The differences between Current warming and PETM warming

[Old Rocks]

Our 'High Priests'. Virtually the whole of the scientific community.

Your 'High Priests'. Undegreed ex-TV wearthermen, obese junkies on the radio, and a Senator that is a whore, Inhofe.

But you claim to be a scientist.

Take a look at a course cirriculum sometime old rocks. You will see that a degreed meterologist (few of which buy into the AGW scam) is better educated by far than the average climate science graduate.

Indeed. Most of them have a geography degree as their BA. In my field, when the classwork got too tough in the third year, the not so smart students shifted from geology to geography.

Really. I have taken a couple of third and fourth year classes. Did not find them that tough.

Most of the people that present their research at the AGU Conferances are geophyicists, geologists, glaciologists, and atmospheric physicists. I have yet to see any that are stating the things that you do. So, if you are such a hot shot geologist, why are you not up there on the podium presenting a detailed refutation of the evidence and research that these real scientists are presenting?

 

[Old Rocks]

Our 'High Priests'. Virtually the whole of the scientific community.

Your 'High Priests'. Undegreed ex-TV wearthermen, obese junkies on the radio, and a Senator that is a whore, Inhofe.

But you claim to be a scientist.

Take a look at a course cirriculum sometime old rocks. You will see that a degreed meterologist (few of which buy into the AGW scam) is better educated by far than the average climate science graduate.

And here is what the American Meteorological Society has to say about global warming. And, yes, I have looked at the course requirements for Meterologists. However,
Anthony Watts is not a degreed meteologist.

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.
......................................................................................................................

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Indeed. Most of them have a geography degree as their BA. In my field, when the classwork got too tough in the third year, the not so smart students shifted from geology to geography.

Considering the quality of the work coming out of climate science these days, I wouldn't have thought that they went to a program even as tough as geography. My guess would have been medieval french literature.

Given the fact that your comprehension of what you read in scientific abstracts seems to be at odds with the information contained in those abstracts, I cannot imagine what you would make of reading a full article.

And most of the work regarding the evidence of climate change is not coming from 'Climate Science', whatever that is. It is coming from glacialogists, biologists, geophysicists, atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, and many other scientific disciplines.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming Detector

 

[RollingThunder]

Global Warming Detector

CrazyFruitcake (or any other demented denier cultist) Detector

 

[westwall]

Indeed. Most of them have a geography degree as their BA. In my field, when the classwork got too tough in the third year, the not so smart students shifted from geology to geography.

Considering the quality of the work coming out of climate science these days, I wouldn't have thought that they went to a program even as tough as geography. My guess would have been medieval french literature.

Actually medieval French lit is pretty tough! I have a good friend in Paris who is a medievalist, she is quite smart. Would think one of the climateologists under any table you choose to sit them at.

 

[westwall]

Our 'High Priests'. Virtually the whole of the scientific community.

Your 'High Priests'. Undegreed ex-TV wearthermen, obese junkies on the radio, and a Senator that is a whore, Inhofe.

But you claim to be a scientist.

Bullshit. Your claim of the whole scientific community is a survey given to over 3000 scientists that was then cherry picked down to 79 climatologists and of that total only 74 agreed with the survey so the 97% of scientist meme is pure, utter, horsecrap.

But you allready knew that didn't you.

OK. Name one Scientific Society that agrees with you. One National Academy of Science. From any nation, even Outer Slobovia. How about one major university? You cannot, because all of these state in their policy statements that they regard AGW as a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Simply put, if you are a real geologist, you are totally out of the scientific mainstream and are regarded as an over the hill old man that is a bit dotty and out of touch with reality.

ALL of them get massive amounts of government money by sucking at the tit of AGW. Try again. Show me one of those organisations that doesn't get huge doses of cash for their toeing the party line....just one.

 

[westwall]

Take a look at a course cirriculum sometime old rocks. You will see that a degreed meterologist (few of which buy into the AGW scam) is better educated by far than the average climate science graduate.

Indeed. Most of them have a geography degree as their BA. In my field, when the classwork got too tough in the third year, the not so smart students shifted from geology to geography.

Really. I have taken a couple of third and fourth year classes. Did not find them that tough.

Most of the people that present their research at the AGU Conferances are geophyicists, geologists, glaciologists, and atmospheric physicists. I have yet to see any that are stating the things that you do. So, if you are such a hot shot geologist, why are you not up there on the podium presenting a detailed refutation of the evidence and research that these real scientists are presenting?

Bullshit. Here is a simple test question from one of my classes....

The single heavy atom in the asymmetric unit of a structure you are trying to determine is located at x=0.3, y=0.1, z=0.2 The crystal belongs to space group P2 which means that if
there is an atom at x,y,z in the unit cell, that there must also be another located at -x,y,-z.

What is the phase of the resultant heavy atom scattering vector for all heavy atoms in this unit cell for the h=1, k=3, l=2 reflection?

Show your work!

 

[RollingThunder]

Indeed. Most of them have a geography degree as their BA. In my field, when the classwork got too tough in the third year, the not so smart students shifted from geology to geography.

Considering the quality of the work coming out of climate science these days, I wouldn't have thought that they went to a program even as tough as geography. My guess would have been medieval french literature.

Actually medieval French lit is pretty tough! I have a good friend in Paris who is a medievalist, she is quite smart. Would think one of the climateologists under any table you choose to sit them at.

LOLOLOL....that's rich.....two clueless retards dissing some of the best scientists in the world because they tell the truth about AGW and that disturbs the retards' ideological fantasies and reality-denial complex.....I mean, it's particularly hilarious coming from the ol' walleyedretard.....everybody knows that retarded dogs could cheat him at cards.......and of course, SSoooDDuuumb is even more clueless and imbecilic, so.....funny as hell to watch their antics....but also kind of sad in a Fremdschämen kind of way....

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. Your claim of the whole scientific community is a survey given to over 3000 scientists that was then cherry picked down to 79 climatologists and of that total only 74 agreed with the survey so the 97% of scientist meme is pure, utter, horsecrap.

But you allready knew that didn't you.

OK. Name one Scientific Society that agrees with you. One National Academy of Science. From any nation, even Outer Slobovia. How about one major university? You cannot, because all of these state in their policy statements that they regard AGW as a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Simply put, if you are a real geologist, you are totally out of the scientific mainstream and are regarded as an over the hill old man that is a bit dotty and out of touch with reality.

ALL of them get massive amounts of government money by sucking at the tit of AGW. Try again. Show me one of those organisations that doesn't get huge doses of cash for their toeing the party line....just one.

I see. So even the Saudi National Acedemy of Science get massive amounts of money from the monarchy for proving their prime source of wealth is creating a bad situation?

You are just as fruitloops as the rest of the wingnuts. You accuse virtually all of the scientists on this planet of being the kind of fraud that you are.

And you are making the accusations. So, where is your proof? You are a lying asshole, Westwall. You denigrate real scientists for political purposes. You are a whore, just as is Senator Inhofe.

 

[westwall]

OK. Name one Scientific Society that agrees with you. One National Academy of Science. From any nation, even Outer Slobovia. How about one major university? You cannot, because all of these state in their policy statements that they regard AGW as a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Simply put, if you are a real geologist, you are totally out of the scientific mainstream and are regarded as an over the hill old man that is a bit dotty and out of touch with reality.

ALL of them get massive amounts of government money by sucking at the tit of AGW. Try again. Show me one of those organisations that doesn't get huge doses of cash for their toeing the party line....just one.

I see. So even the Saudi National Acedemy of Science get massive amounts of money from the monarchy for proving their prime source of wealth is creating a bad situation?

You are just as fruitloops as the rest of the wingnuts. You accuse virtually all of the scientists on this planet of being the kind of fraud that you are.

And you are making the accusations. So, where is your proof? You are a lying asshole, Westwall. You denigrate real scientists for political purposes. You are a whore, just as is Senator Inhofe.

I don't work for a polluting company like EVRAZ though do I. I wonder who does???? Oh yeah, IT'S YOU! You preach the good talk yet you are a polluting whore for one of the most polluting companies on the planet. How many millions in fines have they had to pay for screwing over the environment? And.....you....help.....them....do...it!

I live a clean life. My family is very environmentally concious. You on the other hand foul your neighbors land every single damned day and then come here and preach to us.....screw you.

Thanks for playing, now piss off hypocrite.

 

[RollingThunder]

ALL of them get massive amounts of government money by sucking at the tit of AGW. Try again. Show me one of those organisations that doesn't get huge doses of cash for their toeing the party line....just one.

I see. So even the Saudi National Acedemy of Science get massive amounts of money from the monarchy for proving their prime source of wealth is creating a bad situation?

You are just as fruitloops as the rest of the wingnuts. You accuse virtually all of the scientists on this planet of being the kind of fraud that you are.

And you are making the accusations. So, where is your proof? You are a lying asshole, Westwall. You denigrate real scientists for political purposes. You are a whore, just as is Senator Inhofe.

I don't work for a polluting company like EVRAZ though do I.

No, you seem to be working for Exxon or maybe the Western Fuels Association or possibly one of the propaganda fronts that the Koch brothers fund. Or, I suppose, it is barely possible that you are indeed retarded enough to carry their water and be their useful idiot foot soldier for free just because you are so retarded and gullible.

I wonder who does????

I don't, so your diversionary tactics won't work on me, dingleberry. I agree with everything that OldRocks just said to you so try losing the diversionary attack on his place of employment which doesn't apply to me, and try responding to what was said, you "fruitloops, fraud, lying asshole, whore". If you're going to try to "denigrate real scientists for political purposes", "where is your proof?"

 

[Mad Scientist]

No, you seem to be working for Exxon or maybe the Western Fuels Association or possibly one of the propaganda fronts that the Koch brothers fund. Or, I suppose, it is barely possible that you are indeed retarded enough to carry their water and be their useful idiot foot soldier for free just because you are so retarded and gullible.

What a fruitcake! That sh*t belongs in "Conspiracy Theories".

What Gov't subsidized Phycotropic Drug ARE you on?

 

[RollingThunder]

No, you seem to be working for Exxon or maybe the Western Fuels Association or possibly one of the propaganda fronts that the Koch brothers fund. Or, I suppose, it is barely possible that you are indeed retarded enough to carry their water and be their useful idiot foot soldier for free just because you are so retarded and gullible.

What a fruitcake! That sh*t belongs in "Conspiracy Theories".

What Gov't subsidized Phycotropic Drug ARE you on?

Oh, you poor bamboozled gullible retard....you have no idea who's been screwing with your head or why, do you?

The Battle Over Climate Science
Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?
Popular Science
By Tom Clynes
06.21.2012
(excerpt)
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan”, the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty”. The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. “Victory will be achieved”, the memo states, when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ ” and when “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality”.

 

[Trakar]

Bullshit. Here is a simple test question from one of my classes....

The single heavy atom in the asymmetric unit of a structure you are trying to determine is located at x=0.3, y=0.1, z=0.2 The crystal belongs to space group P2 which means that if
there is an atom at x,y,z in the unit cell, that there must also be another located at -x,y,-z.

What is the phase of the resultant heavy atom scattering vector for all heavy atoms in this unit cell for the h=1, k=3, l=2 reflection?

Show your work!

Looks like a simple BioChem crystallography calculation.

For atom #1,
phase = 360° (hx + ky + lz) = 360 (0.3 + 0.3 +0.4) = 360° = 0°

For atom #2,
phase = 360° (hx + ky + lz) = 360 (-0.3 + 0.3 -0.4) = -144°

The resultant is the sum of these vectors.
Because they must have the same length,
the phase must be their average = -72° = 288°