. :tu

... which is bullshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and :lol calling me smug, blustering blowhard. How about you try and bet me again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I usually look for original content in bouton's links....but there generally isn't anything other than moonbat editorials. I applied the same to the heartland link to find the actual content. It is what it is. :tu

I always do. He bolds shit and otherwise doctors posts too. Then when the link is to marxist newspapers. . .

[boutons_deux]

I always do. He bolds shit and otherwise doctors posts too. Then when the link is to marxist newspapers. . .

you assholes are blatantly butt hurt. Down on your knees and take it like little bitches

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you assholes are blatantly butt hurt. Down on your knees and take it like little bitches

Nah it's more along the lines of dismissive.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh and :lol calling me smug, blustering blowhard. How about you try and bet me again?

:lmao

You and boo and your delusions of grandeur.:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

You and boo and your delusions of grandeur.:lol

I'm clearly megalomaniacal.

They have a memo out addressing the issue we were discussing.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf


Global surface temperatures have warmed more slowly over the past decade than previously expected. The media has seized this warming pause in recent weeks, and the UK’s Met Office released a three-part series of white papers looking at the causes and implications. While there is still no definitive cause identified, some researchers point to a combination of more heat going into the deep oceans and downturns in multi-decadal cycles in global temperature as the primary drivers of the pause. Others argue that a plethora of recent small volcanoes, changes in stratospheric water vapor, and a downturn in solar energy reaching the earth may also be contributing to the plateau. While few expect the pause to persist much longer, it has raised some questions about the growing divergence between observed temperatures and those predicted by climate models.

Of course you and Darrin like to wave hands at the land data. The ocean continues to warm.

This argument isn't new. Are you going to abandon it completely and try this petty shit?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh ok. The heat might be hiding in the deep ocean.

[DarrinS]

I'm clearly megalomaniacal.

They have a memo out addressing the issue we were discussing.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf



Of course you and Darrin like to wave hands at the land data. The ocean continues to warm.

This argument isn't new. Are you going to abandon it completely and try this petty shit?


Yeah, the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. :rolleyes

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1?af=R&

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. :rolleyes

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00550.1?af=R&

No, it's more along the lines that you have to account for ocean currents as well as various other ecological, geological, and celestial mechanics. Wave your hands at the singular like a dumbfuck for us some more though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh ok. The heat might be hiding in the deep ocean.


No, it's more along the lines that you have to account for ocean currents as well as various other ecological, geological, and celestial mechanics. Wave your hands at the singular like a dumbfuck for us some more though.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol at fuzzyboo lite, AGW apologist. Throw out the "we don't know why reality doesn't agree with our mystical computer models but maybe the heat is hiding somewhere" and then call ME ignorant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol at fuzzyboo lite, AGW apologist. Throw out the "we don't know why reality doesn't agree with our mystical computer models but maybe the heat is hiding somewhere" and then call ME ignorant.

It's odd. The argument used to be that ocean currents could explain the current warming. WC used to spam us with the shit. Nothing from you or Darrin.

Now when you are asked to consider the ocean as well as all the other established physical mechanics, you balk and ridicule. You do get that you have account for the ocean right? BEST is comprehensive and arrived where they did.

You clearly haven't read it. You don't want to even talk about it really.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Fuzzy what do you personally do to reduce your carbon footprint?

[TeyshaBlue]

Fuzzy what do you personally do to reduce your carbon footprint?

Put my cigarette out on other people's shoes.

[Phenomanul]

While much of Antarctica is below sea level, its mostly land. When the glaciers on land move to the sea is the problem. Sea ice floats and doesn't displace additional area.

From a latitude and solar flux perspective, gauging the amount of seasonal ice that forms across the poles is a significant observation - especially if said coverage has been steady. What this post-satellite trend can't show is what said coverage looked like 60, 80, 100, 120, etc... years ago... In other words, all we can surmise from the above graphic is that the amount of ice has not been lessened over the past 35 years (relative to the ±2 sigmas in that data set [OR whether the standard deviation itself was lower in the past]).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From a latitude and solar flux perspective, gauging the amount of seasonal ice that forms across the poles is a significant observation - especially if said coverage has been steady. What this post-satellite trend can't show is what said coverage looked like 60, 80, 100, 120, etc... years ago... In other words, all we can surmise from the above graphic is that the amount of ice has not been lessened over the past 35 years (relative to the ±2 sigmas in that data set [OR whether the standard deviation itself was lower in the past]).

I'm concerned about the glaciers on land that are going out to sea which contribute to the total volume of the worlds oceans. Just because you can show satellite photos that the ice sheets are still there doesn't really change that. Go to google scholar and you can find several studies detailing how both the west and east ice sheets are thinning and coming out to sea.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Over the past two decades, the massive platforms of floating ice that dot the coast of Antarctica have been thinning and doing so at an increasing rate, likely at least in part because of global warming. Scientists are worried about its implications for significant sea level rise.

The ice shelves—some of which are larger than California and tens to hundreds of yards thick—are the linchpins of the Antarctic ice sheet system, holding back the millions of cubic miles of ice contained in the glaciers that flow into them, like doorstops. As the ice sheets thin, the massive rivers of ice behind them can surge forward into the sea.

Antarctica holds enough ice, if it all melted, to raise sea levels more than 200 feet. That would take hundreds to thousands of years, but the recent thinning of the ice shelves means that there has already been an increase in the rate of Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise, and it’s accelerating.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctica-s-ice-shelves-thin-threaten-significant-sea-level-rise/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-Twitter+%28Content%3A+Global+Twitter+Feed%29

[boutons_deux]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/

[DarrinS]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/





Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctica-s-ice-shelves-thin-threaten-significant-sea-level-rise/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-Twitter+%28Content%3A+Global+Twitter+Feed%29

Do you think a two decade monitoring is enough to see global trends in such a massive system as the earth?

I hope not...

[Wild Cobra]

Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

No...

The warmers are deniers when it comes to such things.

[Nbadan]

Not sure what to think about this...

College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming
Source: Gallup
March 26, 2015
College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming
by Frank Newport and Andrew Dugan


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Republicans with higher levels of education are more likely than those in their parties with less education to say that the seriousness of global warming is "generally exaggerated." By contrast, Democrats with some college or more are less likely than those with less education to believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated.

Seventy-four percent of Republicans with a college degree say it is exaggerated, compared with 57% of those with high school education or less saying the same. Democrats are much less likely in general to say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, but those a college degree (15%) are significantly less likely to say this than those with a high school education or less (27%). The relationship between education and views of global warming among independents is generally similar to that shown among Republicans.

These opposing trends by party suggest that higher levels of education reinforce core partisan positions; in this case, Republicans' strong tendency to question or deny global warming and Democrats' inclination to affirm it. The trends also suggest that partisanship rather than education is a main lens through which Americans view global warming and its effects, particularly for those who claim allegiance to one of the two major political parties.

These results come from an aggregation of more than 6,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup's annual Environmental Poll conducted each March from 2010 to 2015. Over that time, Americans' views about the seriousness of global warming have been steady: 43% on average have said it was generally exaggerated, 24% generally correct and 31% have said it was generally underestimated. Longer term, though, Republicans' and Democrats' views about global warming have increasingly diverged.


Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/college-educated-republicans-skeptical-global-warming.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

Gee you think you'd link something detailing it rather than alluding to your refutation mailer because you know you will be shamed with it once again. Your next original thought will be your first.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you think a two decade monitoring is enough to see global trends in such a massive system as the earth?

I hope not...

So you are trying to assert that the thinning could be natural variation? That is what you are going to go with? Looking stupid has never stopped you before so why should I expect that to change?

[DarrinS]

Gee you think you'd link something detailing it rather than alluding to your refutation mailer because you know you will be shamed with it once again. Your next original thought will be your first.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/


is not only being eroded by the ocean

From the link. Article clearly states ocean temperatures are eroding them as well. Now for the other side?

[boutons_deux]

From the link. Article clearly states ocean temperatures are eroding them as well. Now for the other side?

AGW deniers Don't Need No Steenkin' Facts, except those "facts" from BigCarbon whore scientists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AGW deniers Don't Need No Steenkin' Facts, except those "facts" from BigCarbon whore scientists.

It's clearly him just regurgitating something from a mailer and he didn't even look at the study the mailer referenced. He ran away again just like all the other times he's done that.

He much like you with your bolding and spam is a creature of habit. He does that shit all the time.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Senators: Can You Explain Climate Change To Us, EPA, So We Can Not Believe You Some More?

Some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate want the EPA to school them on how climate modeling works. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/03/3642142/gop-wants-to-learn-climate-models/) No doubt this is so they can gain a greater appreciation of just how complex science is, so they can marvel at how great our understanding of the natural world is.

That, or they’re looking for stuff they can cherry-pick out of context to claim that global warming is a hoax, and we should start burning all the coal we can dig up before Jesus comes back.

The gang of deniers, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=972540B1-0EDF-45D0-9F38-4409698744EB)asking the agency to explain why its climate models are so darn socialist, following a March hearing in which Sessions grilled McCarthy on bits of data that she refused to answer off the top of her head, because she obviously is a liar:

Sessions wanted to know if soil all over the world was more moist or less moist, and whether the world has more or fewer droughts, and if the soil is moister on average worldwide, then how can droughts be getting worse?

And what about hurricanes?

Why won’t you answer the question?

It’s easy, lady! And of course, at the 4:22 mark, Sessions even dragged out the old “no temperature increase for 18 years” (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/) canard.

Then he berated McCarthy for not knowing whether actual world temperatures were more or less than the “average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase.”

After briefly insisting that CO2 was just harmless “plant food that doesn’t harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases,” Sessions proclaimed it was “a stunning development” that the head of the EPA, “who should know more than anyone in the world” about climate change, couldn’t answer a simple loaded question.

In his letter to McCarthy, Sessions complained that while “questions regarding the impacts of climate change were clear and straightforward, none of the questions received direct answers, and many responses contained caveats and conditions.”

Damn it, how can we trust science about worldwide climate systems that doesn’t reduce complex sets of data down to simple yes-or-no answers?

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, one of the others who signed the letter, at least has the common sense to throw a snowball (http://wonkette.com/577719/sen-inhofe-if-global-warming-is-real-where-did-i-get-this-snowball)on the Senate floor, which proved that there’s no climate change.

Why can’t McCarthy be as simple and honest?

Read more at http://wonkette.com/581766/republican-senators-can-you-explain-climate-change-to-us-epa-so-we-can-not-believe-you-some-more#yJQrQW3vxued0Ei6.99

[Phenomanul]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/




http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Not according to the ACTUAL data from the website above... the researchers make allusions to "some data set they analyzed"... convenient, no? Why not show it... and place it against historical satellite imagery....?

[boutons_deux]

sea ice isn't the problem, melting land ice is the disaster (Greenland, glaciers world wide, antarctic land ice).

Are you one of the Bible humpers who HOPE for natural disasters as prelude to End Times and your 1st class ticket to heaven?

[SnakeBoy]

Fuzzy what do you personally do to reduce your carbon footprint?

He holds in all of his farts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Not according to the ACTUAL data from the website above... the researchers make allusions to "some data set they analyzed"... convenient, no? Why not show it... and place it against historical satellite imagery....?


While much of Antarctica is below sea level, its mostly land. When the glaciers on land move to the sea is the problem. Sea ice floats and doesn't displace additional area.


I'm concerned about the glaciers on land that are going out to sea which contribute to the total volume of the worlds oceans. Just because you can show satellite photos that the ice sheets are still there doesn't really change that. Go to google scholar and you can find several studies detailing how both the west and east ice sheets are thinning and coming out to sea.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctica-s-ice-shelves-thin-threaten-significant-sea-level-rise/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-Twitter+%28Content%3A+Global+Twitter+Feed%29

Oh so you are going to go the intellectually dishonest Darrin/WC route and instead on engaging my refutations you will just hope no one notices?

The sea ice is immaterial and your study doesn't even consider what is going on with the land ice. That is shitty biasing. Second, I gave you a study detailing expeditions measuring the antarctic ice thickness and how it is thinning rapidly. You understand the notion of volume as opposed to surface area?

Where do you think the rising sea levels are coming from if not for the antarctic? New physical properties of water now?

[Phenomanul]

Oh so you are going to go the intellectually dishonest Darrin/WC route and instead on engaging my refutations you will just hope no one notices?

The sea ice is immaterial and your study doesn't even consider what is going on with the land ice. That is shitty biasing. Second, I gave you a study detailing expeditions measuring the antarctic ice thickness and how it is thinning rapidly. You understand the notion of volume as opposed to surface area?

Where do you think the rising sea levels are coming from if not for the antarctic? New physical properties of water now?

Quit making assumptions about my intentions... clearly folks here have biases whether or not they admit to having them... you fall in that camp as well. I actually have a pretty laborious day-job and don't have all the time in the world (at least not as much as I used to) to discuss these issues ad infinitum... I was simply posting the data itself... Why not post articles detailing how much snowfall Antartica receives annually (all recorded data) to show sets of data that are less microscopic in view than that periods covered by the studies you presented... Given that you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty... how about you look in the mirror of disingenuous logic. I get it, I get it... if someone else holds a position other that your own you automatically want to label them as anti-intellectuals - that ad hominem argument gets tired pretty quickly... peace bro. Don't expect another rebuttal (I don't have as much time as you all do)...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quit making assumptions about my intentions... clearly folks here have biases whether or not they admit to having them... you fall in that camp as well. I actually have a pretty laborious day-job and don't have all the time in the world (at least not as much as I used to) to discuss these issues ad infinitum... I was simply posting the data itself... Why not post articles detailing how much snowfall Antartica receives annually (all recorded data) to show sets of data that are less microscopic in view than that periods covered by the studies you presented... Given that you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty... how about you look in the mirror of disingenuous logic. I get it, I get it... if someone else holds a position other that your own you automatically want to label them as anti-intellectuals - that ad hominem argument gets tired pretty quickly... peace bro. Don't expect another rebuttal (I don't have as much time as you all do)...

You posted the exact same link that had been addressed before. I don't care what excuse you came up with for not bothering to check. I don't give a fuck if it 'makes you tired.' Quit being a dishonest hack.

Can you tell thickness from satellite photos? Moreso do you in any way address the narrowing thickness of the ice or the land ice which is what is key in any way shape or form? Do you even consider the land versus sea dichotomy?

No, you don't. Instead you say I should post other studies that have nothing to do with anything.

[Phenomanul]

You posted the exact same link that had been addressed before. I don't care what excuse you came up with for not bothering to check. I don't give a fuck if it 'makes you tired.' Quit being a dishonest hack.

Can you tell thickness from satellite photos? Moreso do you in any way address the narrowing thickness of the ice or the land ice which is what is key in any way shape or form? Do you even consider the land versus sea dichotomy?

No, you don't. Instead you say I should post other studies that have nothing to do with anything.

I said no rebuttal, but geeesh... It always devolves to insults with you guys... first you all complain that others don't "see" what you want them to see but it's because you automatically assume your arguments are 100% correct and error free - you don't accept dissent. You aren't here for the truth... just the version of it that suits your already entrenched position... If others don't fall in line with your view you resort to namecalling and bad manners.

Consider this: My grandparents have a house on the bay (here in town) that I basically grew up in. It has its own fishing pier. My grandfather reinforced the final stauncheons on that pier about 25 years ago with epoxy-coated Hastelloy tubes (supported by 15 foot deep cement feet) . My brother and I would mark the water levels at high and low tides as children. Over the past 30 years (high-tide / low-tide - whichever is used as reference) the water levels on that pier have remained at relatively the same heights. One of the reasons why I've failed to be convinced by the alarmist AGW crowd (over the past 15 years or so) is because I have sufficient references of my own (that most other folks simply don't have in their own life's experience) to know that sea levels haven't risen as dramatically as SEVERAL REPUTABLE scientific journals predicted over the past two decades. More importantly, they think we've forgotten about their many false/erroneous claims such that folks like youreself cry foul play when we don't take them for their every word. One such claim was that sea-ice coverage would be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced by 2010 as posted by boutons back in 2005/2006. That, of course didn't happen (the grander argument you didn't realize I was making).

So no, I'm not necessarily ignoring what you had posted earlier. In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said no rebuttal, but geeesh... It always devolves to insults with you guys... first you all complain that others don't "see" what you want them to see but it's because you automatically assume your arguments are 100% correct and error free - you don't accept dissent. You aren't here for the truth... just the version of it that suits your already entrenched position... If others don't fall in line with your view you resort to namecalling and bad manners.

Consider this: My grandparents have a house on the bay (here in town) that I basically grew up in. It has its own fishing pier. My grandfather reinforced the final stauncheons on that pier about 25 years ago with epoxy-coated Hastelloy tubes (supported by 15 foot deep cement feet) . My brother and I would mark the water levels at high and low tides as children. Over the past 30 years (high-tide / low-tide - whichever is used as reference) the water levels on that pier have remained at relatively the same heights. One of the reasons why I've failed to be convinced by the alarmist AGW crowd (over the past 15 years or so) is because I have sufficient references of my own (that most other folks simply don't have in their own life's experience) to know that sea levels haven't risen as dramatically as SEVERAL REPUTABLE scientific journals predicted over the past two decades. More importantly, they think we've forgotten about their many false/erroneous claims such that folks like youreself cry foul play when we don't take them for their every word. One such claim was that sea-ice coverage would be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced by 2010 as posted by boutons back in 2005/2006. That, of course didn't happen (the grander argument you didn't realize I was making).

So no, I'm not necessarily ignoring what you had posted earlier. In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.

It helps if you actually point out where my arguments are flawed instead of throwing out a personal anecdote and claiming that boutox is the standard of climate science you have to overcome.

Fear-mongering? I said the ice sheet are thinning and have been talking about land ice. You have no response to this whatsoever. All you have posited was that the high end of the range of outcomes didn't come to pass and that is about it. You wave you hands alot and talk of sea ice as if it stopped floating.

If you want to be butthurt because I am aggressive and mean then fine but the arguments were still made.

[Phenomanul]

It helps if you actually point out where my arguments are flawed instead of throwing out a personal anecdote and claiming that boutox is the standard of climate science you have to overcome.

Fear-mongering?
Not by you personally... but by study, after study, after study, after study that gets posted on this website.


I said the ice sheet are thinning and have been talking about land ice. You have no response to this whatsoever. All you have posited was that the high end of the range of outcomes didn't come to pass and that is about it. You wave you hands alot and talk of sea ice as if it stopped floating.

I did have a response... it's a corrolary based on the fact that I've drawn my envelope to encompass both poles and the oceans... The corrolary doesn't argue whether or not ice floats... it argues that since they are in the same system, that any ice that breaks off, floats off, will eventually drift far enough away from the poles to melt... when it does, the water from the melted ice should contribute to the overall volume of the world's oceans - given enough time and based on a myriad of highly publicized predictions (Google them) all that ice (the water therein) should have raised global sea levels by several feet. THAT SIMPLY HASNT HAPPENED. It's a verifiable statement of fact - the underlying definition for evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not by you personally... but by study, after study, after study, after study that gets posted on this website.



I did have a response... it's a corrolary based on the fact that I've drawn my envelope to encompass both poles and the oceans... The corrolary doesn't argue whether or not ice floats... it argues that since they are in the same system, that any ice that breaks off, floats off, will eventually drift far enough away from the poles to melt... when it does, the water from the melted ice should contribute to the overall volume of the world's oceans - given enough time and based on a myriad of highly publicized predictions (Google them) all that ice (the water therein) should have raised global sea levels by several feet. THAT SIMPLY HASNT HAPPENED. It's a verifiable statement of fact - the underlying definition for evidence.

I'm not going to google your mythical studies and that is the first time you have discussed ice melting but again wgaf. If the amount of ice on land is going down then it has one of two places to go. I have studied this extensively as well and when I make my assertions about land ice I include a study detailing decades of ice thickness measurements. You still wave your hands at sea ice.

And while you keep on waving your hands at the high end predictions not coming true, I have one question: have sea levels been rising?

You have not met the burden of proof on your claim and I will bet a dollar to a donut that the shit you pull up comes from something other than a scientific study.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he acceleration of global sea level change from the end of the 20th century through the last two decades has been significantly swifter than scientists thought, according to a new Harvard study.

The study, co-authored by Carling Hay, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS), and Eric Morrow, a recent Ph.D. graduate of EPS, shows that calculations of global sea-level rise from 1900 to 1990 had been overestimated by as much as 30 percent. The report, however, confirms estimates of sea-level change since 1990, suggesting that the rate of change is increasing more rapidly than previously understood. The research is described in a Jan. 14 paper in Nature.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/01/sea-level-correction/

[Phenomanul]

So the fact that the world's oceans have yet to permanently inundate any piers world-wide is not a significant enough data point for you...? Good to know where we stand on your objectivity.

I'm not waving my hands at anything... I'm simply looking at the bigger picture that you are apparently unable to accept.

LOL "mythical studies".... It's a well known fact many journals publicized predictions that included convincing imagery such as completely different maps of our coasts... Just like the "Ice Age" scare of the late 70's... How easy you all forget. Well, I don't.

[Phenomanul]

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/01/sea-level-correction/

Yeah... so for people that understand how this works let me sumarize:

"Well we completely botched our predictions... so we manipulated historical data to show that the rates today are indeed higher than what we predicted (but not as high as what we predicted before)"

How can you be so easily fooled...? I live by the sea. These folks bank on the fact that others take them for their word without subjecting their claims to the sense check.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah... so for people that understands how this works let me sumarize:

"Well we completely botched our predictions... so we manipulated historical data to show that the rates today are indeed higher than what we predicted"

How can you be so easily fooled...? I live by the sea. These folks bank on the fact that others take them for their word without subjecting their claims to the sense check.

We? There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. That is Harvard saying that as opposed to random the dude living behind a barrier island.

:lol I live by the sea and it snowed in January.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the fact that the world's oceans have yet to permanently inundate any piers world-wide is not a significant enough data point for you...? Good to know where we stand on your objectivity.

I'm not waving my hands at anything... I'm simply looking at the bigger picture that you are apparently unable to accept.

LOL "mythical studies".... It's a well known fact many journals publicized predictions that included convincing imagery such as completely different maps of our coasts... Just like the "Ice Age" scare of the late 70's... How easy you all forget. Well, I don't.

Well known? If it is so easy then demonstrate it. Me calling you out on it and you failing to provide a shred of proof is what it is. It's like that shit with the piers. We both know you didn't come up with that shit on your own. Link it.

[Phenomanul]

Well known? If it is so easy then demonstrate it. Me calling you out on it and you failing to provide a shred of proof is what it is. It's like that shit with the piers. We both know you didn't come up with that shit on your own. Link it.

Yeah... like any 5 year old is going to mark up a pier stauncheon with the explicit and intent purpose of publishing a paper for a scientific journal 25 years down the road...

Your demands are as rediculous as your position. Like i said... "deeply entrenched... doesn't accept dissent" typical tyrant philosophies right there.

[Phenomanul]

We? There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. That is Harvard saying that as opposed to random the dude living behind a barrier island.

:lol I live by the sea and it snowed in January.

"There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. " and yet they all erred in issuing high sea level predictions in the "20th century"???? Coincidence or like-minded agendas? It's like you are wholly and completely unable of seeing the ramifications of these statistical inconsistencies... if it smells rotten, it's usually fudged data to blame... meanwhile back home I can fish blissfully off my grandparent's pier without concern that somehow we'll all be enveloped by rising AGW-driven sea-levels... I mean, come on... even a few tropical storms have yet to topple over their pier...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah... like any 5 year old is going to mark up a pier stauncheon with the explicit and intent purpose of publishing a paper for a scientific journal 25 years down the road...

Your demands are as rediculous as your position. Like i said... "deeply entrenched... doesn't accept dissent" typical tyrant philosophies right there.

So you got nothing to support your claim. Got it, thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. " and yet they all erred in issuing high sea level predictions in the "20th century"???? Coincidence or like-minded agendas? It's like you are wholly and completely unable of seeing the ramifications of these statistical inconsistencies... if it smells rotten, it's usually fudged data to blame... meanwhile back home I can fish blissfully off my grandparent's pier without concern that somehow we'll all be enveloped by rising AGW-driven sea-levels... I mean, come on... even a few tropical storms have yet to topple over their pier...

This is incredibly ignorant. I do appreciate the doubling down on the personal anecdote of your experiences behind a barrier island.

I get that you have to group them all together because otherwise it gets too complicated for you. That is what I took from what you said. It's Harvard, chachi.

[Phenomanul]

So you got nothing to support your claim. Got it, thanks.

So you represent the Havard professors (or any other "insert link here" author) who's conclusions you support? You're fully vested in their analysis, without question (especially if it promotes your company line)...? Got it, thanks.

[Phenomanul]

This is incredibly ignorant. I do appreciate the doubling down on the personal anecdote of your experiences behind a barrier island.

I get that you have to group them all together because otherwise it gets too complicated for you. That is what I took from what you said. It's Harvard, chachi.

Good to know you didn't read your own article.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you represent the Havard professors (or any other "insert link here" author) who's conclusions you support? You're fully vested in their analysis, without question (especially if it promotes your company line)...? Got it, thanks.

:lol fully invested. It makes sense to me. There is a difference.

I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good to know you didn't read your own article.

I did read it. I even quoted the portion you have been waving your hands at. Try harder.

[Phenomanul]

:lol fully invested. It makes sense to me. There is a difference.

I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.

Well then keep latching on to their error-ridden predictions... :tu

[Phenomanul]

I did read it. I even quoted the portion you have been waving your hands at. Try harder.

“What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others,” Morrow said. “It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.”

“Scientists now believe that most of the world’s ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting in response to rising temperatures,” Hay added. “Melting ice sheets cause global mean sea level to rise. Understanding this contribution is critical in a warming world.”

Previous estimates had placed sea-level rise at between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters annually in the 20th century. Hay and Morrow, however, suggest that from 1901 until 1990, the figure was closer to 1.2 millimeters per year. However, everyone agrees that global sea level has risen by about 3 millimeters annually since that time.

“Another concern with this is that many efforts to project sea-level change into the future use estimates of sea level over the time period from 1900 to 1990,” Morrow said. “If we’ve been overestimating the sea-level change during that period, it means that these models are not calibrated appropriately, and that calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century.”


Sounds pretty inclusive to me. Add another strawman gripe to your collection.

The point is... "everyone" erred with previous predictions (surprise, surprise... predictions that didn't materialize)... now they're simply trying to save face... except you can't see it for what it is...

[Wild Cobra]

:lol fully invested. It makes sense to me. There is a difference.

I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have never seen that.

What I see you do is believe the spin from the pundits that read those papers. I don't think you actually read those papers to form your own opinion.

[Phenomanul]

Later Fuzzy... I don't have time to go on a day long bout debating our differences in world views. Yeah... I know you're going to throw some other haymaker type insult after I step out... and if it makes you feel stronger about your position go right ahead... I don't need to comfort myself with the approval of those on this board. Peace dude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

“What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others,” Morrow said. “It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.”

“Scientists now believe that most of the world’s ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting in response to rising temperatures,” Hay added. “Melting ice sheets cause global mean sea level to rise. Understanding this contribution is critical in a warming world.”

Previous estimates had placed sea-level rise at between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters annually in the 20th century. Hay and Morrow, however, suggest that from 1901 until 1990, the figure was closer to 1.2 millimeters per year. However, everyone agrees that global sea level has risen by about 3 millimeters annually since that time.

“Another concern with this is that many efforts to project sea-level change into the future use estimates of sea level over the time period from 1900 to 1990,” Morrow said. “If we’ve been overestimating the sea-level change during that period, it means that these models are not calibrated appropriately, and that calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century.”


Sounds pretty inclusive to me. Add another strawman gripe to your collection.

The point is... "everyone" erred with previous predictions (surprise, surprise... predictions that didn't materialize)... now they're simply trying to save face... except you can't see it for what it is...

You are bolding comments from the author from the Harvard Gazette and the scientists themselves. The only time the scientist used 'we' as in the scientific community itself was the last one. And he was correcting the work.

It only seems inconclusive because you lack critical thinking skills and a halfassed read of the article. The next sentence after your quote:


Hay and Morrow approached the challenge of estimating sea-level rise from a new perspective.

Hmm what was that perspective and conclusion? Well they then do a summation of methodology and analysis and conclude:


“We expected that we would estimate the individual contributions, and that their sum would get us back to the 1.5 to 1.8 mm per year that other people had predicted,” Hay said. “But the math doesn’t work out that way. Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought.”

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have never seen that.

What I see you do is believe the spin from the pundits that read those papers. I don't think you actually read those papers to form your own opinion.

OH is that the case? Remember going through the Penn State paper about models and linearity? Remember me pointing out the PDEs and pointing out your ignorance? You spent the next year trying to prove you knew what linearity meant.

How about the UW paper with the modeling of heat transfer in the ocean?

How about when I tracked down the 1950s study that had your solubility chart in it? Remember when I was making fun of you for trying to model the ocean based on experiments from water from a lab and not even the ocean itself?

You know damn well that when push comes to shove I go straight to the source.

[Wild Cobra]

OH is that the case? Remember going through the Penn State paper about models and linearity? Remember me pointing out the PDEs and pointing out your ignorance? You spent the next year trying to prove you knew what linearity meant.

How about the UW paper with the modeling of heat transfer in the ocean?

How about when I tracked down the 1950s study that had your solubility chart in it? Remember when I was making fun of you for trying to model the ocean based on experiments from water from a lab and not even the ocean itself?

You know damn well that when push comes to shove I go straight to the source.

Sorry, I don't remember you getting the best over me.

Those papers use weasel words that allow confirmation bias. They never definitively link AGW to events.

Remind us. Show us one that proves your case please. I will put you in your place again!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, I don't remember you getting the best over me.

Those papers use weasel words that allow confirmation bias. They never definitively link AGW to events.

Remind us. Show us one that proves your case please. I will put you in your place again!

I just pointed out specific cases. You probably don't see yourself losing at anything ever. You are the king of wishful thinking that turns 'suppose' into all kinds of bullshit after all.

We can see you abandoned your claim of no studies.

[Wild Cobra]

I just pointed out specific cases. You probably don't see yourself losing at anything ever. You are the king of wishful thinking that turns 'suppose' into all kinds of bullshit after all.

We can see you abandoned your claim of no studies.
I don't remember anything going like you said.

Link the paper again please.

[Wild Cobra]

Remind us. Show us one that proves your case please. I will put you in your place again!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=60&p=5460087&viewfull=1#post5460087

This was a fun exchange.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=60&p=5460087&viewfull=1#post5460087

This was a fun exchange.

And the point is? How many posts must I read from the start?

I only read the first... maybe half dozen. I see nothing that makes your claim accurate.

Please show me where that is at.

[boutons_deux]

Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
http://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/04/150406121027-large.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150406121027.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

[Wild Cobra]

Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
http://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/04/150406121027-large.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150406121027.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

So?

These are modeled predictions.

The observations must be wrong since they disagree with 95% of the models!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

[Wild Cobra]

I lost track of how many times the source material used the word "could."

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo2407

[Wild Cobra]

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2603.html

Consider:


News media, and certainly news about climate science, is meant to inform readers, at least in a free world. But the media always do so in a specific social, political and cultural context; therefore what drives news stories, their content, and the power they may exercise on the audience change with the context.

[boutons_deux]

consider: Wild Cobra is full of shit

[Wild Cobra]

We also find that the hiatus is primarily attributable to El Niño/Southern Oscillation-related variability and reduced solar forcing.

Interesting...

If these two natural variations can counteract the rise in greenhouse gasses, then greenhouse gasses are not as potent as claimed!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2573.html

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate2573-f1.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And the point is? How many posts must I read from the start?

I only read the first... maybe half dozen. I see nothing that makes your claim accurate.

Please show me where that is at.

I just got done reading that. Anyone who wants to see WC looking like a moron click the link. It starts before that but that entire exchange is gold. It was the 'the ocean is just like a soda' bit of dumbfuck here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shall I look up you claiming that Noah's flood was from a 'solar burp' combusting in the atmoshpere? That was fun.

[Wild Cobra]

Shall I look up you claiming that Noah's flood was from a 'solar burp' combusting in the atmoshpere? That was fun.

Your read that wrong. I never said that happened. I said there is reasons why it could have been. i never claimed it was.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible.

And your "soda" claim...

I was only saying the same chemistry applies to as why a soda fizzes.

My God, you are a fucking idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your read that wrong. I never said that happened. I said there is reasons why it could have been. i never claimed it was.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible.

And your "soda" claim...

I was only saying the same chemistry applies to as why a soda fizzes.

My God, you are a fucking idiot.


The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&viewfull=1#post5458330

But it gets better. More gold after WC adds:


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.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=68&p=5667534&viewfull=1#post5667534

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&viewfull=1#post5458330

But it gets better. More gold after WC adds:



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=68&p=5667534&viewfull=1#post5667534

I suggest you look up the definition of "could."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I suggest you look up the definition of "could."

So you think that the sun could have emitted hydrogen such that reacted with the atmosphere and caused the entire Earth to rain for 40 days?

You still think that is possible?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think that the sun could have emitted hydrogen such that reacted with the atmosphere and caused the entire Earth to rain for 40 days?

You still think that is possible?

I think if the right conditions persisted, like a stronger magnetic field, water could have been trapped for some time in the thermosphere and exosphere region. It could have taken centuries or millennias to accumulate. Though rather unlikely, to dismiss such possibilities just because you don't like them, is rather unscientific. This is just a possibility that deniers of science like you dismiss.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think if the right conditions persisted, like a stronger magnetic field, water could have been trapped for some time in the thermosphere and exosphere region. It could have taken centuries or millennias to accumulate. Though rather unlikely, to dismiss such possibilities just because you don't like them, is rather unscientific. This is just a possibility that deniers of science like you dismiss.

:lol and how did the protons turn into water, WC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol and ffs how is water going to get trapped in a magnetic field in the boundary to space??

:lol:rollin:lol:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

40 days worth of precipitation trapped in the exosphere.

You cannot make this shit up

[Wild Cobra]

40 days worth of precipitation trapped in the exosphere.

You cannot make this shit up

And you can't prove it impossible either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

:lol:rollin

So how did it turn into water? how is molecular water going to conduct?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol:rollin

So how did it turn into water? how is molecular water going to conduct?

What does the solar wind + O2 do, spontaneously?

[TeyshaBlue]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

This is boutons stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

This is boutons stupid.

So...

Are you saying it is impossible?

And you talk about that level of stupidity...

[RandomGuy]

So?

These are modeled predictions.

The observations must be wrong since they disagree with 95% of the models!



That is the thing about science and the peer-review method. It self-corrects. We learn more as we go, and gather more data.

I am content to wait, take some mild actions to limit the worst-case scenarios, limit CO2 and the science will out to get us some fairly decent models of how the earths climate works.

[RandomGuy]

And you can't prove it impossible either.

Don't need to.

Rejected. I will not believe it until you can prove it.

KayBys8gaJY

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking pseudoscientist.

[Wild Cobra]

That is the thing about science and the peer-review method. It self-corrects. We learn more as we go, and gather more data.

I am content to wait, take some mild actions to limit the worst-case scenarios, limit CO2 and the science will out to get us some fairly decent models of how the earths climate works.

So then. You agree...

The science is not settled, like the alarmists say...

[Wild Cobra]

Don't need to.

Rejected. I will not believe it until you can prove it.

KayBys8gaJY

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Get cracking pseudoscientist.

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does the solar wind + O2 do, spontaneously?

Spontaneously? Nothing. The collision of the proton would likely have enough energy to split the diatom but that is about it. You would need a decent density in order to get a decent amount of reaction. The huge spaces between molecules in the outer atmosphere isn't going to do it.

So a huge plume of solar wind is combusting throughout the atmosphere and Noah and everything else on the planet survives and doesn't notice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

Not everything that you can think of is within the realm of possibility. Because you have a finite set of outcomes in 5 cards you can deduce the possibilities. Yours is a false analogy. You suck at logic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also its not all oxygen. In fact its mostly nitrogen and that would make all kinds of funky nitrates like ammonia. 3 parts nitrate one part water makes for extremely caustic substances. The aurora borealis across the horizon and on fire then dumping nitric acid. Sounds lovely.

[Wild Cobra]

Also its not all oxygen. In fact its mostly nitrogen and that would make all kinds of funky nitrates like ammonia. 3 parts nitrate one part water makes for extremely caustic substances. The aurora borealis across the horizon and on fire then dumping nitric acid. Sounds lovely.

That is a stretch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is a stretch.

:lol but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a fuckton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

[Phenomanul]

:lol but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a fuckton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol but it happening from magic sky man who told noah to make his boat and save animals isn't?

The composition of the atmosphere is what it is. There is much more nitrogen than oxygen and it will all react when a fuckton of high energy protons are making collisions. It's precisely why we cannot use open air hydrogen combustion engines. It produces nitric acid amongst other things. HNO is very caustic stuff with a ph over 11 and it is much more likely to occur with the given ratios than H20.

We established a long time ago that you suck at chemistry.

Wow...

You are a fucking idiot. You are making things up that are known not to happen.

It takes NO to react that way, not N2. There are just trace abounds of it in the atmosphere. Something like 10,000 or more times O2 is present.

Do you make thing up and hope others will believe you?

[DarrinS]

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one. :lol


He does have a caustic personality though :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if you're so great at chemistry why would you confuse nitroxyl (HNO) and nitric acid (HNO3); two completely different species... Just reads entirely wrong to see a phrase that says "nitric acid...." followed by a phrase that suggests it has a basic pH, i.e. "very caustic stuff...".

Anyways, since you're such a stickler for technical semantics but never admit to any mistakes of your own, I'd thought I point out this very elementary one. :lol

:lol I see I have you to the point where you are desperate to 'beat' me on some point. I never claimed to be a chemist or a stickler. I do know that there is more N than O in the atmosphere and the central point still stands despite my forgetting suffixs. Bravo on being extremely petty and missing the forest for a tree. More N = nitrates.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

You are a fucking idiot. You are making things up that are known not to happen.

It takes NO to react that way, not N2. There are just trace abounds of it in the atmosphere. Something like 10,000 or more times O2 is present.

Do you make thing up and hope others will believe you?

And when you inundate the gas cloud with high energy protons like the sun emits in your theoretical 'solar burp' they are going to form all manner of NH and OH from the initial reaction ast he diatoms split and you have shit tons of free radicals. Both of the reactions are exothermic and add energy (re:explode). You are going to get all kinds of shit out of a massive explosion the breadth of the arc of the sky your plum collides with.

[Phenomanul]

:lol I see I have you to the point where you are desperate to 'beat' me on some point. I never claimed to be a chemist or a stickler. I do know that there is more N than O in the atmosphere and the central point still stands despite my forgetting suffixs. Bravo on being extremely petty and missing the forest for a tree. More N = nitrates.

all I heard... was "squeky, squeaky, squeaky..." (backpeddaling)

A response along the lines of: "fair enough" would have demonstrated far more character than what you just wrote. As it stands, you just come off as someone who always has to be "right"... and you've just demonstrated as much with the quoted response.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all I heard... was "squeky, squeaky, squeaky..." (backpeddaling)

A response along the lines of: "fair enough" would have demonstrated far more character than what you just wrote. As it stands, you just come off as someone who always has to be "right"... and you've just demonstrated as much with the quoted response.

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.

[DarrinS]

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.


Fuzzy. Acids have low pH.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy. Acids have low pH.

That is right it generates hydroxides. My bad. Point still stands as to the outcome of colliding high energy proton clouds into the earths atmosphere. All kinds of permutations of H, N, O, and C.

[Wild Cobra]

And when you inundate the gas cloud with high energy protons like the sun emits in your theoretical 'solar burp' they are going to form all manner of NH and OH from the initial reaction ast he diatoms split and you have shit tons of free radicals. Both of the reactions are exothermic and add energy (re:explode). You are going to get all kinds of shit out of a massive explosion the breadth of the arc of the sky your plum collides with.
LOL...

Your stupidity seems to be growing exponentially!

[CosmicCowboy]

I just said you were right. I get that it is important to that you prove me wrong on something and I admitted that it was a mistake on my part. I was wrong on a particular suffix.

Nitrates are still bad and as a whole are very acidic HNO does have a ph of 11 and it is what it is. MY central argument is still there. You are still exposed as butthurt and frantic to win a point though. You're better than most of these nitwits though. Darrin and WC run away and dissemble.

:lmao

now look who is really blustering.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

now look who is really blustering.

You guys are arguing about semantics and none of you are arguing that the nitrogen will react. Sorry I don't edit my posts better but as long as nitrogen is in the air, it's going to react along with everything else and create nitrates which again present the problems I have detailed. They are exothermic reactions and it is what it is.

Blustering is just saying "you're wrong" and then adding a smiley exactly like you and dumbfuck have done. Bravo on sharing the same brain.

[RandomGuy]

So then. You agree...

The science is not settled, like the alarmists say...

(shrugs)

As I said, I am content to do some moderate CO2 limiting things, especially since those limitations will benefit the economy, unlike what the economic alarmists say.

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to prove something that is very unlikely, but possible. Keep in mind, I never said this happened.

Every now and then, when a person plays video poker, a royal flush happens.

It is very unlikely, but possible.

You haven't even proved its possible.

Just because you say it is possible, doesn't make it so, no matter how hard you wish it to be, Cosmored.

[RandomGuy]

In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.


That's pretty much what I think about the predictions of economic disaster from the "do nothing" crowd. Funny how the policy solution just "happens" to be favored by a trillion-dollar industry.

The kinds of modest limits on CO2 emissions, and investments in technology required to moderate what we are throwing into the air arguably benefits economies and standards of living.

That they might just avoid some rather substantial risks, is a pretty big bonus.

Really is a no-brainer from a policy and evidence standpoint, and we don't even need "settled" science, just a modest amount of evidence about the risks.

[Phenomanul]

That's pretty much what I think about the predictions of economic disaster from the "do nothing" crowd. Funny how the policy solution just "happens" to be favored by a trillion-dollar industry.

The kinds of modest limits on CO2 emissions, and investments in technology required to moderate what we are throwing into the air arguably benefits economies and standards of living.

That they might just avoid some rather substantial risks, is a pretty big bonus.

Really is a no-brainer from a policy and evidence standpoint, and we don't even need "settled" science, just a modest amount of evidence about the risks.

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

[boutons_deux]

"China (refineries are being built left and right) and they couldn't care less about their emissions."

both countries, esp China, are realizing that pollution is a problem.

"offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change"

You Lie

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

Are you really crying about the health of the US oil industry? Even through the heart of the recession the industry was still recording record profits. Even now with the price drop the only people that are seeing real harm are startups still holding a lot of debt. Between that and the subsidies for said innovations that you are talking about your argument has no teeth whatsoever. Poor oil magnates. . . .

And ending up with that corporate apologist nonsense. Yes, firms will pass on prices if they can but its not just this universal truth that you claim. If demand will not support the price then it falls right on its face. Ask Netflix. I would say that in the general sense, consumers making such overarching assumptions is against their self interest. It's tacit approval of the policy when public pressure obviously can have the opposite effect.

5 figure GOP types always make me laugh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

This is particularly ignorant. The oil lobby gave up on the warming drives CO2 angle a long time ago, chachi. Nobody in science argues that CO2 isn't a GHG anymore. Catch up with your overlords; they only argue scope of impacts now cause that is all that is unsettled. C

[Phenomanul]

Are you really crying about the health of the US oil industry? Even through the heart of the recession the industry was still recording record profits. Even now with the price drop the only people that are seeing real harm are startups still holding a lot of debt. Between that and the subsidies for said innovations that you are talking about your argument has no teeth whatsoever. Poor oil magnates. . . .

And ending up with that corporate apologist nonsense. Yes, firms will pass on prices if they can but its not just this universal truth that you claim. If demand will not support the price then it falls right on its face. Ask Netflix. I would say that in the general sense, consumers making such overarching assumptions is against their self interest. It's tacit approval of the policy when public pressure obviously can have the opposite effect.

5 figure GOP types always make me laugh.

Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation. It's a direct impact to the local economies they support, less employees, less overall work - not some wishy-washy hypothetical. I don't care about the oil magnates - they will stay wealthy no matter what... These type of initiatives directly and adversely affect the middle working classes; I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

So you don't think that the ridiculous taxes that are levied on gasoline and diesel (on the end users - i.e. us the consumer) along with the billion dollar investments the refineries have to spend to live up to newer and ever changing regulations have any effect on the economy...? Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of automobiles has been dramatically shortened on account of newer gasoline blends (i.e. ethanol) destroying the engines. In the last two decades alone, more than 20 U.S. refiners have gone out of business. The folks making money are the oil-producers and they are not necessarily being regulated by the law of supply and demand (OPEC takes care of ensuring that this is the case as we've seen over the past 3 decades). The producers simply pass along any increases in operating expenses over to us.

Meanwhile in India and China refineries are being built left and right, and they couldn't care less about their emissions. If we all exist in the same global atmospheric system then why unilaterally target U.S/European economies all whilst elsewhere in the world pollution runs rampant at our expense.

I'm all for the regulation of Ozone, NOx, SOx, soot particulates and hydrocarbon emissions (i.e. methane, etc...) - due to their toxicity and other adverse effects (i.e. acid rain...). In that light, however, regulation of CO2 on the offchance that the 'unsettled' science behind anthropomorphic climate change is legitimized, becomes a giant albatross that DOES have an adverse effect on our economy.

There you go again with that economic alarmism.

Feel free to present any evidence whatsoever of this potential catastrophic adverse affect on our economy, and please address the totality of negative externalities of oil production.

I think we subsidize oil production quite enough, though the negative externalities inherent in the production, storage, and usage of this rather dangerous product.

Not only will taxing CO2 emissions provide a net immediate benefit to our economy, creating high-tech, un-outsourcable jobs, abandoning this old tech, with its aging infrastructure, the jobs created by the readjustment of our economy to a more efficient and sustainable mixture of energy sources will make us far more competitive.

If you can't show me economic harm from some settled economic sources, you should probably rethink your alarmist position.

[Phenomanul]

This is particularly ignorant. The oil lobby gave up on the warming drives CO2 angle a long time ago, chachi. Nobody in science argues that CO2 isn't a GHG anymore. Catch up with your overlords; they only argue scope of impacts now cause that is all that is unsettled. C

CO2 being a green-house gas was considered established science whenever we developed sensible enough instruments to validate/confirm Boltzmann-derrived emissivities and absorptivities (since the 1940s). That's never been the heart of the issue. Only you would throw out that red-herring argument to bolster the position that somehow CO2's anthropogenic impact is legitimized simply because the science behind the green-house effect is valid. Were that the case (using that logic), and as I've explained on many other occasions on this board, water vapor would have to be the most regulated pollutant.

1) because water vapor exists in much higher concentrations within our atmosphere (i.e visible concentrations [clouds and humidity]) - far unlike the 300-360 ppmv concentrations of CO2.

2) because it has a radiative forcing factor (NET positive absorbtivity) that is 50 times greater than that of CO2. Since water vapor can absorb and retain more solar energy it tends to increase its enthalpic state resulting in an increase of system temperature.

If not for the green house effect provided by our atmosphere this planet would have sub-zero temperatures throughout.

What's ignorant is your assumption that simply because we disagree, that somehow you're intellectually superior (it may, or may not be the case, but an assumption on that front is presumptuous at best... and immaterial at worst)... Have I called you stupid? Idiotic? No... why not extend the same courtesy then...?

[Wild Cobra]

Well said Phenomanul.

[boutons_deux]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless? :lol

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless? :lol

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist? :lol

Please explain how CO2 increasing from 0.0278% of the atmosphere to 0.04% is harmful. There is approximately 50 time more water vapor in the lower troposphere, and it is also a greenhouse gas.

Now... like I said, please explain... Not some knee-jerk alarmist BS that you don't comprehend, that you quote from one of the several liberal rags you read. Please cite a paper.

[Phenomanul]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless? :lol

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist? :lol

So your response was an ad hominem attack...? Predictable.

Please enlighten us with the trend of "HISTORIC" increase in GHG (CO2 in particular)" in the context of the range of historical concentrations of said constituent... Then explain to us how being within the range of historical concentrations (within one standard deviation of the mean) is cause for alarm?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

CO2 being a green-house gas was considered established science whenever we developed sensible enough instruments to validate/confirm Boltzmann-derrived emissivities and absorptivities (since the 1940s). That's never been the heart of the issue. Only you would throw out that red-herring argument to bolster the position that somehow CO2's anthropogenic impact is legitimized simply because the science behind the green-house effect is valid. Were that the case (using that logic), and as I've explained on many other occasions on this board, water vapor would have to be the most regulated pollutant.

1) because water vapor exists in much higher concentrations within our atmosphere (i.e visible concentrations [clouds and humidity]) - far unlike the 300-360 ppmv concentrations of CO2.

2) because it has a radiative forcing factor (NET positive absorbtivity) that is 50 times greater than that of CO2. Since water vapor can absorb and retain more solar energy it tends to increase its enthalpic state resulting in an increase of system temperature.

If not for the green house effect provided by our atmosphere this planet would have sub-zero temperatures throughout.

What's ignorant is your assumption that simply because we disagree, that somehow you're intellectually superior (it may, or may not be the case, but an assumption on that front is presumptuous at best... and immaterial at worst)... Have I called you stupid? Idiotic? No... why not extend the same courtesy then...?

Took you two days to google that up and then you don't cite it. Nice. I like how you pretend that climate scientists don't consider water vapor. It is as fun as WC saying they do not consider soot. He sure waved his hands when they made an adjustment to the forcing but it still netted the same result.

And quit fucking crying. I haven't called you stupid. I have called certain things you said ignorant but I also point out that you are better than sophist and dumbass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation. It's a direct impact to the local economies they support, less employees, less overall work - not some wishy-washy hypothetical. I don't care about the oil magnates - they will stay wealthy no matter what... These type of initiatives directly and adversely affect the middle working classes; I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

All I read here is that you are not objective. If they are passing on the price to you and still bringing in record profits what does that tell you? They aren't Henry Ford for one but what else?

But thanks for revealing that you are a member of the petroleum industry.

[Phenomanul]

Took you two days to google that up and then you don't cite it. Nice. I like how you pretend that climate scientists don't consider water vapor. It is as fun as WC saying they do not consider soot. He sure waved his hands when they made an adjustment to the forcing but it still netted the same result.

And quit fucking crying. I haven't called you stupid. I have called certain things you said ignorant but I also point out that you are better than sophist and dumbass.

I've been pointing to that inconsistency in logic for years (including in this website)... and long before "googling" became googling, or before I registered on Spurstalk... I don't have to apologize that I have other responsibilities that keep me away from living in the political forum...

Oh... and I'm also sorry that you feel that knowledge from the 1940s and 1950's has to be cited before it can be legitimized by you... at that point buddy, it's pretty much public domain. Or do you feel I still need to cite Einstein's 1905 paper if I wish to speak about Relativity?

But before I forget. Let me point out you didn't actually refute anything I posted. I've read SOOOOOOO many articles that want to wish away this glaring inconsistency but they can't... So before you go a-googling a suitable rebuttal, let me tell you, "I'm not interested... in playing this game of yours forever." Like I said, you're so firmly entrenched in your belief that even a simple and powerful observation isn't enough to sway you. As I said before, the absorption energies are based on Boltzmann-derived formulas - energies which are derived from the molecular bonds themselves (i.e. they are INTRINSIC to the molecule in question). You, nor anyone else can change that.

So the question is asked anew. If water vapor exists at much higher concentrations in our atmosphere and imposes a radiative forcing factor that is greater than that of CO2... How is water vapor not considered a pollutant???? Why aren't we making policy changes to address and legislate the emission of said species??? And don't think for a second that the irony of the combustion reaction is lost on me either... I do understand that water is also produced when combusting fossil fuels and their derivatives. My question is WHY harp on CO2 when water vapor produces 95% of the green house effect in our atmosphere? I'll tell you.... that right there is the pseudo-science - a political story that isn't supported by basic physics...

[Phenomanul]

All I read here is that you are not objective. If they are passing on the price to you and still bringing in record profits what does that tell you? They aren't Henry Ford for one but what else?

But thanks for revealing that you are a member of the petroleum industry.

Three things eluded you:

1) the part where I'm a member of the middle class - whether or not the "bosses" make more money doesn't automatically mean I'm somehow bolstered to the ranks of the wealthy or that I'm incapable of being objective...

2) the wealthy oil magnates/tycoons or whatever you want to call them will retain their wealth and power no matter what we do. Needlessly spending money to address bogus legislation cuts into the money than the rest of the work pool would have earned. DIRECT economic impact on the middle working class.

3) it's really a no win situation with you guys... here are the two scenarios that could've played out:

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I actually work with and around the refiners, I can tell you that budgets are slashed with these type of initiatives..."

You all - "well since you work IN the petroleum industry... your position is biased and not objective..."

OR

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I don't actually work with and around the refiners, I couldn't tell you whether or not the effects on their budgets by these initiatives are real or not..."

You all - "Like we said, you can't produce a link between the cause and effect... you're just a fear mongerer..."

SOOOOOOO like I said, you all aren't really interested in understanding TRUTH. Just the truth that you all wish to be true. In the process, you all behave acidic towards others... (I mean caustic - whatever) - towards those that don't share your position. You all wave your arms around wishing to be acknowledged as intellectual superiors but can't even see the sheet that has been thrown over your collective eyes...

[Phenomanul]

Now if you will allow it... I will be out playing some fútbol on this gorgeous day (with my Flash Messi jersey).... peace Fuzzy! We can agree to disagree...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've been pointing to that inconsistency in logic for years (including in this website)... and long before "googling" became "googling", or before I registered on Spurstalk... I don't have to apologize that I have other responsibilities that keep me away from living the political forum...

Oh... and sorry that you feel that knowledge from the 1940s and 1950's has to be cited before it is legitimized by you... at that point buddy, it's pretty much public domain. Or do you feel I still need to cite Einstein's 1905 paper if I wish to speak about Relativity?

But before I forget. Let me point out you didn't actually refute anything I posted. I've read SOOOOOOO many articles that want to wish away this glaring inconsistency but they can't... So before you go a-googling a suitable rebuttal, let me tell you, "I'm not interested... in playing this game of yours forever." Like I said, you're so firmly entrenched in your belief that even a simple and powerful observation isn't enough to sway you. As I said before, the absorption energies are based on Boltzmann-derived formulas - energies which are derived from the molecular bonds themselves (i.e. they are INTRINSIC to the molecule in question). You, nor anyone else can change that.

So the question is asked anew. If water vapor exists at much higher concentrations in our atmosphere and imposes a radiative forcing factor that is greater than that of CO2... How is water vapor not considered a pollutant???? Why aren't we making policy changes to address and legislate the emission of said species??? And don't think for a second that the irony of the combustion reaction is lost on me either... I do understand that water is also produced when combusting fossil fuels and their derivatives. My question is WHY harp on CO2 when water vapor produces 95% of the green house effect in our atmosphere?

:lol Just to be clear. You have completely abandoned the sea ice argument. Now you want to fixate on water vapor. Bait and switch. Some people might think you are throwing the proverbial shit against the wall and hoping.

Wave your hands at the EM behavior at the molecular level all you like but there are more macro manifestations that you have to account for. A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.

Water vapor is harder to quantify because clouds form and are a negative forcing directly related to how much water is in the air. Have you heard of the term feedback loop? I'm not saying that water isn't a net gain but you cannot just wave your hands at your boltzman chart and ignore all the EM that clouds filter out completely through reflection. This is exactly like WC and his chart of partial pressures of lab water and commenting on ocean behavior. There is a reason why I describe this tripe as ignorant and oversimplified.

Our topological frameworks right now cannot account for turbulence with accuracy. They are backward engineered summations but the actual mechanics is anyone's guess, it could be truly random for all we know. Flight controls use rolling averages or react. Aerodynamics is centered around the idea of eliminating turbulence or creating idealized scenarios for turbulence for lift and such. Chemical engineering will use these same principles. Predicting cloud formation over the north atlantic?

The thing is they can go back and record cloud cover with your fancy sea ice satellites and quantify I/O whole as well as mark signals and bounce them off clouds and such. That you think that you don't believe our own National Academy, most all of the world's academies, IPCC, et all account for the EM effect of H20 is funny though.

[Phenomanul]

:lol Just to be clear. You have completely abandoned the sea ice argument. Now you want to fixate on water vapor. Bait and switch. Some people might think you are throwing the proverbial shit against the wall and hoping.

I have to retract something I said earlier. I've known about the radiative differences between water vapor and CO2 since about 2008 - prior to that point I wasn't convinced one way or the other...

To me, that observation made it very clear that the inconsistency can't be swept under a rug.

You can go back and search my posts...

:lol bait and switch... as if having multiple reasons for not believing the ACH story somehow weakens my position... I'm still not convinced by your rebuttals on the "thicknesses of Antarctic" ice given the fact that the study has no simple control reference point (i.e. data going back more than just a couple of years - as opposed to convenient "estimates")... I made that pretty clear (but you're so caught up thinking that somehow posted articles/studies carry absolute merit).


Wave your hands at the EM behavior at the molecular level all you like but there are more macro manifestations that you have to account for. A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.

Another favorite tactic of the pseudoscientist is to wash away SIMPLE observations that don't jive with their beliefs under the guise that the complexity of systems will take care of the problem/inconsistency. Science is built on foundational principles, if a premise doesn't work at a physical or chemical level it falls apart at the more complex ones (and again, don't assume I don't understand them).


Water vapor is harder to quantify because clouds form and are a negative forcing directly related to how much water is in the air. Have you heard of the term feedback loop? I'm not saying that water isn't a net gain but you cannot just wave your hands at your boltzman chart and ignore all the EM that clouds filter out completely through reflection. This is exactly like WC and his chart of partial pressures of lab water and commenting on ocean behavior. There is a reason why I describe this tripe as ignorant and oversimplified.

Exhibit A:

The fact of the matter is that at any given moment, there is more water vapor receiving solar flux from the sun than CO2. That is an undeniable fact. Or do you deny that this is the case?

I've read many rebuttals that literally suggest that there are less clouds on the sunny part of our planet. A diversionary tactic that doesn't change Boltzmann energy absorption. (not to mention the simple observation that on my "Living Earth" app the distribution of Earth's many cloud systems look fairly uniform).

I've read other rebuttals that suggest that the albedo provided by clouds FAR suppresses the overwhelming contribution of its green-house forcing vs. that of CO2. This would deny another well known measurement; that clouds are typically warmer than their surrounding air (even when full of ice crystals)...

Other rebuttals still, that contain partial truths such as mentioning that because water removes atmospheric heat during precipitation that its EM effect is negated. To suggest that without then referencing that the natural convection of cloud systems re-radiates all of the absorbed enthalpic heat is disingenuous. But hey, they don't expect the normal reader to understand these dynamics. They just expect to be taken at their every "peer reviewed" word.

The list goes on.


Our topological frameworks right now cannot account for turbulence with accuracy. They are backward engineered summations but the actual mechanics is anyone's guess, it could be truly random for all we know. Flight controls use rolling averages or react. Aerodynamics is centered around the idea of eliminating turbulence or creating idealized scenarios for turbulence for lift and such. Chemical engineering will use these same principles. Predicting cloud formation over the north atlantic?

So these "more complex" models fail to settle the science. That's what your detractors have been saying all along. The science behind CO2-driven anthropogenic climate change isn't settled. You all are simply "kicking and screaming" at the fact that this global indoctrination doesn't convince everyone.


The thing is they can go back and record cloud cover with your fancy sea ice satellites and quantify I/O whole as well as mark signals and bounce them off clouds and such.

You glossed over the fact that I mentioned I love submitting that particular data set, because it's one of few that can not be easily manipulated given that it was originally used to suggest that the ice masses were INCREASING (one of the original purposes for sending those satellites into space in the first place).


That you think that you don't believe our own National Academy, most all of the world's academies, IPCC, et all account for the EM effect of H20 is funny though.

They would be easier to believe if certain folks in those institutions weren't constantly manipulating data sets. The IPCC is a fraudulent joke, but people like you worship their every report.

[Wild Cobra]

Phenomanul is absolutely correct in that it doesn't add up. That is the simple way to explain why the alarmist position is incorrect.

[DarrinS]

A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.


Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

[Phenomanul]

Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

Well played... surprised that ^^^THIS wasn't my initial rebuttal to his ad-hominem assertion.

[Th'Pusher]

There you go again with that economic alarmism.

Feel free to present any evidence whatsoever of this potential catastrophic adverse affect on our economy, and please address the totality of negative externalities of oil production.

I think we subsidize oil production quite enough, though the negative externalities inherent in the production, storage, and usage of this rather dangerous product.

Not only will taxing CO2 emissions provide a net immediate benefit to our economy, creating high-tech, un-outsourcable jobs, abandoning this old tech, with its aging infrastructure, the jobs created by the readjustment of our economy to a more efficient and sustainable mixture of energy sources will make us far more competitive.

If you can't show me economic harm from some settled economic sources, you should probably rethink your alarmist position.
Phenomanul, you neglected to address this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

You claiming the IPCC, National Academy, BEST, the Royal Academy, etc don't treat all forcings comprehensively? That is stupid shit that shames you. I don't claim to speak for the climate community. Push comes to shove that is exactly where I go and you know this.


The fact of the matter is that at any given moment, there is more water vapor receiving solar flux from the sun than CO2. That is an undeniable fact. Or do you deny that this is the case?

I've read many rebuttals that literally suggest that there are less clouds on the sunny part of our planet. A diversionary tactic that doesn't change Boltzmann energy absorption. (not to mention the simple observation that on my "Living Earth" app the distribution of Earth's many cloud systems look fairly uniform).

I've read other rebuttals that suggest that the albedo provided by clouds FAR suppresses the overwhelming contribution of its green-house forcing vs. that of CO2. This would deny another well known measurement; that clouds are typically warmer than their surrounding air (even when full of ice crystals)...

Other rebuttals still, that contain partial truths such as mentioning that because water removes atmospheric heat during precipitation that its EM effect is negated. To suggest that without then referencing that the natural convection of cloud systems re-radiates all of the absorbed enthalpic heat is disingenuous. But hey, they don't expect the normal reader to understand these dynamics. They just expect to be taken at their every "peer reviewed" word.

:lol the only substantive thing is this entire discussion. the scientific conspiracy theory/consensus herring is horseshit. If tabloid outrage that withered under 7 fruitless inquiries appeals to you then so be it. Benghazi is likely mesmerizing for you as well then.

even more hilarious is you haranguing them for taking them at their 'word' after you lay whopper after whopper with not a single reference or citation. Even if I believed you came up with this shit on your own, -I don't at all, oilman- you should at least reference these studies that you claim do not consider convection or thermodynamics in general. You have your boogeyman scientific community while I have you. What's your experience in atmospheric modeling or even thermodynamics for that matter? Where are these strawmen you are beating up?

Just to point out how full of shit you are let's go over to the evil IPCC and see what they say about cloud convection:


The Earth’s cloudiness is associated with a large spectrum of cloud types, ranging from low-level boundary-layer clouds to deep convective clouds and anvils. Understanding cloud feedbacks requires an understanding of how a change in climate may affect the spectrum and the radiative properties of these different clouds, and an estimate of the impact of these changes on the Earth’s radiation budget.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html

Well lookie here. They do consider the thermodynamic properties of clouds and you are full of shit. That was easier than finding WC's solubility chart.

[Phenomanul]

You claiming the IPCC, National Academy, BEST, the Royal Academy, etc don't treat all forcings comprehensively? That is stupid shit that shames you. I don't claim to speak for the climate community. Push comes to shove that is exactly where I go and you know this.

:lol the only substantive thing is this entire discussion. the scientific conspiracy theory/consensus herring is horseshit. If tabloid outrage that withered under 7 fruitless inquiries appeals to you then so be it. Benghazi is likely mesmerizing for you as well then.

another strawman assumption on your part.

Up until now this is the first time I've ever written the word "Benghazi"...

But keep reaching at straws.

The IPCC manipulated/deleted data and admitted as much in the leaked emails. Soooo much backpeddaling on their part convinced folks like yourself that they really weren't fudging data. Ask yourself why data that would be considered "public domain / for the good of humanity" would be so dangerous if left exposed that the IPCC had governments seek and destroy leaked copies...


even more hilarious is you haranguing them for taking them at their 'word' after you lay whopper after whopper with not a single reference or citation.

Let me simplify what public domain knowledge means:

Water vapor is far more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

The radiative green-house forcing vector for water vapor is greater than that of CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

You keep wanting to brush these aside - to diminish their combined importance by suggesting that other complex dynamics (that are conveniently too difficult to model/simulate) negate the ramifications of those two truths.

What's more, you've thrown another ad hominem attack in the process. So either they are "whoppers" and I'm lying about the key differences between water vapor and CO2 or they are facts. You've hedged your bets in the wrong pot.


Even if I believed you came up with this shit on your own, -I don't at all, oilman- you should at least reference these studies that you claim do not consider convection or thermodynamics in general. You have your boogeyman scientific community while I have you. What's your experience in atmospheric modeling or even thermodynamics for that matter? Where are these strawmen you are beating up?

I use thermodynamic principles day in and day out. There you go assuming again. You don't know me... You don't know what I do for a living. Nor is there a need to tell you.


Just to point out how full of shit you are let's go over to the evil IPCC and see what they say about cloud convection:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html

Ooooh oooh you found an article that references cloud convection. Am I supposed to be impressed? If you were paying attention I was referencing rebuttals that claimed that the condensation of water vapor (via precipitation) removed more energy from the system than it absorbed from the sun - without factoring convection. I don't care that you found some other article that talks about cloud convection. I'm specifically referencing the inconsistency in targeting CO2 as a major pollutant with logic that would otherwise target water vapor as the primary culprit.

Speaking of the IPCC and since you soooo want me to link their crap.... Here is their official position on the greenhouse effect. Direct from their FAQ.


The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.

Several components of the climate system, notably the oceans and living things, affect atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. A prime example of this is plants taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and converting it (and water) into carbohydrates via photosynthesis. In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Additional important feedback mechanisms involve clouds. Clouds are effective at absorbing infrared radiation and therefore exert a large greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earth. Clouds are also effective at reflecting away incoming solar radiation, thus cooling the Earth. A change in almost any aspect of clouds, such as their type, location, water content, cloud altitude, particle size and shape, or lifetimes, affects the degree to which clouds warm or cool the Earth. Some changes amplify warming while others diminish it. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

It's been a while since I had read their FAQ. At least now they are talking about water vapor. In one fell swoop they reveal the truth but then quickly minimize the difference in magnitude between the contribution of the effects of water vapor and CO2. Why don't they show the actual Boltzmann energies? The relative concentrations of the constituents? Because it doesn't suit their story... that's why.

It's like saying that a multi-billionaire is considered wealthy and then also suggesting in the same breath that someone that earns 10,000 is also wealthy. That's essentially what they did in the highlighted statement (by neglecting to show the significant difference in orders of magnitude between their respective contributions).

Also buried in their explanation is a subtle thermodynamic manipulation that seemingly bolsters their CO2 driven ACH position: "This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

Approximately double? Really? So CO2 imposes a stronger green-house effect via water vapor (due to positive feedback reinforcement that adds more water vapor to the atmosphere as a direct result of CO2's presence). So again the culprit is water vapor yet they keep trying to keep CO2 in the picture. How can you not see that for the disingenuous approach that it is...


Well lookie here. They do consider the thermodynamic properties of clouds and you are full of shit. That was easier than finding WC's solubility chart. You've missed the point entirely (which I stated above).

IF by their own admission water vapor is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Why isn't it regulated as a pollutant....?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

another strawman assumption on your part.

Up until now this is the first time I've ever written the word "Benghazi"...

But keep reaching at straws.

The IPCC manipulated/deleted data and admitted as much in the leaked emails. Soooo much backpeddaling on their part convinced folks like yourself that they really weren't fudging data. Ask yourself why data that would be considered "public domain / for the good of humanity" would be so dangerous if left exposed that the IPCC had governments seek and destroy leaked copies...



Let me simplify what public domain knowledge means:

Water vapor is far more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

The radiative green-house forcing vector for water vapor is greater than that of CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

You keep wanting to brush these aside - to diminish their combined importance by suggesting that other complex dynamics (that are conveniently too difficult to model/simulate) negate the ramifications of those two truths.

What's more, you've thrown another ad hominem attack in the process. So either they are "whoppers" and I'm lying about the key differences between water vapor and CO2 or they are facts. You've hedged your bets in the wrong pot.



I use thermodynamic principles day in and day out. There you go assuming again. You don't know me... You don't know what I do for a living. Nor is there a need to tell you.



Ooooh oooh you found an article that references cloud convection. Am I supposed to be impressed? If you were paying attention I was referencing rebuttals that claimed that the condensation of water vapor (via precipitation) removed more energy from the system than it absorbed from the sun - without factoring convection. I don't care that you found some other article that talks about cloud convection. I'm specifically referencing the inconsistency in targeting CO2 as a major pollutant with logic that would otherwise target water vapor as the primary culprit.

Speaking of the IPCC and since you soooo want me to link their crap.... Here is their official position on the greenhouse effect. Direct from their FAQ.



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

It's been a while since I had read their FAQ. At least now they are talking about water vapor. In one fell swoop they reveal the truth but then quickly minimize the difference in magnitude between the contribution of the effects of water vapor and CO2. Why don't they show the actual Boltzmann energies? The relative concentrations of the constituents? Because it doesn't suit their story... that's why.

It's like saying that a multi-billionaire is considered wealthy and then also suggesting in the same breath that someone that earns 10,000 is also wealthy. That's essentially what they did in the highlighted statement (by neglecting to show the significant difference in orders of magnitude between their respective contributions).

Also buried in their explanation is a subtle thermodynamic manipulation that seemingly bolsters their CO2 driven ACH position: "This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

Approximately double? Really? So CO2 imposes a stronger green-house effect via water vapor (due to positive feedback reinforcement that adds more water vapor to the atmosphere as a direct result of CO2's presence). So again the culprit is water vapor yet they keep trying to keep CO2 in the picture. How can you not see that for the disingenuous approach that it is...

You've missed the point entirely (which I stated above).

IF by their own admission water vapor is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Why isn't it regulated as a pollutant....?

I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0

still ongoing are the debates over the East Anglia Emails, international climate science conspiracy, and waving your hands at the boltzman for H2O and acting like that means CO2's boltzman is not meaningful.

The emails were stolen and cherry picked. The British Governement and science association, the EPA, US science associations and the universities themselves completed their inquiry into censorship and data manipulation and found nothing. Your overlords paid stooge Inhofe then demanded the inspector general of the commerce department review it and even then nothing. That was 2009. Since then the BEST project inspected the temperature record and affirmed its validity. The argument is old and stupid.

If you want to believe in a massive global conspiracy amongst UN countries many of which are adversarial politically then have fun with that. They are clearly considering all of the physical properties you are bringing up and all you can do is whine and denounce their quantification. IPCC's full work and datasets are open to the public. If you want to make an actual case about falsified figures or link someone else's then have at it but you being a whiney bitch is not a compelling reason to believe that the data has been manipulated.

I did think that complaining about them not putting the boltzman chart on the faq for you was a nice touch. That type of megalomania and the large fonts mean that you have be really really asshurt. Well done, monkey.

Now onto water. How do you intend to adjust the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through regulation? Nevermind that 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, nevermind the concept of state change of water, pressure, temperature and dew points. Exactly what activity or behavior do you propose we regulate? Our agricultural and industrial practices dry up water sources and create deserts and have been doing so for centuries.

At no point do you present a source that agrees with any of your takes. You are all on your lonesome, oil platformer. Shall we look up what the US national academy has to say on water vapor's thermodynamic properties and feedback mechanics? they don't agree with your dumbed down handwaving but if you call me on it ill be more than happy to look it up.

[boutons_deux]

The “Dr. Evil” of climate denial: Meet the legendary P.R. exec with a sinister anti-science agenda


http://media.salon.com/2015/04/rick_berman.jpg

Working on a host of various issues, Berman’s m.o. is always the same—form seemingly independent (and always very academic-sounding) groups that can then go out and do the dirty work that big companies can’t do for themselves. In the last ten years, Berman has attacked the Humane Society for Big Ag, he’s smeared Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the alcohol industry, and today he’s bringing his unique skill set to the arena of climate change.

In a recent piece for the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules), journalists exposed that over the last year, Berman (also known by the moniker “Dr. Evil”) has “secretly routed funding for at least 16 studies and launched at least five front groups attacking Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon dioxide from power plants.” The criticisms launched by these kinds of front groups are typically dirty and dishonest, but Berman spends little time worrying about such concerns. In a secretly recorded speech to oil and gas industry executives this past June, Berman told his potential funders, “you can either win ugly, or lose pretty (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=0).”

Against the backdrop of an ever-warming planet, a small but effective group of professionals has kept the “debate” about climate change raging, decades after the science became clear.

What guys like Berman recognize is that as long as the media is still debating whether or not climate change is real, we’ll never move on to the debate we ought to be having: What can we do to lessen the dangers of climate change before it’s too late?

Like good lawyers, they know that manufacturing even the slightest shred of doubt can be enough to keep the media deliberating, and to keep us from reaching a verdict that something serious needs to be done.

The media often plays into the hands of guys like Berman and it’s easy to see why: fairness, and a desire to hear both sides, stands at very the core of the journalistic ethic.

For 50 years, Big Tobacco — one of Berman’s first clients — was allowed to playpoint/counterpoint with mainstream scientists. But no person today would grant equal time to the Surgeon General and a Tobacco Lobbyist in a debate about the dangers of smoking. As a society, we’ve accepted reality and moved on.

Today, with climate change, the same can’t be said. We’re still allowing the same old debate to continue on cable news, in newspapers, in Op-ed pages. And our news outlets still cover the issue in terms one opinion versus another, not as fact vs. fiction. This needs to change. Until our coverage reflects the reality of the science and the consequences of our inaction, we won’t step up to the profound challenges before us.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/the_dr_evil_of_climate_denial_meet_the_legendary_p _r_exec_with_a_sinister_anti_science_agenda/

Fuck Berman, and fuck ALL YOU AGW DENIERS

[DarrinS]

I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0




Awe, that's cute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Awe, that's cute.

Putting on pink and talking sweet to my posts now, sophist?

If you don't get the answer you want your posts reveal more about you then the one that you are talking to.

[Phenomanul]

Look Fuzzy, I've already squandered more time than I wanted responding to your obstinate position. You haven't even had the galls to look up the EM absorption spectra differences for yourself, and have for the 7th time deflected any semblance of admission. I even went as far as going to the IPCC website (which I hadn't done in a while) to show that even they have adjusted their position and finally admit that CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas.

What do you do...? You keep deflecting and launch ad-hominem after ad-hominem in my direction.


I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0

:lol :lol :lol

And I'M the megalomaniac... seriously???


still ongoing are the debates over the East Anglia Emails, international climate science conspiracy, and waving your hands at the boltzman for H2O and acting like that means CO2's boltzman is not meaningful.

For the umpteenth time the Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

How are those differences "not meaningful..."? You're acting like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

Consider these lovely gems from a pro-Climate Change website:
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?626/global-warming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-play



Here are the perfect ingredients for a conspiracy theory: water vapor is the most important factor influencing the greenhouse effect but doesn’t feature on the UN’s list of greenhouse gases responsible for anthropogenic global warming.

Critics of the idea of man-made global warming love this simple fact and have turned it into one of their most potent arguments to sabotage decisive climate action.

So why doesn’t the UN’s climate body the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) list water vapor as a greenhouse gas? It’s because water vapor does not by itself increase temperatures. It amplifies already occurring warming.

Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes regionally. While there is virtually no water vapor above deserts or the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air above the equator can consist of up to four percent water vapor.

In humid equatorial regions, where there is already a strong natural greenhouse effect, additional CO2 and water vapor have little impact on local climate. The opposite is true in cold, dry places, which is one reason why warming is much more pronounced in Polar regions.

Concentration matters

Regional differences aside, the atmosphere contains on average only 0.4 percent of water vapor and ten times less CO2. This relatively small concentration is another argument often cited to refute the idea of man-made global warming. How can CO2 cause rising temperatures, skeptics demand, if it only accounts for 0.04 percent of the atmosphere?

Again the riddle is solved easily.

Oxygen and nitrogen are the most abundant elements in the Earth’s atmosphere and make up 99 percent of it. But neither of the two gases traps or emits heat.

This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up even if you tried. This position is filled with sooooo much bunk - it's rather laughable.

1st "wave of the hand":
"Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water."

At any given moment, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is still roughly 10.5 times higher than that of CO2 - in the context of daily solar radiation absorption, residence time is immaterial. FACT.

2nd "wave of the hand":
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

Earlier I pointed out the flaw in the IPCC's failsafe explanation that CO2 was forcing the effect of water vapor to be greater because of positive feedback dynamics asserted by their position. In either case the majority of the rise in temperature comes from water vapor, NOT CO2. Furthermore, water vapor does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes (re-radiation/convection). Greenhouse gases do NOT 'force' anything: that implies they have some inherent power... which they don't. They moderate heat retention and heat loss through the buffering of IR (solar radiation).

Their cute little analogy about the car's turbo charger deceptively masks where the source of the warming comes from... again, from water vapor.

3rd "wave of the hand":
This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Here again, they admit that water vapor is the culprit, but then quickly turn around to suggest that CO2 did it. Again it doesn't fit their story to blame water vapor. Who in their right mind would tax water vapor as a pollutant...?


The emails were stolen and cherry picked. The British Governement and science association, the EPA, US science associations and the universities themselves completed their inquiry into censorship and data manipulation and found nothing. Your overlords paid stooge Inhofe then demanded the inspector general of the commerce department review it and even then nothing. That was 2009. Since then the BEST project inspected the temperature record and affirmed its validity. The argument is old and stupid.

If you want to believe in a massive global conspiracy amongst UN countries many of which are adversarial politically then have fun with that. They are clearly considering all of the physical properties you are bringing up and all you can do is whine and denounce their quantification. IPCC's full work and datasets are open to the public. If you want to make an actual case about falsified figures or link someone else's then have at it but you being a whiney bitch is not a compelling reason to believe that the data has been manipulated.

Circle-jerk defense and dynamics prevented the fall of said institution. When the "prosecution" is lying in bed with the "defense" this will always be the outcome. The worst part is the worshipping peeps, such as yourself, will always fail to see their fraudulence.

Off the top of my memory the emails clearly said that "certain data sets" needed to be removed from plots. That "certain temperature probes in high latitude and high altitude locations needed to be removed from the data pool", "but that their data would be kept for baseline data..." (how convenient)

That all those other investigative agencies failed to reprimand the IPCC for these actions is an egregious example of their bias.

Again, you bought it. Good for you.


I did think that complaining about them not putting the boltzman chart on the faq for you was a nice touch. That type of megalomania and the large fonts mean that you have be really really asshurt. Well done, monkey.

The large font was to ensure that you would at least try to answer that one question - given that you tend to gloss over everything that doesn't suit the flow of your version of this discussion...

Which finally it seems like you've addressed below (still missing the greater point). But go ahead and keep adding tallies to your fictional debate score card if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Monkey???? So now you've derailed the conversation to the launching racist ad-hominems... great. :rolleyes


Now onto water. How do you intend to adjust the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through regulation? Nevermind that 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, nevermind the concept of state change of water, pressure, temperature and dew points. Exactly what activity or behavior do you propose we regulate? Our agricultural and industrial practices dry up water sources and create deserts and have been doing so for centuries.

Ahhhhh that's it!!!! That's the point!!!! No one in their right mind would try to regulate water vapor as a pollutant. Any government entity which attempted to do so would be branded as idiotic.

But that's the catch. If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. You would also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less).

Nice of you to finally reach the punch line (after about 8 responses). That's the whole point of contention in pointing out the ramifications of the following two truths.

1) The Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

2) Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

or 3 orders of magnitude difference...

That's also why the IPCC or these other agencies subtly skirt the publishing of the numbers involved side-by-side. Because they know it hurts their agenda.


At no point do you present a source that agrees with any of your takes. You are all on your lonesome, oil platformer. Shall we look up what the US national academy has to say on water vapor's thermodynamic properties and feedback mechanics? they don't agree with your dumbed down handwaving but if you call me on it ill be more than happy to look it up.

The hand waving is being done by them if you haven't noticed by now.

"lonesome, oil platformer"... :lol

Funny how you managed to fit two fallacies into that one...

1) I don't work on oil platforms, nor am I employed by any oil producer for that matter.... ad-hominem strawman...
2) the fallacy of consensius gentium. If the majority believe it, then it must be true. As if somehow I'm supposed to conform to the thinking of others...

[boutons_deux]

Volcano-Powered Ocean Acidification Caused the Planet's Greatest Mass Extinction (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/04/volcano-powered-ocean-acidification-caused-the-planets-greatest-mass-extinction.html)

"Scientists have long suspected that an ocean acidification event occurred during the greatest mass extinction of all time, but direct evidence has been lacking until now, said Matthew Clarkson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Clarkson), of the University of Edinburgh (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.9473888889,-3.18719444444&spn=0.01,0.01&q=55.9473888889,-3.18719444444%20(University%20of%20Edinburgh)&t=h)'s School of GeoSciences. "This is a worrying finding, considering that we can already see an increase in ocean acidity today that is the result of human carbon emissions."

Changes to the Earth's oceans, caused by extreme volcanic activity, triggered the greatest extinction of all time, a new study suggests. The event, which took place 252 million years ago, wiped out more than 90 per cent of marine species and more than two-thirds of the animals living on land.It happened when Earth's oceans absorbed huge amounts of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions, researchers say.

This changed the chemical composition of the oceans - making them more acidic - with catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, the team says.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/04/volcano-powered-ocean-acidification-caused-the-planets-greatest-mass-extinction.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29

everybody relax, water vapor will save the planet

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look Fuzzy, I've already squandered more time than I wanted responding to your obstinate position. You haven't even had the galls to look up the EM absorption spectra differences for yourself, and have for the 7th time deflected any semblance of admission. I even went as far as going to the IPCC website (which I hadn't done in a while) to show that even they have adjusted their position and finally admit that CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas.

What do you do...? You keep deflecting and launch ad-hominem after ad-hominem in my direction.



:lol :lol :lol

And I'M the megalomaniac... seriously???



For the umpteenth time the Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

How are those differences "not meaningful..."? You're acting like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

Consider these lovely gems from a pro-Climate Change website:
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?626/global-warming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-play



Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up even if you tried. This position is filled with sooooo much bunk - it's rather laughable.

1st "wave of the hand":
"Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water."

At any given moment, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is still roughly 10.5 times higher than that of CO2 - in the context of daily solar radiation absorption, residence time is immaterial. FACT.

2nd "wave of the hand":
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

Earlier I pointed out the flaw in the IPCC's failsafe explanation that CO2 was forcing the effect of water vapor to be greater because of positive feedback dynamics asserted by their position. In either case the majority of the rise in temperature comes from water vapor, NOT CO2. Furthermore, water vapor does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes (re-radiation/convection). Greenhouse gases do NOT 'force' anything: that implies they have some inherent power... which they don't. They moderate heat retention and heat loss through the buffering of IR (solar radiation).

Their cute little analogy about the car's turbo charger deceptively masks where the source of the warming comes from... again, from water vapor.

3rd "wave of the hand":
This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Here again, they admit that water vapor is the culprit, but then quickly turn around to suggest that CO2 did it. Again it doesn't fit their story to blame water vapor. Who in their right mind would tax water vapor as a pollutant...?



Circle-jerk defense and dynamics prevented the fall of said institution. When the "prosecution" is lying in bed with the "defense" this will always be the outcome. The worst part is the worshipping peeps, such as yourself, will always fail to see their fraudulence.

Off the top of my memory the emails clearly said that "certain data sets" needed to be removed from plots. That "certain temperature probes in high latitude and high altitude locations needed to be removed from the data pool", "but that their data would be kept for baseline data..." (how convenient)

That all those other investigative agencies failed to reprimand the IPCC for these actions is an egregious example of their bias.

Again, you bought it. Good for you.



The large font was to ensure that you would at least try to answer that one question - given that you tend to gloss over everything that doesn't suit the flow of your version of this discussion...

Which finally it seems like you've addressed below (still missing the greater point). But go ahead and keep adding tallies to your fictional debate score card if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Monkey???? So now you've derailed the conversation to the launching racist ad-hominems... great. :rolleyes



Ahhhhh that's it!!!! That's the point!!!! No one in their right mind would try to regulate water vapor as a pollutant. Any government entity which attempted to do so would be branded as idiotic.

But that's the catch. If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. You would also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less).

Nice of you to finally reach the punch line (after about 8 responses). That's the whole point of contention in pointing out the ramifications of the following two truths.

1) The Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

2) Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

or 3 orders of magnitude difference...

That's also why the IPCC or these other agencies subtly skirt the publishing of the numbers involved side-by-side. Because they know it hurts their agenda.



The hand waving is being done by them if you haven't noticed by now.

"lonesome, oil platformer"... :lol

Funny how you managed to fit two fallacies into that one...

1) I don't work on oil platforms, nor am I employed by any oil producer for that matter.... ad-hominem strawman...
2) the fallacy of consensius gentium. If the majority believe it, then it must be true. As if somehow I'm supposed to conform to the thinking of others...

:lol this is entering tldr stupidity.

Lets discuss the topics discussed and the score first. You have abandoned RG's economics impact argument as you have your sea ice nonsense so we have the tally at:

RG:1 Fuzzy:1 Pheno:0

You added a new construction beating up allainz.com's argument. I didn't bother to read it as I have already pointed out to you that I rely on the NAtional Academy, BEST, the Royal Society, and IPCC. Pulling up random interwebs and acting like it is meaningful in the greater context wastes all our time. It's not even the main AGW sites like the one poptart smears on his blog like skeptical science. You are losing badly in this debate and are seeking a new opponent and I get it but just stop.

I haven't questioned the absorption and radiative properties of CO2 or H2O as described by the IPCC in the quote and neither have you. They even talk about how in and of itself water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. You aren't telling me something I don't alredy know and machismo comments are stupid in this context although they do underscore the point I am making about handwaving.

As for the East Anglia 'conspiracy' do you have any response to Inhofe's commerce IG's inquiry citing the conflict of interest concerns? You don't get to pretend like that didn't happen. Well you can but it makes you look incredibly ignorant and dated. All you do in the above is double down that it is a conspiracy. I hope you are trolling because its pretty stupid.

Here is said report from the commerce department: http://www.oig.doc.gov/oigpublications/2011.02.18-ig-to-inhofe.pdf

If you just double down again, you lose.

Now lets look at water vapor. how fun! first you say we if we apply the same logic to CO2 then it is obvious how absurd it is to regulate CO2. I asked you how you intended to regulate water vapor considering it's a function of temperature and the nature of human agricultural and industrial practices. If you apply the same logic there you see that CO2 is always a gas and its air density is a function of how much fossil fuels we burn as well as geological and ecological mechanisms. And ffs, sophist, we do regulate water like a motherfucker. What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?

and logical fallacies are great but the notion of credibility on an anonymous web forum is valid. I have tried to keep the conversation as to what constitutes 'climate science' to IPCC, NASA, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST. It's lost on no one that water has some significant thermodynamic properties you have to account for, dipshit. That doesn't mean that the amount of CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels is not also significant.

On a final note:


Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation.

So you work in marketing consulting for oil companies? Credibility is what it is. I get why you would want to distance yourself from your work in the context of this discussion. Very Darrinlike of you.

[DarrinS]

What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?


:lmao

[Phenomanul]

:lol this is entering tldr stupidity.

Lets discuss the topics discussed and the score first. You have abandoned RG's economics impact argument as you have your sea ice nonsense so we have the tally at:

RG:1 Fuzzy:1 Pheno:0

You added a new construction beating up allainz.com's argument. I didn't bother to read it as I have already pointed out to you that I rely on the NAtional Academy, BEST, the Royal Society, and IPCC. Pulling up random interwebs and acting like it is meaningful in the greater context wastes all our time. It's not even the main AGW sites like the one poptart smears on his blog like skeptical science. You are losing badly in this debate and are seeking a new opponent and I get it but just stop.

I haven't questioned the absorption and radiative properties of CO2 or H2O as described by the IPCC in the quote and neither have you. They even talk about how in and of itself water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. You aren't telling me something I don't alredy know and machismo comments are stupid in this context although they do underscore the point I am making about handwaving.

As for the East Anglia 'conspiracy' do you have any response to Inhofe's commerce IG's inquiry citing the conflict of interest concerns? You don't get to pretend like that didn't happen. Well you can but it makes you look incredibly ignorant and dated. All you do in the above is double down that it is a conspiracy. I hope you are trolling because its pretty stupid.

Here is said report from the commerce department: http://www.oig.doc.gov/oigpublications/2011.02.18-ig-to-inhofe.pdf

If you just double down again, you lose.

Now lets look at water vapor. how fun! first you say we if we apply the same logic to CO2 then it is obvious how absurd it is to regulate CO2. I asked you how you intended to regulate water vapor considering it's a function of temperature and the nature of human agricultural and industrial practices. If you apply the same logic there you see that CO2 is always a gas and its air density is a function of how much fossil fuels we burn as well as geological and ecological mechanisms. And ffs, sophist, we do regulate water like a motherfucker. What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?

and logical fallacies are great but the notion of credibility on an anonymous web forum is valid. I have tried to keep the conversation as to what constitutes 'climate science' to IPCC, NASA, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST. It's lost on no one that water has some significant thermodynamic properties you have to account for, dipshit. That doesn't mean that the amount of CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels is not also significant.

On a final note:



So you work in marketing consulting for oil companies? Credibility is what it is. I get why you would want to distance yourself from your work in the context of this discussion. Very Darrinlike of you.

I really do find it entertaining that you think someone is keeping a "score" on this blog thread... if it helps boost your self-esteem so be it... perhaps they feed your delusions of grandeur... :lol

You're perspective is so skewed you are only able to see those things which suit your arguments and nothing else.

I'll keep this post shorter and to the point to see how you fandangle and wiggle yourself out of it:

If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. Wouldn't you also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less)...????

YES or NO.

It's a simple question Fuzzy. You've been dancing around it for days. Just answer the question with a simple yes or no.


And your answer from above doesn't quite cut it.

Now lets look at water vapor. how fun! first you say we if we apply the same logic to CO2 then it is obvious how absurd it is to regulate CO2. I asked you how you intended to regulate water vapor considering it's a function of temperature and the nature of human agricultural and industrial practices. If you apply the same logic there you see that CO2 is always a gas and its air density is a function of how much fossil fuels we burn as well as geological and ecological mechanisms. And ffs, sophist, we do regulate water like a motherfucker. What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?

1). Here you've managed to flip the argument around... I'm not asking if it's absurd to regulate CO2. I'm pointing out that because you think it's sound logic to regulate CO2, that then the same logic posits that we should also regulate water vapor. Regulation of water vapor is what I deem as being absurd. Strike one.

2). Not all CO2 is gaseous. Strike two.

3). Water conservation??? Really? You're going to go out on a limb and suggest that our water conservation initiatives are founded on the minimization of ACH effects... You're reaching for straws again. Strike three.

As for the East Anglia email leaks... I freaking read them dude. I don't need investigative panels to tell me how to interpret what I read. The IPCC is a fraud - and they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not once, but twice... that suckers like you keep wanting to uphold their scientific integrity is out of my control - I don't care how many reports you link that say otherwise. I know what I read.

[Phenomanul]

And for the record, I didn't ignore RG's post:

I simply stated that no matter how I answered it, you all would attack my position REGARDLESS:


3) it's really a no win situation with you guys... here are the two scenarios that could've played out:

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I actually work with and around the refiners, I can tell you that budgets are slashed with these type of initiatives..."

You all - "well since you work IN the petroleum industry... your position is biased and not objective..."

OR

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I don't actually work with and around the refiners, I couldn't tell you whether or not the effects on their budgets by these initiatives are real or not..."

You all - "Like we said, you can't produce a link between the cause and effect... you're just a fear mongerer..."

That you failed to see the response is not my problem.

[spursncowboys]

Phenomanel: You won me over.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I really do find it entertaining that you think someone is keeping a "score" on this blog thread... if it helps boost your self-esteem so be it... perhaps they feed your delusions of grandeur... :lol

You're perspective is so skewed you are only able to see those things which suit your arguments and nothing else.

I'll keep this post shorter and to the point to see how you fandangle and wiggle yourself out of it:

If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. Wouldn't you also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less)...????

YES or NO.

It's a simple question Fuzzy. You've been dancing around it for days. Just answer the question with a simple yes or no.


And you're answer from above doesn't quite cut it.


1). Here you've managed to flip the argument around... I'm not asking if it's absurd to regulate CO2. I'm pointing out that because you think it's sound logic to regulate CO2, that then the same logic posits that we should also regulate water vapor. Regulation of water vapor is what I deem as being absurd. Strike one.

So we are left with water vapor and its a conspiracy cause you say so. On the other side we have BEST's review of the temperature records and the Inspector Generals report I linked. You lose the conspiracy and email debates. You also surrendered your strawman random website really quick. You lose that argument as well as the sea ice you abandoned days ago.

As for your RG response, presenting a false dilemma is not an argument demonstrating how proposed policies create economic harm. His arguments about the economic benefit of improving the infrastructure and encouraging emerging markets still applies despite your whine. You repeating yourself again will not change that.

Fuzzy: 4 sea ice, emails, climate conspiracy, and allainz.com
RG: 1 economics
Pheno: 0 still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick.

I didn't dance around the question. I directly addressed your premise of the 'same logic being applied.' You dropped completely my argument about how the amount of water vapor was a function of temperature. You have also ignored the point that water also forms ice and clouds that have a negative forcing where CO2 has not such sate even when it dissociates in the ocean. I also don't deign to speak for the entire motives of water regulation my point is that water is heavily regulated.

If you are too stupid to figure out the answer to the question from how I addressed your loaded leading question then I will help: no. You waving your hands at the thermodynamic properties of water vapor and demonstrating an inability to come up with substantive water vapor regulation still doesn't mean that the effect of CO2 produced from fossil fuels is insignificant and is okay to ignore.

[Th'Pusher]

Phenomanel: You won me over.
Phenomanul, this is a real feather in your cap. SnC has proven himself to be a truly critical thinker.

[Phenomanul]

So we are left with water vapor and its a conspiracy cause you say so. On the other side we have BEST's review of the temperature records and the Inspector Generals report I linked. You lose the conspiracy and email debates. You also surrendered your strawman random website really quick. You lose that argument as well as the sea ice you abandoned days ago.

As for your RG response, presenting a false dilemma is not an argument demonstrating how proposed policies create economic harm. His arguments about the economic benefit of improving the infrastructure and encouraging emerging markets still applies despite your whine. You repeating yourself again will not change that.

Fuzzy: 4 sea ice, emails, climate conspiracy, and allainz.com
RG: 1 economics
Pheno: 0 still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick.

I didn't dance around the question. I directly addressed your premise of the 'same logic being applied.' You dropped completely my argument about how the amount of water vapor was a function of temperature. You have also ignored the point that water also forms ice and clouds that have a negative forcing where CO2 has not such sate even when it dissociates in the ocean. I also don't deign to speak for the entire motives of water regulation my point is that water is heavily regulated.

If you are too stupid to figure out the answer to the question from how I addressed your loaded leading question then I will help: no. You waving your hands at the thermodynamic properties of water vapor and demonstrating an inability to come up with substantive water vapor regulation still doesn't mean that the effect of CO2 produced from fossil fuels is insignificant and is okay to ignore.

Are you really that obtuse????

I'm not clamoring for the regulation of water vapor.

I'm simply pointing out a gigantic flaw in ACH logic.

If the principle argument for wishing to regulate CO2 is based on its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Then by that same logic water vapor would also have to be regulated.

And no one, in their right mind, no government entity, no academic institution would even dare propose such preposterous initiatives. Geeeesh are you really that blind that you cant see what I've clearly stated repeatedly???

:lol :lol :lol :lol
"still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick"
:lol :lol :lol :lol

It completely obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2.

[Phenomanul]

Now if you will, Fuzzy... spare me your derisive scorn... If I've been responding to your stubbornness, it's because I've been sick at home the last few days. Go ahead and rebuild your self-esteem at my expense when I return to my job, whilst you stick around this forum patting yourself in the back.

For the moment at least let me watch the Spurs vs. Rockets game in peace.

[spursncowboys]

Phenomanul, this is a real feather in your cap. SnC has proven himself to be a truly critical thinker. Did someone piss in your cheerios, or something?

[Th'Pusher]

Did someone piss in your cheerios, or something?
As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.

SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.

:tu nice work!

[spursncowboys]

As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.

SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.

:tu nice work!

That's cute. I'm assuming because we don't agree with you, we must not think cognitively? I'm guessing we should also be more open minded like you?

[Th'Pusher]

That's cute. I'm assuming because we don't agree with you, we must not think cognitively? I'm guessing we should also be more open minded like you?
It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me. I'm simply speaking of the value the three of you add to the forum, imo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you really that obtuse????

I'm not clamoring for the regulation of water vapor.

I'm simply pointing out a gigantic flaw in ACH logic.

If the principle argument for wishing to regulate CO2 is based on its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Then by that same logic water vapor would also have to be regulated.

And no one, in their right mind, no government entity, no academic institution would even dare propose such preposterous initiatives. Geeeesh are you really that blind that you cant see what I've clearly stated repeatedly???

:lol :lol :lol :lol
"still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick"
:lol :lol :lol :lol

It completely obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2.

Well at least you have stopped begging the question. You are still committing the fallacy of omission as a matter of course. As a general rule you cannot equate the argument for CO2's AGW and the various policy ideas behind it with your one liners.

First example of omission is that CO2 is analogous to H2O and one of the central arguments for CO2 emissions control is the massive amounts of fossil fuels we burn. You have not demonstrated any anthrogenic behaviors that are net increasing the amount of water in the environment. This should be little surprise because the amount of water vapor in the air at any time a function of temperature and pressure. This leads me to the second fallacy of omission.

Water vapor, ice, clouds, and water are all words for the same thing: H2O. Unlike CO2, which at earth temperature and pressures is always a gas, water changes state depending on the environment. It sometimes is a GHG but it is also sometimes a reflector and negative forcing. If you want to conflate water and CO2 then you need to quantify the entire effect and not just use confirmation bias to omit what is inconvenient to your argument about H2Os effect on climate. Water is regulated and environmental concerns for local climates and ecologies play heavily into such legislation. CO2 should be regulated as well.

Your argument is self assuming. Begging the question repeatedly and assuming your premise is intellectually dishonest.

[DarrinS]

As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.

SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.

:tu nice work!


It doesn't appear that he needs anyone to "have his back".

Thanks for posting

[boutons_deux]

Evaporating the water vapor argument (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html)

A new study Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content ( (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf)Santer 2007) (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0702872104v1) was published last week, inspiring me to revisit the water vapour argument (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=19). A popular skeptic argument (well, a ranking of #20 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) is no mean effort) is that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, rendering CO2 warming relatively ineffective. Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenberth.papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf)). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation).

If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback

As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005) (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/bjs0601.pdf). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As agreenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to
evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling ofCO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss ofalbedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000) (http://www.gfdl.gov/aboutus/annrev00.pdf).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity

The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=115) examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf)), otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels.Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase inCO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way.

When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html

Science from Bible humping creationist Phenom-is-null is like intellectualism from Ayn Rand.

[boutons_deux]

Is Global Warming Caused by Water Vapor?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/01/is_global_warming_caused_by_water_vapor.html

[Th'Pusher]

It doesn't appear that he needs anyone to "have his back".

Thanks for posting

:lol why? You buy the water vapor arguement "obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2"? Do you agree with that DarrinS? I just want to make sure your most recent stance on climate change is on record. Not that it would prevent you from shifting your argument at any time...

[Wild Cobra]

Well Boutons...

Both your articles are full of shit.

Brendan Koerner is no expert and cherry picking the best numbers for his viewpoint.

Your Skeptical Science piece is more accurate, but still flawed, and the log math of levels claimed don't add up. It claims enough forcing of feedback from water, that the water alone would go into a runaway condition. The author, John Cook, has a BS and is working of his PHD for cognitive psychology.

As for the 75 and 32 numbers, he left out the could forcing with is also water.

[DarrinS]

:lol why? You buy the water vapor arguement "obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2"? Do you agree with that DarrinS? I just want to make sure your most recent stance on climate change is on record. Not that it would prevent you from shifting your argument at any time...

I don't think the amount of warming warrants CO2 regulation. Also, the effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think the amount of warming warrants CO2 regulation. Also, the effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.

citation demonstrating impact of that effect at projected levels?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well Boutons...

Both your articles are full of shit.

Brendan Koerner is no expert and cherry picking the best numbers for his viewpoint.

Your Skeptical Science piece is more accurate, but still flawed, and the log math of levels claimed don't add up. It claims enough forcing of feedback from water, that the water alone would go into a runaway condition. The author, John Cook, has a BS and is working of his PHD for cognitive psychology.

As for the 75 and 32 numbers, he left out the could forcing with is also water.

Oh pretty please show us your napkin math on the combined feedback and forcings they describe from that 2000 citation. It's so fun when you think you have outwitted scientists.

Oh and btw what kind of chipsets do you guys use for your controllers at work?

[spursncowboys]

It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me. I'm simply speaking of the value the three of you add to the forum, imo.

What's your value?

[spursncowboys]

It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me. I'm simply speaking of the value the three of you add to the forum, imo.

I think it's more than coincidence that the three of us, who have a few similar political views different from all other posters, you have a problem with?

This is the kind of thing a 15 year old girl would do. Is that the value you want to see here at ST? a bunch of selfies and letting me know what you ate for dinner?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think it's more than coincidence that the three of us, who have a few similar political views different from all other posters, you have a problem with?

This is the kind of thing a 15 year old girl would do. Is that the value you want to see here at ST? a bunch of selfies and letting me know what you ate for dinner?

You guys added nothing of value to the debate. If you want to talk about HS behavior the groupthink circlejerk you guys had on display was obvious and that is what he is talking about.

WC and Darrin are perpetually asshurt about me but what gives with you pledging your valentine?

[spursncowboys]

You guys added nothing of value to the debate. If you want to talk about HS behavior the groupthink circlejerk you guys had on display was obvious and that is what he is talking about.

WC and Darrin are perpetually asshurt about me but what gives with you pledging your valentine?
That's what I'm saying. Why am I put into this. You guys: as in me. Plus it's ya'll. You canadian!

[DarrinS]

You guys added nothing of value to the debate. If you want to talk about HS behavior the groupthink circlejerk you guys had on display was obvious and that is what he is talking about.

WC and Darrin are perpetually asshurt about me but what gives with you pledging your valentine?

lol. Annoyed, perhaps. Like the way a gnat is annoying.