gw is a LIE!

[Old Rocks]

Trakar uses data from scientific sources. Perhaps you should try that someday.

 

[IanC]

more like exaggeration and manipulation. I liked this graph though.

that graph shows two nearly identical warming trends. one without CO2 and one with CO2.

we havent had warming since the el nino induced spike of 1998, and we would have had more cooling without the el nino induced spike of 2010. even though CO2 has risen about 5%. when do we start calling BS on CO2 induced out-of-control warming? how many times does that hypothesis have to be busted before this zombie science is officially pronounced dead? global warming to climate change is just moving the goal posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is simply ridiculous. The running mean in Dr. Spencer's graph from 2002 to 2007 is higher than any prior peak of the mean save that of 1998.

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[IanC]

the trends from 1998-2010, 1998-2009, and your specified period of 2002-2007 all show negative trends (eg. cooling)

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo West.....Ian........seems we have a new member of the hopelessly duped in here FTW!!! Kinda gets boring abusing the shit out of Rocks every day!!

 

[IanC]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

 

[westwall]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

I think he is/was olfraud. The two would never post at the same time. I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me

 

[IanC]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

I think he is/was olfraud. The two would never post at the same time. I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me

hahaha. stronger evidence for that than the Hockey Stick. gotta pseudonym Old Rocks?

 

[Trakar]

I think he is/was olfraud. The two would never post at the same time. I was posting at the same time traker was and then all of a sudden he disappeared and olfraud took over......very fishy if you ask me

hahaha. stronger evidence for that than the Hockey Stick. gotta pseudonym Old Rocks?

Your discussion of the science of climate change is so weak that you are left only with personal attacks and conspiracy theories? How terribly sad.

 

[Trakar]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.

 

[westwall]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.

Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you. However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent. The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.

Nice try though, sadly they screwed the pooch and have lost all credibility with legitimate scientists.

 

[Trakar]

The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.

I don't think I've mentioned computer models once on any of the threads in which I've commented. If you would like to discuss them we can, but climate models such as the GCMs and aren't empiric evidences, they are merely the tools used to check the theories and evidenciary integrations.

Friends of Science |

Interesting site. Do you have a listing of climate science studies and papers its researchers have published in recognized mainstream science journals over the last decade? I can't seem to find any. Are any of these "Friends" currently actively working in the climate research field?

From a Univ of Rochester study:
The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

Do you have a link to the paper to support this summary?

Here are the papers in the current International Journal of Climatology - International Journal of Climatology - Volume 31, Issue 3 - 15 March 2011 - Wiley Online Library

I don't see anything that looks like this alluded to study.

Not to mention the falsified documents that were uncovered last year.

Cite or reference from a legitimate source?

The problem is there is so much wealth to be made and so much to be redistributed if these claims are proved, I am hesitant to believe the hysteria. Just as the news of an ice age in the 70's proved to be a myth, based on evidence uncovered, this is proving to be much of the same.

the "70s ice-age" is a myth
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Concensus" - http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf

the rest sounds more like conspiracy theory and political rhetoric rather than anything supported by scientifically compelling evidences, but please present any legitimate support you have for these assertions.

 

[Trakar]

yah, he seems pretty oblivious to the possibility that there may just be a different side to climate science to the one he has been exposed to.

If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.

Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you. However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent. The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.

So all you have is unsupported conspiracy theories?

 

[westwall]

If it is science, it is supported with journal publications and compelling empiric evidences. Present the journal references which support your claims of contradictory hypotheses and theories, and demonstrate the compelling evidence. Lacking this it isn't a "different side" of climate science, mere politically inspired pseudoscience befuddlement and ranting rhetoric.

Had the climatologists not corrupted he peer review process I would of course agree with you. However, in light of the fact that they DID destroy the peer review process I no longer consider them relevent. The fact that they allowed Steig to be a reviewer on a paper that challenged his findings (a clear violation of the ethics of peer review) reveals that the peer review process is still broken and needs to be revamped completely in their case.

So all you have is unsupported conspiracy theories?

CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, Walleyes, you have no sources. The scientific evidence is all 180 degrees opposite of the position you take. And, once again, you are shown to be a fraud.

 

[Trakar]

If you consider computer models science then you need to take some geology classes to learn about the limitations of computer models.

If you were going to learn about the limitations of computer models don't you think computational modelling and simulation classes would be more instructive in learning about their limitations and peculiarities? Regardless, I haven't said anything about computer models so far, but if you'd like we can explore the subject as it relates to climate in more detail. I haven't read any scientific study of climate that uses modelling (computer or otherwise) as first order evidence. Computer models are tools used to visualize and analyze datasets. They are used to help support our understandings but they are not a source or keystone of climate science understandings.

I can present historical data that shows everything that is claimed to be evidence of GW, has happened in the past long before man was able to produce large quantities of CO2.

And?
Climate Science has pretty good understandings of the reasons and mechanisms involved in previous climate changes. Past changes actually have provided a lot of insight into what is currently going on and what is most likely to happen in the future. I'm not aware of any aspect of climate science that says that only man and his activites can affect climate. AGW merely states that the current episode of climate change is is primarily due to the forcing influences of man, with the most predominant of these human forcing factors being the pulling of gigatonnes per year of sequestered carbon (in the form of Coal and Oil) out of the ground and burning it in open cycle combustion which puts that Carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmophere.

"Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research" - http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the 18O/16O ratio of precipitation in Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.001935–0.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand how the Earth’s climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes...

How do you reconcile those well known historical facts with your theory?

Very well, actually. Those facts are known and integrated understandings of mainstream climatology. It isn't my theory, it is the leading, compellingly supported mainstream climate science position.

 

[Trakar]

CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.

That is your conspiracy theory, but it has nothing to do with climate science or the very real and demonstrable climate change that this science studies.

 

[konradv]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

There are a number of factors that influence climate. While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another. Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising? If you can't explain what happens, considering the LAW of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others. Which is it?!?!

 

[westwall]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

There are a number of factors that influence climate. While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another. Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising? If you can't explain what happens, considering the LAW of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others. Which is it?!?!

Because the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing.
You are the one who doesn't understand how it works. I suggest you go to a university and ask a physicist to explain it to you.

 

[westwall]

CLIMATEGATE is riddled with Jones and Mann as well as others conspiring to deny opposing views to theirs. But keep on keeping on, your side is done. It's just a matter of time and it is all their fault.

That is your conspiracy theory, but it has nothing to do with climate science or the very real and demonstrable climate change that this science studies.

What was that olfraud?