Are all "climate change" bets off, now that the earth has shifted on its axis?

[Mini 14]

Old Rocks....

Stop dodging.

I've given you a well-defined statistics problem that is solvable by even the simplest of the scientifically inclined. Those links have nothing to do with the equation I've presented you.

And therein lies the problem.

You manipulate even the query itself to fit your belief.

Which is the antithesis of Science.

The Science is what it is, there is no "clarification" or "qualification" needed, or appropriate.

The equation has an answer.

You just do not want to provide it, or you are incapable of analyzing it objectively.

Which makes you a Philosopher on this subject, and not a Scientist.

A Scientist doesn't care what the answer is, only that the equation or theory is reliable in providing an answer.

People who manipulate Science in the name of Philosophy or in an attempt to "not be wrong" do the most egregious of all disservices to Science.

Science grows more from people who were "wrong" than from those who were "right."

You're a philosopher, a politician, a commentator.

But you, sir, are no Scientist.

Perhaps Matthew can provide us an answer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks....

Stop dodging.

I've given you a well-defined statistics problem that is solvable by even the simplest of the scientifically inclined. Those links have nothing to do with the equation I've presented you.

And therein lies the problem.

You manipulate even the query itself to fit your belief.

Which is the antithesis of Science.

The Science is what it is, there is no "clarification" or "qualification" needed, or appropriate.

The equation has an answer.

You just do not want to provide it, or you are incapable of analyzing it objectively.

Which makes you a Philosopher on this subject, and not a Scientist.

A Scientist doesn't care what the answer is, only that the equation or theory is reliable in providing an answer.

People who manipulate Science in the name of Philosophy or in an attempt to "not be wrong" do the most egregious of all disservices to Science.

Science grows more from people who were "wrong" than from those who were "right."

You're a philosopher, a politician, a commentator.

But you, sir, are no Scientist.

Perhaps Matthew can provide us an answer?

I have peer reviewed this statement and found it to be 100% accurate

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old Rocks....

Stop dodging.

I've given you a well-defined statistics problem that is solvable by even the simplest of the scientifically inclined. Those links have nothing to do with the equation I've presented you.

And therein lies the problem.

You manipulate even the query itself to fit your belief.

Which is the antithesis of Science.

The Science is what it is, there is no "clarification" or "qualification" needed, or appropriate.

The equation has an answer.

You just do not want to provide it, or you are incapable of analyzing it objectively.

Which makes you a Philosopher on this subject, and not a Scientist.

A Scientist doesn't care what the answer is, only that the equation or theory is reliable in providing an answer.

People who manipulate Science in the name of Philosophy or in an attempt to "not be wrong" do the most egregious of all disservices to Science.

Science grows more from people who were "wrong" than from those who were "right."

You're a philosopher, a politician, a commentator.

But you, sir, are no Scientist.

Perhaps Matthew can provide us an answer?

So you went to understand the variable of z. co2 makes up 390 ppm , but the other main gases remain constant as co2 moves upwards. Water vapor can go from a trace to 4+ percent of the Atmosphere within the tropics. It is not around for a long enough time to act as strong of a forcing compared to co2. But water vapor makes up such a large percentage compared to co2 that it makes up 36-72 percent of the green house effect compared to co2 that makes up 9-26 percent.

RealClimate: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?


While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). To demonstrate how quickly water reacts, I did a GCM experiment where I removed all the water in the atmosphere and waited to see how quickly it would fill up again (through evaporation from the ocean) . The result is shown in the figure. It’s not a very exciting graph because the atmosphere fills up very quickly. At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it’s back to within 1%. That’s less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

Water vapor can be a feed back to co2 or any temperature change or phase change...
When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It’s important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption. Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed ‘water vapour feedback’. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.

Anyways co2 is a green house gas...

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf


What this means is more energy is entering the climate system then going out because the green house effect is trapping more energy then it is removing to space. So you get a imbalance.

The Greenhouse Effect is the process by which an atmosphere holds heat around a planet. The story of how this works begins with a discussion of light.

The light that we can see with our eyes is just a small part of the full spectrum of light that occurs in nature. We call this the electromagnetic spectrum because light is a composite of interacting electric and magnetic force fields. The spectrum extends from low energy microwaves and infrared light to the visible part of the spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet), and then to more energetic forms of light such as ultraviolet and x-rays. Climate 411 The Greenhouse Effect Explained - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/07/ElectromagneticSpectrum.png

The temperature of an object is determined by a balance between incoming and outgoing energy. For the Earth, the incoming energy is the absorbed light from the Sun, and the outgoing energy is the infrared light the Earth radiates out to space. In the absence of an atmosphere with its Greenhouse Effect, that balance would lead to very cold temperatures – well below the freezing point of water.

Fortunately the Earth does have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere contains some molecules with three or more atoms – for example, water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These molecules are called "greenhouse gases" because they have a very special property. They do not absorb the visible light from the sun, but they do absorb the infrared light radiated by the Earth's surface.

If greenhouse gases were not in the atmosphere, all the infrared light radiated by the Earth would go back out to space, leaving the Earth too cold for life. But the greenhouse gas molecules absorb the infrared light, and then re-radiate some of it back to the Earth's surface. This makes the surface hotter so it radiates more light, thus establishing an equilibrium at a higher temperature. This process is known as the Greenhouse Effect.

Does co2 have a effect on temperature?

Figure 2: Annual atmospheric carbon dioxide (NOAA) and annual global temperature anomaly (GISS) from 1964 to 2008.

Figure 4: Green line is carbon dioxide levels from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). Blue line is carbon dioxide levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA). Red line is annual global temperature anomaly (GISS)

Figure 4 compares CO2 to global temperatures over the past century. While CO2 is rising from 1940 to 1970, global temperatures show a cooling trend. This is a 30 year period, longer than can be explained by internal variability from ENSO and solar cycles. If CO2 causes warming, why isn't global temperature rising over this period? To answer this, one needs to recognise that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. There are a number of factors which affect the net energy flow into our climate. Stratospheric aerosols (eg - from volcanic eruptions) reflect sunlight back into space, causing cooling. When solar activity increases, the amount of energy flowing into our climate increases. Figure 5 shows a composite of the various radiative forcings that affect climate.

Figure 5: Separate global climate forcings relative to their 1880 values (GISS).

When all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940. This is thought to be due to a warming bias introduced by US ships measuring engine intake temperature. A new twist on mid-century cooling
Access : A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature : Nature

Correspondence to: David W. J. Thompson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.W.J.T. (Email: davet@atmos.colostate.edu).

Top of page
Abstract

Data sets used to monitor the Earth’s climate indicate that the surface of the Earth warmed from ~1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from ~1940 to 1970, and then warmed markedly from ~1970 onward1. The weak cooling apparent in the middle part of the century has been interpreted in the context of a variety of physical factors, such as atmosphere–ocean interactions and anthropogenic emissions of sulphate aerosols2. Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945, which is a prominent feature of the cooling trend in the mid-twentieth century. The discontinuity is evident in published versions of the global-mean temperature time series1, but stands out more clearly after the data are filtered for the effects of internal climate variability. We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of ~0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures.


Finally, Thompson 2008 ends with an intriguing statement:

"compensation for a different potential source of bias in SST data in the past decade— the transition from ship- to buoy-derived SSTs—might increase the century-long trends by raising recent SSTs as much as 0.1 C, as buoy-derived SSTs are biased cool relative to ship measurements"

Figure 6: Blue line is net radiative forcing (GISS). Red line is global temperature anomaly (GISS).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Figure 3: Comparison of observed land and ocean temperatures (solid black line) with climate results using only natural forcings (blue bar) and natural + anthropogenic forcings (red bar). Graph comes from Figure SPM-4 of the IPCC 4AR Summary for Policy Makers. Finally, Thompson 2008 ends with an intriguing statement:



So pretty much if the sun forcing, which has been going down since 1950-1960 time frame was the main forcing that is the norm then the temperature would be going down right now.


What comes first the temperature or co2?

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

*
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
*
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
*
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.full

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice c

Climate 411 The Greenhouse Effect Explained - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

[B]Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).

Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 [/B]

Harries 2001 does look at the full infrared spectrum except for wavelengths less than 700nm (which happens to be where a large portion of the CO2 absorption occurs). The observed changes in the spectrum from 1970 to 2006 are consistent with theoretical expectations. As the atmosphere warms, more infrared radiation is radiated to space. However, less infrared radiation escapes at CO2 wavelengths. The net effect is that less total radiation escapes out to space.

This is independently confirmed by surface measurements which find the net result is more longwave radiation returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006). It's also confirmed by ocean heat measurements which find the oceans have been accumulating heat since 1950 (Murphy 2009).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

So this is how it works...Hope you enjoyed.

 

[Mini 14]

So you went to understand the variable of z. co2 makes up 390 ppm ,.........

So this is how it works...Hope you enjoyed.

Wow.....

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just type:

"I'm not going to answer it either" ?

As "Scientists" surely the two of you can see that the answer I was asking for will not include words. It is a number.

And it is a number less than 1.

So you two either can't, or won't, answer a simple mathematical equation, yet want us to believe you're credible "Scientists," or at least scholars of Science?

There are no words involved in the answer to my scientific question. A true "Scientist" would spout out the answer in less than 3 seconds, regardless of what light it shed upon his political, philosophical, or even scientific hypotheses.

Yet neither of you will give a number, but seemingly cannot resist giving a sermon instead.

Matthew, you seem like a fine young man.

But you, son, are no Scientist either.

You are disingenuous and irresponsible in the name of Science, presumably to further your own personal agenda, and that is a terrible and egregious disservice to ALL of Science.

I suggest you and Old Rocks leave talk of Science to those who are true to the study, those who strive to be wrong as equally as they strive to be right, and those who understand that Science is what it is, no matter what our personal feelings and philosophies may be.

And for future reference, when someone asks for a number in answer to a question, the only acceptable words that would EVER honestly satisfy the query are "I don't know."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can anyone point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables (orbit, magnetic field, H2O, etc) and leaves only a 200PPM increase in CO2 as the culprit?

Anyone?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you went to understand the variable of z. co2 makes up 390 ppm ,.........

So this is how it works...Hope you enjoyed.

Wow.....

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just type:

"I'm not going to answer it either" ?

As "Scientists" surely the two of you can see that the answer I was asking for will not include words. It is a number.

And it is a number less than 1.

So you two either can't, or won't, answer a simple mathematical equation, yet want us to believe you're credible "Scientists," or at least scholars of Science?

There are no words involved in the answer to my scientific question. A true "Scientist" would spout out the answer in less than 3 seconds, regardless of what light it shed upon his political, philosophical, or even scientific hypotheses.

Yet neither of you will give a number, but seemingly cannot resist giving a sermon instead.

Matthew, you seem like a fine young man.

But you, son, are no Scientist either.

You are disingenuous and irresponsible in the name of Science, presumably to further your own personal agenda, and that is a terrible and egregious disservice to ALL of Science.

I suggest you and Old Rocks leave talk of Science to those who are true to the study, those who strive to be wrong as equally as they strive to be right, and those who understand that Science is what it is, no matter what our personal feelings and philosophies may be.

And for future reference, when someone asks for a number in answer to a question, the only acceptable words that would EVER honestly satisfy the query are "I don't know."

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question. I tried to give you a idea of what many scientist as of today believe, but that don't measure up to your question. Our current understanding of physics and science arent going to change anyone that wants a 100 percent answer...

I'm no greeny, but someone that enjoys science and has spent a good part of my life watching it. My knowledge is not that of the people that I respect, but I can only dream. Science and theories are not based on 100 percents and never have..It is good to have skeptics, because of that. The debate is not over because it shouldn't be within science, but it seems to me that co2 is a green house gas increasing within the Atmosphere. Do I believe that we are doomed, **** no. I don't even believe that we get more then another 1 degree c out of it. But do I think it has a part in it, sure.

But at the end of the day co2 is a green house gas and we are living through a period of history using any metric of measurements PS or Ice core of the fasts and highest rates f increase in 15 thousand years.

 

[code1211]

Yes, numbers and data should be posted and not Politics. Get ******* Politics out of science. posting scientific papers and work from scientist is debating science. Period.

Alright Matthew and Old Rocks.....here is your chance to show your acumen for science:

What is the statistical probability of a reliable (statistically defined) relationship when you are given 0.000000025 of the available data from an unknown set of variables and charged with determining a cause or effect?

Because that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.

The bottom line is, you don't know shit. None of us know shit. As much as you want to understand the Earth, you never will. The Earth will never even know you were here, no matter how smart you think you are, how many posts you make, or what your rep count is.

Numbers don't lie.

People do. Especially when they're trying to impress OTHER PEOPLE.

So.....

0.000000025 of subset (z) = what?

Until you define subset (z), you're waxing philosophic. And you CAN'T define subset (z). Not with all the Science you've ever heard of.

And once you do, that 0.000000025 needs to grow to something that is statistically reliable.

Which will only take about another 4,500,000,000 years.

You two define "Science" to fit your concept of yourselves and your current environment, neither of which are measurable or controlled.

And that violates the very first rule of ALL Sciences.

Meaningless yap-yap with a lot of numbers thrown in. You simply don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Given the number of variables, the departures of real results from predictions and the historical evidence that the planet has been both warmer and cooler with varying amounts of CO2, it seems irrational to stubbornly cling to the the notion that our scientists who are predicting one thing and witnessing another are good at their craft.

The only thing that seems certain is that anybody claiming to know what is happening, has happened or will happen is making wild fanciful leaps of faith ignoring many, many bits of proof.

I willl accept that skeptics don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. I will also accept that the AGW Proponents are equally clueless. There may be some knowns, but there are far too many unknowns and far too many interactive variables to have a handle on what's happening.

Disagree? Prove it.

 

[Mini 14]

So you went to understand the variable of z. co2 makes up 390 ppm ,.........

So this is how it works...Hope you enjoyed.

Wow.....

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just type:

"I'm not going to answer it either" ?

As "Scientists" surely the two of you can see that the answer I was asking for will not include words. It is a number.

And it is a number less than 1.

So you two either can't, or won't, answer a simple mathematical equation, yet want us to believe you're credible "Scientists," or at least scholars of Science?

There are no words involved in the answer to my scientific question. A true "Scientist" would spout out the answer in less than 3 seconds, regardless of what light it shed upon his political, philosophical, or even scientific hypotheses.

Yet neither of you will give a number, but seemingly cannot resist giving a sermon instead.

Matthew, you seem like a fine young man.

But you, son, are no Scientist either.

You are disingenuous and irresponsible in the name of Science, presumably to further your own personal agenda, and that is a terrible and egregious disservice to ALL of Science.

I suggest you and Old Rocks leave talk of Science to those who are true to the study, those who strive to be wrong as equally as they strive to be right, and those who understand that Science is what it is, no matter what our personal feelings and philosophies may be.

And for future reference, when someone asks for a number in answer to a question, the only acceptable words that would EVER honestly satisfy the query are "I don't know."

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wow.....

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just type:

"I'm not going to answer it either" ?

As "Scientists" surely the two of you can see that the answer I was asking for will not include words. It is a number.

And it is a number less than 1.

So you two either can't, or won't, answer a simple mathematical equation, yet want us to believe you're credible "Scientists," or at least scholars of Science?

There are no words involved in the answer to my scientific question. A true "Scientist" would spout out the answer in less than 3 seconds, regardless of what light it shed upon his political, philosophical, or even scientific hypotheses.

Yet neither of you will give a number, but seemingly cannot resist giving a sermon instead.

Matthew, you seem like a fine young man.

But you, son, are no Scientist either.

You are disingenuous and irresponsible in the name of Science, presumably to further your own personal agenda, and that is a terrible and egregious disservice to ALL of Science.

I suggest you and Old Rocks leave talk of Science to those who are true to the study, those who strive to be wrong as equally as they strive to be right, and those who understand that Science is what it is, no matter what our personal feelings and philosophies may be.

And for future reference, when someone asks for a number in answer to a question, the only acceptable words that would EVER honestly satisfy the query are "I don't know."

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so ******* knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as **** is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

 

[Mini 14]

Given the number of variables, the departures of real results from predictions and the historical evidence that the planet has been both warmer and cooler with varying amounts of CO2, it seems irrational to stubbornly cling to the the notion that our scientists who are predicting one thing and witnessing another are good at their craft.

The only thing that seems certain is that anybody claiming to know what is happening, has happened or will happen is making wild fanciful leaps of faith ignoring many, many bits of proof.

I willl accept that skeptics don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. I will also accept that the AGW Proponents are equally clueless. There may be some knowns, but there are far too many unknowns and far too many interactive variables to have a handle on what's happening.

Disagree? Prove it.

And that is exactly the point my statistical equation makes.

Spot-on

 

[Mini 14]

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so ******* knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as **** is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow.....

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just type:

"I'm not going to answer it either" ?

As "Scientists" surely the two of you can see that the answer I was asking for will not include words. It is a number.

And it is a number less than 1.

So you two either can't, or won't, answer a simple mathematical equation, yet want us to believe you're credible "Scientists," or at least scholars of Science?

There are no words involved in the answer to my scientific question. A true "Scientist" would spout out the answer in less than 3 seconds, regardless of what light it shed upon his political, philosophical, or even scientific hypotheses.

Yet neither of you will give a number, but seemingly cannot resist giving a sermon instead.

Matthew, you seem like a fine young man.

But you, son, are no Scientist either.

You are disingenuous and irresponsible in the name of Science, presumably to further your own personal agenda, and that is a terrible and egregious disservice to ALL of Science.

I suggest you and Old Rocks leave talk of Science to those who are true to the study, those who strive to be wrong as equally as they strive to be right, and those who understand that Science is what it is, no matter what our personal feelings and philosophies may be.

And for future reference, when someone asks for a number in answer to a question, the only acceptable words that would EVER honestly satisfy the query are "I don't know."

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

Nine, you have given us yap-yap again. So, in return, I will give you real scientists.

A23A

A42D

 

[Mini 14]

Nine, you have given us yap-yap again. So, in return, I will give you real scientists.

A23A

A42D

Ahhhhh yes....

More political philosophy that still doesn't answer the question I asked.

Its a number Rocks....

If you type anything other than a number, you're pontificating and providing opinion.

You're no ******* Scientist.

You're a political commentator who rapes Science to further his personal agenda.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is what the scientific society with the largest number of climate scientists in the world states. It is clear and unequivical. You may argue that the scientists are wrong, but you have no valid arguement that I am not presenting their viewpoint accurately.

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change
WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Mini 14]

This is what the scientific society with the largest number of climate scientists in the world states. It is clear and unequivical. You may argue that the scientists are wrong, but you have no valid arguement that I am not presenting their viewpoint accurately.

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change
WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Preach on, brother!

None of that has anything to do with the scientific equation I asked if you could solve for us, but it is obviously making you feel better to give us your opinions on something unrelated.

Have at it, anchorman!

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so ******* knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as **** is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a ******* tiny mother ******* number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this ******* planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the **** the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while the best of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

 

[westwall]

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

You're right.

There are literally millions, I'll bet.

It is a statistics problem. It deals with numbers. CO2 and green house are not part of the question, or the answer. If you can't even recognize or understand the equation, how the **** do you think you're going to come up with an answer? Verbosity and bullshit are evidently your answers?

If you want to be a Scientist, you need to learn what Science is first. The problem I presented you needs no "opinion" or spin. It is a simple math problem (you are aware that math is a science, right?). No matter how much opinion and spin you respond with, it will not change the Science. There is an answer to the equation I presented you and Rocks. It is a number. If either of you answer the equation, you will weaken your philosophical arguments and your opinion. So you ignore Science and respond with a plethora of bullshit, hoping it will distract us long enough that we'll forget you didn't answer the question.

I wasn't distracted.

Epic fail, Matthew.

Truly epic!

Nine, you have given us yap-yap again. So, in return, I will give you real scientists.

A23A

A42D

Sort of real scientists committing very real fraud.

 

[westwall]

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so ******* knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as **** is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a ******* tiny mother ******* number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this ******* planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the **** the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while of of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Matthew, I have a better understanding of science fundamentals than climatologists do. the closest they get to a 'hard' science in their degree field is a requirement for a Bachelors in Geography. There is no requirement for chemistry, physics, or high level mathematics. On the other hand I had to be well versed in ALL of them.

Put even more succinctly, I can teach any course they would care to create. On the other hand they are not qualified to teach any but the basic level classes I am qualified to teach.
The point I am making is that the "mythification" of climatology is just that, myth. They are not special, in point of fact their methodologies are quite poor for the most part. Any person who is well versed in the basic hard sciences knows more then the vast majority of climate scientists about how the world actually functions.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You are so blinded by your mission, you cannot even grasp the question.

This is the first rule of ALL Science, and you have failed in an epic manner.

CO2 and "parts per million" has nothing to do with the question I asked you and Old Rocks.

I provided you the most basic of statistical equations, and asked you to provide us with an answer. You both have refused to do so, but have not shied away at all from giving us your sermonic missives on AGW and environmental Armageddon.

You are disingenuous and apparently intentionally misleading. Don't kid yourself, you are no Scientist.

And you are shaming the good work done by all those Scientists you profess to respect.

So you think the data is wrong. satellite data showing a decrease in outward energy from the earth, is BS. Prove it. Now is co2 the reason for that...I think it is possible along side a increase in water vapor, which shares many of the same wave lengths. You can only insult, but you have only given a ******* tiny mother ******* number. Guess what; I understand it is a tiny number, but as I explain above does a tiny change within the climate system of a green house gas have a ability to cause a change with most other gases remaining constant. Many scientist think so. Some of course don't. Dont say water vapor because it is a feed back if co2 does in fact cause a warming. Any increase because of co2 of heat within the Atmosphere would increase water vapor=feed back.

I admit that I'm not a climate scientist and even some of the top climate minds on this ******* planet wouldn't be able to get through your head or change your mind. I'm someone that does enjoy reading and looking at science.

I'm not saying that some scientist on the skeptic side don't make good cases...I wonder why the **** the oceans rate of warming have nearly stopped. That is another question that needs answered. But attacking someone that cant give you 100 percent of your question, while of of science so far cant do that is beneath the debate. We can understand what we know to be so.

Matthew, I have a better understanding of science fundamentals than climatologists do. the closest they get to a 'hard' science in their degree field is a requirement for a Bachelors in Geography. There is no requirement for chemistry, physics, or high level mathematics. On the other hand I had to be well versed in ALL of them.

Put even more succinctly, I can teach any course they would care to create. On the other hand they are not qualified to teach any but the basic level classes I am qualified to teach.
The point I am making is that the "mythification" of climatology is just that, myth. They are not special, in point of fact their methodologies are quite poor for the most part. Any person who is well versed in the basic hard sciences knows more then the vast majority of climate scientists about how the world actually functions.

West--I understand that to become a geologist that it takes very high amounts of math, physics, chemistry, ect. I respect you and anyone that busted their backsides to become a scientist. Do you agree with anything I written or do you think I'm just wrong. I will learn more and hopefully improve my knowledge and understanding of the subject.

 

[code1211]

I doubt there is one scientist on earth right now that could give you a 100 percent answer to your question.

!

You went me to admit that the increase in co2 does not cause a increase in temperature??? Greenland only had ice caps since the planet went below 450 ppm around 20-25 million years ago. And the Antarctic only had them for about 30 million years. That should give you a idea of the effects of the increase of co2. Show me how this information is wrong...If your so ******* knowledgeable.

You bet it is a tiny number that you believe cant do anything, but there are real scientist that study this and have found that it causes a imbalance. Do you know what a imbalance does to a climate system? It causes a decrease or increase of energy within the system. I'm not saying this is for sure, but many believe this to be so. Sure it is tiny and you could be right, but I care to listen to everyone. In what do I find on the skeptic side??? Bs. Jokes, politics...I used to be a skeptic a down right denier, but I couldn't explain why the temperature was not going down with the cycles. There must be something that is causing positive forcing. It sure as **** is NOT the sun, which we account for the energy that it pushes into the climate system. That post above showing the blue area,,,that is what the natural forcing as of right now would be doing...because we are not within that. I used to be a ice age believer...No more...I think I will listen to both sides equally and think for my self. As thinking one side or the other is not the way of science, but thinking outside of the box is.

Math is straight forward...You need to be accurate, but science is more or less a way to understand the earth around you and how things work. Some times you cant get 100 percent unlike math. If you get that then it is a law...like Newtons laws, Kelpers laws, ect.

Dude, Science is about data, information, which goes to theories with support of your peers. it is the way science works....Of course some one can come forward and propose a idea and destroy the entire understanding of many. At one time we thought that the earth was the center of everything, but today we know we are not even close.

I will be truthful I don't give two shits abut the green movement, but I do about science.

Your right that parts per million is a tiny number YES. Is that what you went answered. The question that needs to be answered is that kind of change within the Atmosphere enough to cause a change or a imbalance. That is what you must answer.

The level of CO2 as a decreasing amount is an interesting point to consider.

The drop of CO2 until relatively times has been the constant in the climate system. It was alomost this low about 320 million years ago and then rose dramatically to around 2500 PPM, then, suddenly and dramatically dropped to levels of the current day.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

I had read that when the continents of North and South America collided to close the Isthmus of Panama, that is when the ice ages started. The current Glaciation of Greenland can be confirmed back to about 110 thousand years, maybe 250 thousand, but that's iffy.

What's your source for 25 million years?

Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?