Eyjafjallajokull

[westwall]

konradv,
Quit ducking the question. Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input? It's such a simple question and yet you avoid it like the plague.
Perhaps because it proves that your AGW paranoia and propoganda is just that,
propoganda and paranoia?

As usual you can't fight the facts, so you have to resort to insults. Proof positive that you've lost the scientific debate or you'd have answers for the simple questions posed, like where does the energy that CO2 traps, if not to heat the earth? Why can't you answer that question? Since you consider me a child, why is it so difficult for you to answer a child's question?

 

[Old Rocks]

As usual you can't fight the facts, so you have to resort to insults. Proof positive that you've lost the scientific debate or you'd have answers for the simple questions posed, like where does the energy that CO2 traps, if not to heat the earth? Why can't you answer that question? Since you consider me a child, why is it so difficult for you to answer a child's question?

LOOK idiot your question is ignorant and pointless. just like you....

Who gives a rats ass where the energy goes? It doesn't matter if it goes to warm the earth or to power oldsocks puppet factory. it has no bearing on this discussion dumazz. no one is avoiding your question or can't answer you nincompoop, its just an ignorant and irrelevant attempt to confound the topic and point here.....

Classic bit of BS taught to you by oldsocks. THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT VOLCANOES AND THE CO@ THEY PRODUCE.... Now stay on topic if you want to debate with adults....

Which is, of course, less than 1/130th the CO2 produced by mankind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the USGS Kilauea alone is producing 3,650,000 tons of CO2 per year.
-----------------------------------

3+ million tons a year is a drop in the bucket when human activity creates nearly 80 million tons DAILY.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Remind me again, what's that compared to the total mass of Earths atmosphere?

 

[gslack]

As usual you can't fight the facts, so you have to resort to insults. Proof positive that you've lost the scientific debate or you'd have answers for the simple questions posed, like where does the energy that CO2 traps, if not to heat the earth? Why can't you answer that question? Since you consider me a child, why is it so difficult for you to answer a child's question?

LOOK idiot your question is ignorant and pointless. just like you....

Who gives a rats ass where the energy goes? It doesn't matter if it goes to warm the earth or to power oldsocks puppet factory. it has no bearing on this discussion dumazz. no one is avoiding your question or can't answer you nincompoop, its just an ignorant and irrelevant attempt to confound the topic and point here.....

Classic bit of BS taught to you by oldsocks. THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT VOLCANOES AND THE CO@ THEY PRODUCE.... Now stay on topic if you want to debate with adults....

Which is, of course, less than 1/130th the CO2 produced by mankind.

And the weasel comments......

CO2, but how much overall greenhouse gases? Including the most important by volume water vapor. .. Once more you try and limit it to CO2, then when the need arises its GHG's. When that fails you go right back to CO2....

You keep talking shit and dancing to try and prove your theory... yet no one from the other side has to dance and make endless excuses.... Thats the funny thing about truth, it sells itself...

 

[konradv]

Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input?
------------------------------------

That's irrelevant!!! Because there may have been one reason for those periods, does not preclude there being a different reason this time. Your turn to answer a question. Since we know that CO2 is above historical averages, where does the extra trapped energy go, if not to heat the earth. Some say space, but logically that wouldn't be higher than 50%. Any other ideas?

 

[gslack]

Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input?
------------------------------------

That's irrelevant!!! Because there may have been one reason for those periods, does not preclude there being a different reason this time. Your turn to answer a question. Since we know that CO2 is above historical averages, where does the extra trapped energy go, if not to heat the earth. Some say space, but logically that wouldn't be higher than 50%. Any other ideas?

SHUT_UP!

You are an ignorant child trying to play adult and frankly I am tired of tolerating you. From your ignorant and nonsensical ramblings, to your immature behavior and utter lack of thought and reason, you have shown your age and level of thought on this.

OLDSOCKS GET YOUR KID!

 

[Big Fitz]

Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input?
------------------------------------

That's irrelevant!!! Because there may have been one reason for those periods, does not preclude there being a different reason this time. Your turn to answer a question. Since we know that CO2 is above historical averages, where does the extra trapped energy go, if not to heat the earth. Some say space, but logically that wouldn't be higher than 50%. Any other ideas?

No, it's not irrelevant. It disproves your theory that all the current warming is man's fault. Ipso facto, it proves you're so fulla shit you could cover ADM's fertilizer needs for the next century and power North Carolina if they'd only hook a pipe up to your ass to collect the methane.

Dude, nature itself says you're a liar. All it takes is an honest account of HISTORY to do it.

Gslack... please don't say that. I don't want to believe that he's spawned.

 

[gslack]

Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input?
------------------------------------

That's irrelevant!!! Because there may have been one reason for those periods, does not preclude there being a different reason this time. Your turn to answer a question. Since we know that CO2 is above historical averages, where does the extra trapped energy go, if not to heat the earth. Some say space, but logically that wouldn't be higher than 50%. Any other ideas?

No, it's not irrelevant. It disproves your theory that all the current warming is man's fault. Ipso facto, it proves you're so fulla shit you could cover ADM's fertilizer needs for the next century and power North Carolina if they'd only hook a pipe up to your ass to collect the methane.

Dude, nature itself says you're a liar. All it takes is an honest account of HISTORY to do it.

Gslack... please don't say that. I don't want to believe that he's spawned.

 

[westwall]

No Sir,

It is not irrelevant. The fundamental precept of Geology is called Uniformatarianism and it holds that all processess observable today were present and operational in the past. That is why real scientists can tell you that striations observed in rocks in the desert were caused by glaciers 5 million, 10 million, 50 million years ago because we can see how they were formed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the Alps, or the Himalaya and they are exactly the same.

We can show you how lakes form, we can show you how the Mancos Shale Formation of central Utah was formed in a shallow sea because we can see the exact same thing happening now. And the Mancos Shale is millions of years old. We can show you and explain how the earth works because the science is observable, repeatable and factual.

Paleoclimate has been studied by geologists for decades because of the interactions that occur and the creation of rock formations that occur because of the climate.

We can tell for instance that the MWP and the Roman Warming period were probably due to Solar activity because a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years something that no AGW computer model has ever been able to achieve. In fact they can't reproduce what occured 10 years ago.

On the other hand you describe a fantasy world. It has no basis in fact. It has not even the slightest hint of following the Scientific Method, in fact the perpetrators made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have harmed Science in general because of it.

As for your question please tell me why has the upper atmospheric temperature not increased with the concurrent rise in CO2. The fundamental tenet of AGW theory is that as the CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature will rise. This has not occured. Instead the actual upper atmospheric temps have dropped. No AGW computer model has ever worked. They have all failed basic tests.

And here is something from UCI that also deals with your "lost energy" issue.
http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/04/nr_soilcarbon_100426.php

AGW thoery ignores two fundamental precipts of science. The first is "Correlation does not equal Causation" and the second is known as Occam's Razor (also called the Law of Parsimony) which says basically the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

AGW theorists went in with the preconcieved idea that man was the cause and they have never even bothered to research any other possible cause. Even as their models all have failed and they have never been able to get a repeatable experiment. So...they have lied and commited fraud to continue their agenda.

Now, using Occam's Razor we can figure out one very imortant fact. Everyone involved in the AGW agenda makes tremendous amounts of money off of it (Mann alone recieved 500,000 dollars from the stimulus funds that were supposed to go toward stimulating the economy...it certainly stimulated him, though I doubt it put anybody else to work). They all have a vested interest in seeing it succeed because they will all be very, very, very wealthy if it does so. And the poor of the world will once again be exploited by those who claim to be "looking out for them".

That is the "truth" of global warming...it is a scam designed to steal money from us and give it to a few elitists.

Why did the Roman and Medieval Warming periods occur without mans input?
------------------------------------

That's irrelevant!!! Because there may have been one reason for those periods, does not preclude there being a different reason this time. Your turn to answer a question. Since we know that CO2 is above historical averages, where does the extra trapped energy go, if not to heat the earth. Some say space, but logically that wouldn't be higher than 50%. Any other ideas?

 

[RollingThunder]

QUIET SOCKO!!!!! Only real people post here, socks, friends trying to spare their pal, family trying to save their sibling or child are not considered real unless they have a reason beyond trying to help a douchebag save face...... And we can safely say you are NOT serving any other purpose..... THerefore not real, and not recognized...... NOW HUSH DOUCHEBAG!!

LOL. Coming from a gsock, that's really funny. Get used to it retard, I'm here and I'm real and I'm going to demonstrate just how ignorant and totally retarded you are every time I see one of your insane, lying, piece of crap posts.
If you don't like that, you can just write down your complaint, fold it up until it is all corners and shove it up your to keep your head company.

Socko if you have any sense in your head at all, you will leave me alone.... There are 10 year olds with a keener intellect than you, konradv, oldsocks and your entire sock army combined. You don't have the ability to threaten me, your an insignificant sock with how many posts?

LOL...coming from someone like you with a sub-room-temperature IQ, gslackjawed, that's really funny.

care to explain how you are the second so-called "person" who with presumably no prior knowledge of anyone involved, came to the add of the little twerp oldsocks after he did something embarrassing.... Yeah douchebag you really are that transparent.... :

You're the one who did something embarrassing, dimwit. You posted.
And sure I can explain - anyone who reads even one of your idiotic posts can see that you're a flaming retard with his head up his ass.

Transparent and ignorant to think people will buy it..... No you do yourself a favor and leave me alone, and while you are doing that tell the coward to come and handle his own affairs like a man and not a cowardly little puppeteer.

You just can't handle it when people point out what a clueless, ignorant, politically motivated nitwit you are and can prove it. Get used to it junior, I'm not leaving and I'm not leaving you alone. I do feel just a little guilt about getting into a battle of the wits with a poor fool like you who comes to the fight half armed (or maybe in your case, one eighth armed). It is a little unfair, like picking on babies, but then your posts remind me what a evil little dumbfuck you are and I feel better about it.

 

[RollingThunder]

No Sir,

It is not irrelevant. The fundamental precept of Geology is called Uniformatarianism and it holds that all processess observable today were present and operational in the past. That is why real scientists can tell you that striations observed in rocks in the desert were caused by glaciers 5 million, 10 million, 50 million years ago because we can see how they were formed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the Alps, or the Himalaya and they are exactly the same.

We can show you how lakes form, we can show you how the Mancos Shale Formation of central Utah was formed in a shallow sea because we can see the exact same thing happening now. And the Mancos Shale is millions of years old. We can show you and explain how the earth works because the science is observable, repeatable and factual.

Paleoclimate has been studied by geologists for decades because of the interactions that occur and the creation of rock formations that occur because of the climate.

We can tell for instance that the MWP and the Roman Warming period were probably due to Solar activity because a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years something that no AGW computer model has ever been able to achieve. In fact they can't reproduce what occured 10 years ago.

On the other hand you describe a fantasy world. It has no basis in fact. It has not even the slightest hint of following the Scientific Method, in fact the perpetrators made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have harmed Science in general because of it.

As for your question please tell me why has the upper atmospheric temperature not increased with the concurrent rise in CO2. The fundamental tenet of AGW theory is that as the CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature will rise. This has not occured. Instead the actual upper atmospheric temps have dropped. No AGW computer model has ever worked. They have all failed basic tests.

And here is something from UCI that also deals with your "lost energy" issue.
Irvine Release: Soil microbes produce less atmospheric CO2 than expected with climate warming :: UC Irvine TODAY

AGW thoery ignores two fundamental precipts of science. The first is "Correlation does not equal Causation" and the second is known as Occam's Razor (also called the Law of Parsimony) which says basically the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

AGW theorists went in with the preconcieved idea that man was the cause and they have never even bothered to research any other possible cause. Even as their models all have failed and they have never been able to get a repeatable experiment. So...they have lied and commited fraud to continue their agenda.

Now, using Occam's Razor we can figure out one very imortant fact. Everyone involved in the AGW agenda makes tremendous amounts of money off of it (Mann alone recieved 500,000 dollars from the stimulus funds that were supposed to go toward stimulating the economy...it certainly stimulated him, though I doubt it put anybody else to work). They all have a vested interest in seeing it succeed because they will all be very, very, very wealthy if it does so. And the poor of the world will once again be exploited by those who claim to be "looking out for them".

That is the "truth" of global warming...it is a scam designed to steal money from us and give it to a few elitists.

That's quite a load of delusional denier cult bullshit you just dumped. Do you get paid to spread this idiotic misinformation and lies or are you just a deluded dupe working for free to protect the fossil fuel industry profits? It's obvious that you know nothing about science and it seems almost certain that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[westwall]

Actually it's not. What I presented is all verifiable and can be looked up on any geological website or book. Not that you would know how to read one. Additionally if you choose to haul your useless carcass down to any university, though I must admit I doubt you could find one(or even a decent Community College) they will be happy to confirm everything I presented.

And while my opinion about the base cause of this fraud is just that my opinion I can present ample evidence for that as well

Barbara Hollingsworth: Fannie Mae owns patent on residential 'cap and trade' exchange | Washington Examiner

Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming - CSMonitor.com

And then there's this

EEI, three oil companies to back climate bill; top 10 highlights of Kerry proposal
By Juliet Eilperin
The nation's largest electric utilities association and three of the country's biggest oil companies will endorse the climate proposal Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) will introduce Monday, Kerry told supporters in a private phone call Thursday evening.
The declarations of support show the three senators have made some inroads with the business community in drafting their plan, but have yet to win over traditional opponents of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Several consumer groups will back the plan as well. Kerry's office declined to comment on the matter.
The Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- and two of its influential CEOs, Exelon's John Rowe and Duke Energy's Jim Rogers, will declare their support Monday, sources said. While Kerry did not name the three oil companies, a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would back the climate measure.
Winning over business interests who face regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, Graham said Thursday, is essential to enlisting Republican support for the proposal. "The goal is to have the business community come forward and say, 'This is a better solution to the EPA,'" he said.
The top 10 highlights of the proposal Kerry outlined in the phone call:
1. The bill would take effect in 2013 and by 2020 would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent compared to 2005 levels, and 80 percent by 2050.
2. Trade-sensitive and energy-intensive industries would get a four-year delay before they would be subject to greenhouse gas limits.
3. Two-thirds of the revenues generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local distribution companies.
4. Oil companies will be subject to pollution allowances that will be retired over time, rather than a linked fee. In an effort to counter criticism that any sort of carbon limits on fuel sales constitutes a gas tax, the Congressional Budget Office will issue a document stating this provision will not constitute a tax. All diesel oil fuel revenues will be set aside and directed to the Highway Trust Fund.
5. The bill will preempt both the states' and EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The EPA will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.
6. The bill will contain a nuclear title providing loan guarantees and liability protections for the construction of up to 12 plants.
7. The measure will provide $10 billion to the coal industry for "clean coal technology" that will capture emissions from coal-fired power plants, and it will provide an accelerated bonus for early deployment of this technology.
8. It will provide financial incentives for natural gas and electric vehicles.
9. The proposal will provide a hard price collar for the price of carbon, with both a ceiling and a floor.
10. It will also include the entire energy bill passed last year by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

And then of course there's this

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Campaigners call for climate court

I can go on and on but I think you get the idea. So who's working for who Old Rocks?

So there you go. Only a person who is completely delusional or implicated in the fraud could post the inane bullshit you do. So which one are you?

And I would be quite happy to compare my educational and scientific credentials with an intellectually dishonest individual like you any time of the week.

No Sir,

It is not irrelevant. The fundamental precept of Geology is called Uniformatarianism and it holds that all processess observable today were present and operational in the past. That is why real scientists can tell you that striations observed in rocks in the desert were caused by glaciers 5 million, 10 million, 50 million years ago because we can see how they were formed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the Alps, or the Himalaya and they are exactly the same.

We can show you how lakes form, we can show you how the Mancos Shale Formation of central Utah was formed in a shallow sea because we can see the exact same thing happening now. And the Mancos Shale is millions of years old. We can show you and explain how the earth works because the science is observable, repeatable and factual.

Paleoclimate has been studied by geologists for decades because of the interactions that occur and the creation of rock formations that occur because of the climate.

We can tell for instance that the MWP and the Roman Warming period were probably due to Solar activity because a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years something that no AGW computer model has ever been able to achieve. In fact they can't reproduce what occured 10 years ago.

On the other hand you describe a fantasy world. It has no basis in fact. It has not even the slightest hint of following the Scientific Method, in fact the perpetrators made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have harmed Science in general because of it.

As for your question please tell me why has the upper atmospheric temperature not increased with the concurrent rise in CO2. The fundamental tenet of AGW theory is that as the CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature will rise. This has not occured. Instead the actual upper atmospheric temps have dropped. No AGW computer model has ever worked. They have all failed basic tests.

And here is something from UCI that also deals with your "lost energy" issue.
Irvine Release: Soil microbes produce less atmospheric CO2 than expected with climate warming :: UC Irvine TODAY

AGW thoery ignores two fundamental precipts of science. The first is "Correlation does not equal Causation" and the second is known as Occam's Razor (also called the Law of Parsimony) which says basically the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

AGW theorists went in with the preconcieved idea that man was the cause and they have never even bothered to research any other possible cause. Even as their models all have failed and they have never been able to get a repeatable experiment. So...they have lied and commited fraud to continue their agenda.

Now, using Occam's Razor we can figure out one very imortant fact. Everyone involved in the AGW agenda makes tremendous amounts of money off of it (Mann alone recieved 500,000 dollars from the stimulus funds that were supposed to go toward stimulating the economy...it certainly stimulated him, though I doubt it put anybody else to work). They all have a vested interest in seeing it succeed because they will all be very, very, very wealthy if it does so. And the poor of the world will once again be exploited by those who claim to be "looking out for them".

That is the "truth" of global warming...it is a scam designed to steal money from us and give it to a few elitists.

That's quite a load of delusional denier cult bullshit you just dumped. Do you get paid to spread this idiotic misinformation and lies or are you just a deluded dupe working for free to protect the fossil fuel industry profits? It's obvious that you know nothing about science and it seems almost certain that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Big Fitz]

Holy shit! Another AGW Sockpuppet Troll! Everyone! Check your clothes driers! We found our missing socks!

 

[gslack]

HAHAHHAAA! I have rattled the lefties haven't I...... LOL, mission 1 accomplished...

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall


No Sir,

It is not irrelevant. The fundamental precept of Geology is called Uniformatarianism and it holds that all processess observable today were present and operational in the past. That is why real scientists can tell you that striations observed in rocks in the desert were caused by glaciers 5 million, 10 million, 50 million years ago because we can see how they were formed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the Alps, or the Himalaya and they are exactly the same.

Interesting that you should mention geology and proxy data. For, you see, that is one of the sources of the information concerning the speed and effects of global warming. We have seen several of very rapid rise in CO2 and CH4 in the Earth's history. And, each and every time, the result was an extinction event.

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

Methane catastrophe
05 March 2005 by Hadrian Jeffs, Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Magazine issue 2489
A runaway global greenhouse effect is about the most dramatic and terminal imaginable outcome of human-induced climate change (12 February, p 10). However, the more immediate and localised impacts of even a limited sequence of methane burps could still be devastating on a scale inconceivable to most people outside of a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster.

One of the more dramatic side effects of hydrate outgassing is the dislocation of the marine sediments in which the frozen hydrates are locked. By no means all of these are under the deep ocean, as hydrate formations are also found beneath continental shelves. If a sufficient proportion of a methane deposit burps, then the disturbed sediments will slip off the coastal shelf and slide down the continental slope towards the abyssal plain, displacing massive amounts of water in the form of tsunamis.


.....................................................................................................................


We can show you how lakes form, we can show you how the Mancos Shale Formation of central Utah was formed in a shallow sea because we can see the exact same thing happening now. And the Mancos Shale is millions of years old. We can show you and explain how the earth works because the science is observable, repeatable and factual.

Yes, we can. And part of that is called paleoclimatology.

NOAA Paleoclimatology - Homepage

Paleoclimate has been studied by geologists for decades because of the interactions that occur and the creation of rock formations that occur because of the climate.

We can tell for instance that the MWP and the Roman Warming period were probably due to Solar activity because a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years something that no AGW computer model has ever been able to achieve. In fact they can't reproduce what occured 10 years ago.

Now where do you get that shit? For the last thiry years, the sunspot cycle has been totally out of sync with the temperature.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

What the science says...
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.


As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).


.......................................................................................

On the other hand you describe a fantasy world. It has no basis in fact. It has not even the slightest hint of following the Scientific Method, in fact the perpetrators made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have harmed Science in general because of it.

Complete bullshit, unsupported and unsupportable.

As for your question please tell me why has the upper atmospheric temperature not increased with the concurrent rise in CO2. The fundamental tenet of AGW theory is that as the CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature will rise. This has not occured. Instead the actual upper atmospheric temps have dropped. No AGW computer model has ever worked. They have all failed basic tests.

Lordy, lordy, failed once again to do your basic homework. So glad that you don't work in a scientific capacity, no need for more unemployed people.

- Cooling
Stratospheric cooling
Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here

.............................................................................................................................

And here is something from UCI that also deals with your "lost energy" issue.
http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/04/nr...bon_100426.php

AGW thoery ignores two fundamental precipts of science. The first is "Correlation does not equal Causation" and the second is known as Occam's Razor (also called the Law of Parsimony) which says basically the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

AGW theorists went in with the preconcieved idea that man was the cause and they have never even bothered to research any other possible cause. Even as their models all have failed and they have never been able to get a repeatable experiment. So...they have lied and commited fraud to continue their agenda.

Now, using Occam's Razor we can figure out one very imortant fact. Everyone involved in the AGW agenda makes tremendous amounts of money off of it (Mann alone recieved 500,000 dollars from the stimulus funds that were supposed to go toward stimulating the economy...it certainly stimulated him, though I doubt it put anybody else to work). They all have a vested interest in seeing it succeed because they will all be very, very, very wealthy if it does so. And the poor of the world will once again be exploited by those who claim to be "looking out for them".

That is the "truth" of global warming...it is a scam designed to steal money from us and give it to a few elitists.

God, you are one dumb ass. Repeating 'talking points', no understanding of the issue at all, and a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.

 

[gslack]

HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA!

Oldsocks going the overload route now? LOL, why don't you just admit you can't hang anymore.....pathetic.... Spam what you can't debate, great tactic douchebag....LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

And you have said what?

 

[gslack]

And you have said what?

I said you are a proven and documented liar.... And showed it using your own posts and claims..... That clarify things for you fake science boy?

 

[konradv]

How about applying Occam's Razor to this.

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well documented.

The current levels in the atmosphere run about 25-30% over historical avearges.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Talking about warming periods in the past doesn't tell us much. Just because there was one reason for warming during the Middle Ages, doesn't pre3clude there being a different explanation today.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westwall


No Sir,

It is not irrelevant. The fundamental precept of Geology is called Uniformatarianism and it holds that all processess observable today were present and operational in the past. That is why real scientists can tell you that striations observed in rocks in the desert were caused by glaciers 5 million, 10 million, 50 million years ago because we can see how they were formed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or the Alps, or the Himalaya and they are exactly the same.

Interesting that you should mention geology and proxy data. For, you see, that is one of the sources of the information concerning the speed and effects of global warming. We have seen several of very rapid rise in CO2 and CH4 in the Earth's history. And, each and every time, the result was an extinction event.

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

Methane catastrophe
05 March 2005 by Hadrian Jeffs, Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Magazine issue 2489
A runaway global greenhouse effect is about the most dramatic and terminal imaginable outcome of human-induced climate change (12 February, p 10). However, the more immediate and localised impacts of even a limited sequence of methane burps could still be devastating on a scale inconceivable to most people outside of a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster.

One of the more dramatic side effects of hydrate outgassing is the dislocation of the marine sediments in which the frozen hydrates are locked. By no means all of these are under the deep ocean, as hydrate formations are also found beneath continental shelves. If a sufficient proportion of a methane deposit burps, then the disturbed sediments will slip off the coastal shelf and slide down the continental slope towards the abyssal plain, displacing massive amounts of water in the form of tsunamis.


.....................................................................................................................


We can show you how lakes form, we can show you how the Mancos Shale Formation of central Utah was formed in a shallow sea because we can see the exact same thing happening now. And the Mancos Shale is millions of years old. We can show you and explain how the earth works because the science is observable, repeatable and factual.

Yes, we can. And part of that is called paleoclimatology.

NOAA Paleoclimatology - Homepage

Paleoclimate has been studied by geologists for decades because of the interactions that occur and the creation of rock formations that occur because of the climate.

We can tell for instance that the MWP and the Roman Warming period were probably due to Solar activity because a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years something that no AGW computer model has ever been able to achieve. In fact they can't reproduce what occured 10 years ago.

Now where do you get that shit? For the last thiry years, the sunspot cycle has been totally out of sync with the temperature.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

What the science says...
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.


As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).


.......................................................................................

On the other hand you describe a fantasy world. It has no basis in fact. It has not even the slightest hint of following the Scientific Method, in fact the perpetrators made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have harmed Science in general because of it.

Complete bullshit, unsupported and unsupportable.

As for your question please tell me why has the upper atmospheric temperature not increased with the concurrent rise in CO2. The fundamental tenet of AGW theory is that as the CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature will rise. This has not occured. Instead the actual upper atmospheric temps have dropped. No AGW computer model has ever worked. They have all failed basic tests.

Lordy, lordy, failed once again to do your basic homework. So glad that you don't work in a scientific capacity, no need for more unemployed people.

- Cooling
Stratospheric cooling
Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here

.............................................................................................................................

And here is something from UCI that also deals with your "lost energy" issue.
http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/04/nr...bon_100426.php

AGW thoery ignores two fundamental precipts of science. The first is "Correlation does not equal Causation" and the second is known as Occam's Razor (also called the Law of Parsimony) which says basically the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

AGW theorists went in with the preconcieved idea that man was the cause and they have never even bothered to research any other possible cause. Even as their models all have failed and they have never been able to get a repeatable experiment. So...they have lied and commited fraud to continue their agenda.

Now, using Occam's Razor we can figure out one very imortant fact. Everyone involved in the AGW agenda makes tremendous amounts of money off of it (Mann alone recieved 500,000 dollars from the stimulus funds that were supposed to go toward stimulating the economy...it certainly stimulated him, though I doubt it put anybody else to work). They all have a vested interest in seeing it succeed because they will all be very, very, very wealthy if it does so. And the poor of the world will once again be exploited by those who claim to be "looking out for them".

That is the "truth" of global warming...it is a scam designed to steal money from us and give it to a few elitists.

God, you are one dumb ass. Repeating 'talking points', no understanding of the issue at all, and a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.

So what are you saying now, that the SUV is million of years old? Is that what caused the uptick in CO2 and CH4?

And to this day, you cannot point to one single repeatable laboratory experiment where a doubling of CO2 caused a perceptible increase in temperature