Eyjafjallajokull

[gslack]

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

This whole thing escalated from an obscure idea a few scientists shared about climate, to a giant sham feeding off itself with no factual or moral/ethical center. It all started in science, but grew and developed in politics. Thank groups of wealthy elitists like the club of Rome primarily. They even explain this in their own books and writings.

In the books "Earth in the Balance", and "The First Global Revolution" they say things like the following quote....

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

From their position of premiere environmental and global sustainability think tank and advisor to the UN, they got their entire belief system and structure instilled in every part of the world. They pretend they are scientists and concerned educated individuals out to save the world. The reality is they are the wealthy elite and remaining royal family heads from around the globe. They want what they always wanted, and it isn't to save the planet for anyone but the elite and their slaves.

The UN took their plan and put money up for the scientific community to prove man was harming the planet by his very existence. This would fill two roles; first it would allow them push for the Club of Rome's claim that the world's population should be reduced by 40%, and second would give us all an enemy to unite us. This would keep the ignorant masses busy in the idea we will kill the planet if we don't do what they say.

I cannot for the life of me understand the level of ignorance we see on this today. Its not hidden at all, in fact you ask members of this club what they believe and they will almost to a man state point of factly man is the enemy of the planet. The list of members in this club is truly frightening...

 

[westwall]

OK, I am going to make this as simple as I can. Occams Razor says that when you have two theories that might work you go with the simplest one because it is more likely to be accurate. If the temperature rose during the RWP and the MWP without mans influence then according to Occams Razor the temps are rising again due to the same reason...do you understand this very simple basic logic?

That means man has no influence now because he didn't have any back then. The only thing that has changed is that many people have millions of dollars and many years invested in perpetrating a fraud so they can make a whole bunch more money from an industry (the carbon trading market) that they are inventing.

To do this they have to make the governments of the world pass regulations that make CO2 (which you exhale and which all living things on this earth need to live) a pollutant (thank you EPA) and following on from that they can now regulate you and everything that you do.
Do you like the way you live right now? What do you think your lifestyle will be like when you have to make do with one quarter less of what you have now?

German scientists suggest per-person carbon emission quotas | Earth Times News

I don't know about you but I would not like to live with 1/4 less. And yet the elite will quite happily go on about their merry mass consumptive lives, paid for by you the fool.

An example for you...

Al Gore, Tipper Gore snap up Montecito-area villa - latimes.com

snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

So you see Al Gore doesn't believe his own BS so why should we?

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.

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks,

I never said that proxy data was bad...I said that falsifying proxy data is bad. Mann has falsified all of his proxy data to build the graphs you so lovingly use.

Faith is something that is associated with religion and spiritual endeavors. It has no place in science. Scientists seek the truth and truth must be proveable...relying on repeatable experiments that can be done by anyone. AGW theory has degenerated to the level of a religion amongst the non-conspirators. They are so sure (faith) that the conspirators are their friends and looking out for their best interest that they can't concieve of the simple fact that they've been lied to.

The conspirators on the other hand laugh all the way to the bank.

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.