AGW: atmospheric physics

[RollingThunder]

Your graph is a fraud. How many published papers would you like from any region in the world that find that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present. Where is your graph from anyway? Wiki? Who put it there? Are you saying that your blog graph trumps the GISP2 ice core data? Based on what?

You have proven that practically everying you post is a lie...it stands to reason since you get your informatihon from one of the most dishonest blogs on the web.

Ah, well - you better ignore it then.

Sigh....

I did, due to the overwhelming amount of published data at my fingertips that refute it.

All you've got at your "fingertips" is your own feces, you deranged little piece of rancid moldy catshit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why even bother to post at all ...if all you ever post is utter drivel scraped off of denier cult blogs? Yeah, you should ask yourself that, little retard.

That is what I asked you. Why do you bother? You can't flame worth a shit. Your post opinions as facts. You state your beliefs as though they were well-established "science." And you crumble under any scrutiny.

LOLOLOLOLOL....you can't post worth shit, little retard. You haven't yet posted anything but your own worthless uninformed opinions. I post well established science from reputable sources that debunks the lies, pseudo-science, misinformation and propaganda that you denier cult cretins post. You're obviously far too much of an idiot to "scrutinize" anything and you certainly have never made me "crumble", you delusional little shithead.

RollingFart is quite unoriginal. Right after I note that he offers his mere opinions as "facts" and that he can't even flame worth a shit, he comes out and says to me, in effect:

"Oh yeah. Well, YOU too! Neener neener neener."

Shit. I guess this means he wins the internets.

 

[SSDD]

RollingFart is quite unoriginal. Right after I note that he offers his mere opinions as "facts" and that he can't even flame worth a shit, he comes out and says to me, in effect:

I have noticed that. His insults have the ring of desperation and impotence.

 

[RollingThunder]

That is what I asked you. Why do you bother? You can't flame worth a shit. Your post opinions as facts. You state your beliefs as though they were well-established "science." And you crumble under any scrutiny.

LOLOLOLOLOL....you can't post worth shit, little retard. You haven't yet posted anything but your own worthless uninformed opinions. I post well established science from reputable sources that debunks the lies, pseudo-science, misinformation and propaganda that you denier cult cretins post. You're obviously far too much of an idiot to "scrutinize" anything and you certainly have never made me "crumble", you delusional little shithead.

RollingFart is quite unoriginal. Right after I note that he offers his mere opinions as "facts"

Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

How many people are interested in this?

17 ??????


gay

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science. But hey, you are a cut and paste drone who lives on the koolaid, I suppose to you, opinion pieces must look like science.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science. But hey, you are a cut and paste drone who lives on the koolaid, I suppose to you, opinion pieces must look like science.

A quick review of your posts reveals that you just post your own ignorant opinions and a lot of denier cult myths, but never any actual published science. But hey, you are an anti-science denier cult retard who lives inside the rightwingnut echo chamber and never looks at the actual science. I suppose to you, factual news articles that report on scientific research and quote the scientists must look just like the pseudo-scientific drivel that you fall for and parrot on here.

Meanwhile, regarding this claim of yours: "you mostly post news articles, not published science", the news articles I cite and quote are about published science and usually quote the scientists involved. Also, just checking back over just this thread, on page 3 of this thread, post #33, I found this bit of "published science" and it is not the only one I've cited, by far.

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost

Robert M. DeConto,
Simone Galeotti,
Mark Pagani,
David Tracy,
Kevin Schaefer,
Tingjun Zhang,
David Pollard
& David J. Beerling

Nature
484,
87–91
(05 April 2012)
doi:10.1038/nature10929

Received
24 April 2011
Accepted
02 February 2012
Published online
04 April 2012

 

[Saigon]

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science

.

It's a shame he hasn't got any blogs from politicians - I know you like those.

Besides, given you refused to look at the published science of the British Antarctic Survey - why ask for it here?

We both know you will ignore whatever he posts.

 

[SSDD]

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science

.

It's a shame he hasn't got any blogs from politicians - I know you like those.

Besides, given you refused to look at the published science of the British Antarctic Survey - why ask for it here?

We both know you will ignore whatever he posts.

Why do you continue to lie about that? The blogger was quoting a well qualified climate scientist...not simply making it up as they go as is the case with your blogs. If you want to question the qualifications of the scientist being quoted, by all means, we can discuss that, but to claim that the info was a bloggers claim is just a lie....why do you keep lying? Is your case so weak that lying is the only way you can see to give it any weight at all?

And I asked you repeatedly what sort of proof you believed that artcile from the antarctic survey contained...you never answered the question because we both know that there was no sort of proof there as you had originally claimed. More lies on your part.

 

[RollingThunder]

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science

.

It's a shame he hasn't got any blogs from politicians - I know you like those.

Besides, given you refused to look at the published science of the British Antarctic Survey - why ask for it here?

We both know you will ignore whatever he posts.

Why do you continue to lie about that? The blogger was quoting a well qualified climate scientist...not simply making it up as they go as is the case with your blogs. If you want to question the qualifications of the scientist being quoted, by all means, we can discuss that, but to claim that the info was a bloggers claim is just a lie....why do you keep lying? Is your case so weak that lying is the only way you can see to give it any weight at all?

And I asked you repeatedly what sort of proof you believed that artcile from the antarctic survey contained...you never answered the question because we both know that there was no sort of proof there as you had originally claimed. More lies on your part.

Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?

 

[SSDD]

Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?

Feel free to show proof of lying on my part....or stand exposed as a liar yourself. Of course, we already know the score on that one....don't we. Your posts reveal that the truth isn't one of your priorities.

 

[polarbear]

Yeah, right after you lie about that.....as I said before and as I can easily demonstrate, I post actual science from actual climate scientists and I regularly and thoroughly debunk the idiotic denier cult myths that morons like you cling to......you have never posted anything but your own uninformed and very retarded opinions, you lying sack of shit.

A quick review of your posts reveals that you mostly post news articles, not published science. But hey, you are a cut and paste drone who lives on the koolaid, I suppose to you, opinion pieces must look like science.

If you use a browser that shows you all the http connections that are established when a page is loading then you notice that the quotes these "well informed" characters post are all coming from the same 1 or 2 sources. They don`t read any scientific publications across the board only those that are linked to "skepticalscience.org" etc.

I came across an interesting article this morning in the "Spiegel", Germany`s largest News Magazine which also happens to employ the largest number of fact checkers of any news outlet world wide.
They published an interesting finding from the Max Planck Institute which has tracked how Sahara sand dust, dust from China, Africa etc in general is responsible for cloud seeding and significant precipitation in America.
Staub aus Sahara und China verursacht Regen in Kalifornien - SPIEGEL ONLINE

It`s got dick all to do with a + next to nothing temperature "anomaly".
I don`t have the time to translate the article, but found a similar one in English following the links that were embedded:
Dust and Biological Aerosols from the Sahara and Asia Influence Precipitation in the Western U.S.

Abstract

Winter storms in California's Sierra Nevada increase seasonal snowpack and provide critical water resources for the state. Thus, the mechanisms influencing precipitation in this region have been the subject of research for decades. Previous studies suggest Asian dust enhances cloud ice and precipitation (1), while few studies consider biological aerosols as an important global source of ice nuclei (IN). Here, we show that dust and biological aerosols transported from as far as the Sahara were present in glaciated high-altitude clouds coincident with elevated IN concentrations and ice-induced precipitation. This study presents the first direct cloud and precipitation measurements showing that Saharan and Asian dust and biological aerosols likely serve as IN and play an important role in orographic precipitation processes over the western United States.

Unless there is a blog on "skepticalscience.org" or the like, which claims that CO2 is causing a "temperature anomaly" which in turn causes dust to be transported from other continents to this one you can`t expect these ignorant idiots to notice it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do you continue to lie.....about everything. Or are you just too retarded to tell the difference between the facts and the bullcrap?

Feel free to show proof of lying on my part....or stand exposed as a liar yourself. Of course, we already know the score on that one....don't we. Your posts reveal that the truth isn't one of your priorities.

Sure, you claimed to have an "abundance of undeniable proof" that scientists all around the world had "tampered" with the temperature data in order to falsify the records so they would support the theory of AGW. That was just one of your constant lies. Your supposed 'proof' turned out to be some ignorant crap from denier cult blogs that points to some adjustments scientists have made to the temperature records to make them more comparable. No proof whatsoever of any conspiracy to forge the records. Just the usual ignorance about science that makes you denier cultists so easy for the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry to fool.


Here's the link to your lie.

Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "tampering" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.

I suppose in your koolaid stupor, you missed the news that undeniable proof exists in abundance for data tampering on the part of those mentioned above.

 

[RollingThunder]

I came across an interesting article this morning in the "Spiegel", Germany`s largest News Magazine which also happens to employ the largest number of fact checkers of any news outlet world wide.
They published an interesting finding from the Max Planck Institute which has tracked how Sahara sand dust, dust from China, Africa etc in general is responsible for cloud seeding and significant precipitation in America.
Staub aus Sahara und China verursacht Regen in Kalifornien - SPIEGEL ONLINE

It`s got dick all to do with a + next to nothing temperature "anomaly".
I don`t have the time to translate the article, but found a similar one in English following the links that were embedded:
Dust and Biological Aerosols from the Sahara and Asia Influence Precipitation in the Western U.S.

LOLOLOL.....so what?

This is interesting but it has nothing to do with the facts supporting anthropogenic global warming. So what is your point (aside from the one on the top of your head)?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism

Earth’s climate is complex and constantly changing

Earth’s climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables in constant flux. Natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed as long as earth has had a climate. We only began to make large-scale measurements in the last 100 years, so this system is poorly understood.

Attempts to manipulate climate are limited by the complexity and inertia of the system. Dr. James Hansen of NASA, the father of the global warming theory, estimates the Kyoto protocol would only affect temperatures by .13°C by 2100, and it would take 30 Kyotos to have an “acceptable” impact on climate change. “Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct”, states Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate expert, “Kyoto will not prevent it.”

No single indicator can provide proof of a global change. The thinning of the Greenland ice sheet may be due to human causes, natural variations in snowfall, changes in ocean currents, a long-term warming of the planet since the transition from the last glacial period, continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period, or all of the above.

Politicians and the media are eager to embrace the latest crisis

Climate changes during the twentieth century were often accompanied by widespread panic, only to be quickly forgotten when dire predictions failed to materialize. Intellectuals, the media, and political institutions find it profitable to capitalize on emergencies which focus public attention on the issues they champion. Often their predictions go far beyond the most alarmist of scientific bodies. Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the globe.” It would be “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.” This doomsday scenario hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC.

Attempts to halt climate change are not only costly and futile, but ignore the benefits of a warmer climate

Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. According to NASA satellite data, higher levels of CO2 have dramatically increased biomass production and biodiversity worldwide. Global warming may cause Africa to become more arid, but enormous territories in Siberia and Canada might finally be open to settlement, and new resources and shipping routes will become available.

The focus of environmental movements is usually on reversing anthropogenic causes of ecological change. Such attempts are not only futile, but ignore the large scale economic destruction caused by environmental restrictions on human productivity. Free societies and technological innovation have allowed human ingenuity bring about vast improvements in human life. This change has almost doubled the life expectancy and quadrupled the standard of living in the developed world – and is now transforming the developing world. Disrupting the global economy would have a snowball effect on future living standards, as well as retard future technologies will help us adapt to a constantly changing world.

A genuine cost-benefit analysis should weight the costs of wealth destruction and long term inhibition of technological progress against the highly uncertain costs of adjusting to environmental changes. Human beings have never passively resigned themselves to environmental changes, but adapted their society to make optimal use of their environment.

Wealth, technology, and human ingenuity are our most powerful tools for dealing with change

Even the most alarmist of scientists generally agree that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop climate change.

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases

Worth a read.

 

[RollingThunder]

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism

Earth’s climate is complex and constantly changing

Earth’s climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables in constant flux. Natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed as long as earth has had a climate. We only began to make large-scale measurements in the last 100 years, so this system is poorly understood.

Attempts to manipulate climate are limited by the complexity and inertia of the system. Dr. James Hansen of NASA, the father of the global warming theory, estimates the Kyoto protocol would only affect temperatures by .13°C by 2100, and it would take 30 Kyotos to have an “acceptable” impact on climate change. “Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct”, states Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate expert, “Kyoto will not prevent it.”

No single indicator can provide proof of a global change. The thinning of the Greenland ice sheet may be due to human causes, natural variations in snowfall, changes in ocean currents, a long-term warming of the planet since the transition from the last glacial period, continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period, or all of the above.

Politicians and the media are eager to embrace the latest crisis

Climate changes during the twentieth century were often accompanied by widespread panic, only to be quickly forgotten when dire predictions failed to materialize. Intellectuals, the media, and political institutions find it profitable to capitalize on emergencies which focus public attention on the issues they champion. Often their predictions go far beyond the most alarmist of scientific bodies. Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the globe.” It would be “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.” This doomsday scenario hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC.

Attempts to halt climate change are not only costly and futile, but ignore the benefits of a warmer climate

Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. According to NASA satellite data, higher levels of CO2 have dramatically increased biomass production and biodiversity worldwide. Global warming may cause Africa to become more arid, but enormous territories in Siberia and Canada might finally be open to settlement, and new resources and shipping routes will become available.

The focus of environmental movements is usually on reversing anthropogenic causes of ecological change. Such attempts are not only futile, but ignore the large scale economic destruction caused by environmental restrictions on human productivity. Free societies and technological innovation have allowed human ingenuity bring about vast improvements in human life. This change has almost doubled the life expectancy and quadrupled the standard of living in the developed world – and is now transforming the developing world. Disrupting the global economy would have a snowball effect on future living standards, as well as retard future technologies will help us adapt to a constantly changing world.

A genuine cost-benefit analysis should weight the costs of wealth destruction and long term inhibition of technological progress against the highly uncertain costs of adjusting to environmental changes. Human beings have never passively resigned themselves to environmental changes, but adapted their society to make optimal use of their environment.

Wealth, technology, and human ingenuity are our most powerful tools for dealing with change

Even the most alarmist of scientists generally agree that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop climate change.

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases

Worth a read.

"Worth a read" only if you are scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. Total Bullcrap to anyone who understands anything about what is happening with the temperatures and the climate.

 

[RollingThunder]

impressive? no, not really but it does point out a more realistic 'model' of temps for the last 150 years. while the earth continues in a warming phase that is what it probably will look like.

One of the problems with the warmists is that they like to keep the time frame short. If they can keep it short enough, then anything looks like impending catastrophe. If you put what warmists like to call global warming into a reasonable context, then the "fear factor" drops off the scale. Here is what the Greenland Ice cores tell us about the climate in the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years.

We know what the Vostok ice cores tell us about the climate in the southern hemisphere. There is no impending climate catastrophe. What there is is a well funded, politically motivated hoax.

I almost forgot about this particular bit of SSoooDDuuumb's inability to tell good science from the bullcrap. If you look at the bogus temperature chart, you see the name 'David Lappi' at the bottom right, and if you check up on that, you find the chart was created by a petroleum geologist working for Unocal Corp which is owned by Chevron Oil. A geologist with a strong financial interest in the development of oil and gas fields in Alaska.

There are many temperature charts that use the data from the various proxies that scientists use to determine past temperatures patterns and none of the other, peer-reviewed charts matches David Lappi's silly and very bogus chart. Mr. Lappi's chart could only find a home on a denier cult blog and was not peer reviewed or otherwise published. This says something to anyone who isn't lost in the fog of denier cult delusions. The dimwitted deniers of course swallow all of this nonsense without a murmur or even a hint of actual skepticism.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism

Earth’s climate is complex and constantly changing

Earth’s climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables in constant flux. Natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed as long as earth has had a climate. We only began to make large-scale measurements in the last 100 years, so this system is poorly understood.

Attempts to manipulate climate are limited by the complexity and inertia of the system. Dr. James Hansen of NASA, the father of the global warming theory, estimates the Kyoto protocol would only affect temperatures by .13°C by 2100, and it would take 30 Kyotos to have an “acceptable” impact on climate change. “Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct”, states Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate expert, “Kyoto will not prevent it.”

No single indicator can provide proof of a global change. The thinning of the Greenland ice sheet may be due to human causes, natural variations in snowfall, changes in ocean currents, a long-term warming of the planet since the transition from the last glacial period, continued warming since the end of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period, or all of the above.

Politicians and the media are eager to embrace the latest crisis

Climate changes during the twentieth century were often accompanied by widespread panic, only to be quickly forgotten when dire predictions failed to materialize. Intellectuals, the media, and political institutions find it profitable to capitalize on emergencies which focus public attention on the issues they champion. Often their predictions go far beyond the most alarmist of scientific bodies. Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the globe.” It would be “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.” This doomsday scenario hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC.

Attempts to halt climate change are not only costly and futile, but ignore the benefits of a warmer climate

Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. According to NASA satellite data, higher levels of CO2 have dramatically increased biomass production and biodiversity worldwide. Global warming may cause Africa to become more arid, but enormous territories in Siberia and Canada might finally be open to settlement, and new resources and shipping routes will become available.

The focus of environmental movements is usually on reversing anthropogenic causes of ecological change. Such attempts are not only futile, but ignore the large scale economic destruction caused by environmental restrictions on human productivity. Free societies and technological innovation have allowed human ingenuity bring about vast improvements in human life. This change has almost doubled the life expectancy and quadrupled the standard of living in the developed world – and is now transforming the developing world. Disrupting the global economy would have a snowball effect on future living standards, as well as retard future technologies will help us adapt to a constantly changing world.

A genuine cost-benefit analysis should weight the costs of wealth destruction and long term inhibition of technological progress against the highly uncertain costs of adjusting to environmental changes. Human beings have never passively resigned themselves to environmental changes, but adapted their society to make optimal use of their environment.

Wealth, technology, and human ingenuity are our most powerful tools for dealing with change

Even the most alarmist of scientists generally agree that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop climate change.

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases

Worth a read.

"Worth a read" only if you are scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. Total Bullcrap to anyone who understands anything about what is happening with the temperatures and the climate.

The exact opposite is, of course, true.

Sorry it exposes you as the scientifically illiterate boob you are.

AGW.

 

[RollingThunder]

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases

Worth a read.

"Worth a read" only if you are scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. Total Bullcrap to anyone who understands anything about what is happening with the temperatures and the climate.

The exact opposite is, of course, true.

Sorry it exposes you as the scientifically illiterate boob you are.

AGW.

No, actually that worthless drivel "exposes you" to be scientifically ignorant and pretty retarded. But then everybody who has seen your braindead posts on here already knew that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you really believe in AGW stop posting here.