Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[konradv]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

Mars s0n...........another thorn in the side of the perpetually duped!!!

 

[westwall]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

My objections are based on science. Uniformitarianism is the backbone of modern scientific thought and all theories must deal with that underlying principle of the hard physical sciences. Climatology is not a hard physical science as you have no doubt figured out. Any science that allows the use of computer models as a primary scientific exploration tool is by definition not an exact science.

Nice try but you lose yet again.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

My objections are based on science. Uniformitarianism is the backbone of modern scientific thought and all theories must deal with that underlying principle of the hard physical sciences. Climatology is not a hard physical science as you have no doubt figured out. Any science that allows the use of computer models as a primary scientific exploration tool is by definition not an exact science.

Nice try but you lose yet again.

Like hell your objections are based on science. Almost all scientists totally disagree with your nonsense. Uniformitarianism has zero to do with the rapid increase we are seeing in the temperatures. And it has happened several times before in geological history.

Your uniformitarianism shit line is getting old. Change the conditions, in this case the composition of the atmosphere, and you get a change in related systems.

Once again, Walleyes, you are a liar, and not even a very accomplished one. You flapping yap about uniformitarianism is no differant than what the goofs did when Bretz presented his evidence.

And your idiocy about the primary tool being computer models is just another idiocy on your part to divert attention from the research that has been done on the decrease in outgoing infrared at the critical wavelengths, the research showing the huge increase of heat in the oceans, the acidification of the oceans, and so many other lines of research. The computer models are trying to get a handle on what we can expect in the future, so that we can prepare.

 

[westwall]

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

My objections are based on science. Uniformitarianism is the backbone of modern scientific thought and all theories must deal with that underlying principle of the hard physical sciences. Climatology is not a hard physical science as you have no doubt figured out. Any science that allows the use of computer models as a primary scientific exploration tool is by definition not an exact science.

Nice try but you lose yet again.

Like hell your objections are based on science. Almost all scientists totally disagree with your nonsense. Uniformitarianism has zero to do with the rapid increase we are seeing in the temperatures. And it has happened several times before in geological history.

Your uniformitarianism shit line is getting old. Change the conditions, in this case the composition of the atmosphere, and you get a change in related systems.

Once again, Walleyes, you are a liar, and not even a very accomplished one. You flapping yap about uniformitarianism is no differant than what the goofs did when Bretz presented his evidence.

And your idiocy about the primary tool being computer models is just another idiocy on your part to divert attention from the research that has been done on the decrease in outgoing infrared at the critical wavelengths, the research showing the huge increase of heat in the oceans, the acidification of the oceans, and so many other lines of research. The computer models are trying to get a handle on what we can expect in the future, so that we can prepare.

UNIFORMITARIANISM NEVER GET'S OLD FOOL! IT IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF GEOLOGY AND IF YOU HAD REALLY TAKEN THREE YEARS OF COLLEGE GEOLOGY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT!

However, now that we know you are a dropout from the Charter School for mathematicaly challenged children your complete lack of scientific comprehension is understandable.

 

[RollingThunder]

My objections are based on science. Uniformitarianism is the backbone of modern scientific thought and all theories must deal with that underlying principle of the hard physical sciences. Climatology is not a hard physical science as you have no doubt figured out. Any science that allows the use of computer models as a primary scientific exploration tool is by definition not an exact science.

Nice try but you lose yet again.

Like hell your objections are based on science. Almost all scientists totally disagree with your nonsense. Uniformitarianism has zero to do with the rapid increase we are seeing in the temperatures. And it has happened several times before in geological history.

Your uniformitarianism shit line is getting old. Change the conditions, in this case the composition of the atmosphere, and you get a change in related systems.

Once again, Walleyes, you are a liar, and not even a very accomplished one. You flapping yap about uniformitarianism is no differant than what the goofs did when Bretz presented his evidence.

And your idiocy about the primary tool being computer models is just another idiocy on your part to divert attention from the research that has been done on the decrease in outgoing infrared at the critical wavelengths, the research showing the huge increase of heat in the oceans, the acidification of the oceans, and so many other lines of research. The computer models are trying to get a handle on what we can expect in the future, so that we can prepare.

UNIFORMITARIANISM NEVER GET'S(sic) OLD FOOL! IT IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF GEOLOGY AND IF YOU HAD REALLY TAKEN THREE YEARS OF COLLEGE GEOLOGY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT!

However, now that we know you are a dropout from the Charter School for mathematicaly(sic) challenged children your complete lack of scientific comprehension is understandable.

LOLOLOLOL.....if you had taken more than three minutes to skim a denier cult blog article about the subject, you would know that only half of what is called "Uniformitarianism" could be called the underlying principle of geology and the other half is problematic and not widely accepted. Neither one is particularly relevant to AGW and nothing about this means what you seem to imagine it means. Once again you just demonstrate what a clueless anti-science nitwit you are when you prattle on about something you obviously don't understand.

Uniformitarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gould expounded on similar propositions in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle (1987), stating that Lyell conflated two different types of propositions: a pair of methodological assumptions with a pair of substantive hypotheses. The four together make up Lyell's uniformitarianism.[16]

Methodological assumptions

The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]

* 'Uniformity of law across time and space: Natural laws are constant across space and time.[18]

The axiom of uniformity of law is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past. As James Hutton wrote: “If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy [i.e. science], our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations.”[19] In essence, the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we cannot meaningfully study the past. Making inferences about the past is wrapped up in the difference between studying the observable present and the unobservable past. In the observable present, induction can be regarded as self-corrective. That is to say, erroneous beliefs about the observable world can be proven wrong and corrected by other observations. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability. However, past processes are not observable by their very nature. Therefore, in order to come to conclusions about the past, we must assume the invariance of nature's laws.[18]

"The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way “prove” the validity of induction - an endeavor virtually abandoned after Hume demonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[20]

"Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation."[21]

* Uniformity of process across time and space: If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent an extinct or unknown cause as its explanation.[17]

Though similar to the uniformity of law, this deals with geological causes, not physico-chemical laws. “We should try to explain the past by causes now in operation without inventing extra, fancy, or unknown causes, however plausible in logic, if available processes suffice.”[17] This is known as the scientific principle of parsimony or Occam's razor.

"Strict uniformitarianism may often be a guarantee against pseudo-scientific phantasies and loose conjectures, but it makes one easily forget that the principle of uniformity is not a law, not a rule established after comparison of facts, but a methodological principle, preceding the observation of facts . . . It is the logical principle of parsimony of causes and of economy of scientific notions. By explaining past changes by analogy with present phenomena, a limit is set to conjecture, for there is only one way in which two things are equal, but there are an infinity of ways in which they could be supposed different."[22]

Gould simplified the issue, noting that Lyell's “uniformity of process” was also an assumption: “As such, it is another a priori methodological assumption shared by all scientists and not a statement about the empirical world.”[23]

Substantive hypotheses

The substantive hypotheses were controversial and, in some cases, accepted by few.[16] These hypotheses are judged true or false on empirical grounds through scientific observation and repeated experimental data. This is in contrast with the previous two philosophical assumptions[17] that come before one can do science and so cannot be tested or falsified by science.

* Uniformity of rate across time and space: Change is typically slow, steady, and gradual.[17]

Uniformity of rate (or Gradualism) is what most people (including geologists) think of when they hear the word “uniformitarianism," confusing this hypothesis with the entire definition. As late as 1990, Lemon, in his textbook of stratigraphy, affirmed that “The uniformitarian view of earth history held that all geologic processes proceed continuously and at a very slow pace.”[24]

Gould explained Hutton's view of uniformity of rate; mountain ranges or grand canyons are built by accumulation of near insensible changes added up through vast time. Some major events such as floods, earthquakes, and eruptions, do occur. But these catastrophes are strictly local. They neither occurred in the past, nor shall happen in the future, at any greater frequency or extent than they display at present. In particular, the whole earth is never convulsed at once.[25]

* Uniformity of state across time and space: Change is evenly distributed throughout space and time.[26]

The uniformity of state hypothesis (i.e. steady-stateism) implies that throughout the history of our earth there is no progress in any inexorable direction. The planet has almost always looked and behaved as it does now. Change is continuous, but leads nowhere. The earth is in balance: a dynamic steady state.[26]

20th century

Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary? (1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, methodological and substantive uniformitarianism.[27] He dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate. He rejected the second as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary.

Uniformitarianism was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism, which states that the distant past "consisted of epochs of paroxysmal and catastrophic action interposed between periods of comparative tranquility"[28] Especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most geologists took this interpretation to mean that catastrophic events are not important in geologic time; one example of this is the debate of the formation of the Channeled Scablands due to the catastrophic Missoula glacial outburst floods. An important result of this debate and others was the re-clarification that, while the same principles operate in geologic time, catastrophic events that are infrequent on human time-scales can have important consequences in geologic history.[29] Derek Ager has noted that “geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed.”[30]

Even Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10,000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America.

Unlike Lyell, modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way. They question if rates of processes were uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted.[31] The present may not be a long enough key to penetrate the deep lock of the past.[32] Geologic processes may have been active at different rates in the past that humans have not observed. “By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell’s rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form. Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.”[25]

The current consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[33] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions. This is also known as the principle of geological actualism, which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology.


***

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

Science requires a few things. One is repeatable experiments. You haven't even got ONE experiment that shows anything claimed by the CO2 theory. You make the claim, it is not OUR job to disprove it, it is your job to PROVE it.

Scientifically it is a fact that before global warming became the end all be all argument of the kooks and crazies it was accepted that as CO2 went up it had a DIMINISHING effect on its supposed ability to retain heat. Further it is scientifically proven that rising CO2 FOLLOWS raising temperatures, it does not LEAD them.

Further there is no evidence that the sea levels are rising any faster now then before the claim of man made global warming. And the argument about arctic sea ice has been shown to be the canard it is. I believe the low year was 2005 and since then every year the ice has GROWN. Further the hottest year was 1998. CO2 kept going up, why didn't temperatures?

It is your theory, it is your job to USE science, not guessing, to prove your theory. Or at least make it plausible.

 

[wirebender]

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas".

Feel free to point to any post of mine in which I rely on such a statement as evidence to support my position.

Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy.

You are right. The fact that it is a trace gas has nothing to do with its inability to trap energy. Of course it can't but it is because of the composition of the molecule itself and has nothing to do with the amount of molecules there are.

Lets do a little thought experiment and pretend for a few minutes that CO2 could absorb and retain IR energy. OK. Lets section out a million parts of air. In that million parts, lets say that there are 400 parts (for the sake of argument) of CO2.

How hot do you suppose those 400 parts would have to get in order to effectively raise the temperature of the surrounding 999,600 parts? Do keep in mind that convection and conduction are constantly working towards carrying all the energy into space.

You have 400 molecules trying to heat up 999,600 molecules with energy escaping all the time. How hot do those molecules have to be in order to raise the temperature of the other 999,600 molecules by even the smallest signifigant amount? My best estimate is several hundred degrees to raise the overall temperature of the surrounding molecules by even a one hundredth of a degree. How hot do you suppose they would have to get? Now, where do you suppose they would get enough energy to become hot enough to raise the temperature of the surrounding molecules. They can't get any hotter than the heat radiating from the earth; conservation of energy and all; so where does the energy come from to heat them up to several hundred degrees?

Here is your opportunity to explain how you think this happens. I certainly have no problem explaining myself, how about you?

Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one.

Of course if you trap enough energy, temperatures will rise. The problem for you is that CO2 can't trap energy. It absorbs energy and immediately emits precisely the same amount of energy it absorbed. Its emission spectrum proves that beyond any doubt. If it retained any of the energy that it absorbed, its emission spectrum would not be precisely the opposite of its absorption spectrum.

I don't see how you get around that one.

In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY???

I have explained it repeately konradv and just explained it again. I explained to you why water vapor can absorb energy when you didn't know that. I am able to explain any claim that I make and further, am able to explain it in my own words because I actually grasp the material.

My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

Do feel free to point out any political objections to climate science that I have made. Building a strawman to attack is never a good debate strategy. When it is exposed, your position only looks weaker.

The "greenhouse" effect is an old principle and one that has been dragged around by climate scientists for a couple of decades now like a worn out teddy bear that provides some security. As to being well established, I'm afraid not. There isn't a shred of hard, observed repeatable data to support it. There are, however a growing number of peer reviewed papers that refute it as applied to the atmosphere. Papers which, by the way, your priests avoid like the plague. They attempt no rebuttal as the science is clearly over their heads.

Your buds on the board have repeatedly failed to provide any hard, observed evidence to support the notion that CO2 can absorb and retain energy. Perhaps you can provide some. You certainly haven't so far.

 

[sparky]

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....

 

[editec]

Explain this one warmers:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Or is this another one of those times we need to conveniently leave out science?

Yes, that is very interesting.

<H1 class=articleHeadline>Solar activity reaches new high

Dec 2, 2003

Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique &#8211; which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

Sunspots are produced by magnetic activity inside the Sun. The more active the Sun is, the more spots are produced. Observations of sunspots began in 1610 &#8211; soon after the telescope was invented &#8211; and no other directly obtained data exists from before this time.

Now, Usoskin and co-workers have used the concentration of beryllium-10 in polar ice as a proxy for historic levels of solar activity. Beryllium-10 is produced when cosmic rays interact with particles in the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere. The radioisotope then falls to the ground where it is stored in layers of ice. The Sun&#8217;s magnetic field can deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, so a stronger field should lead to less beryllium-10 being produced, and vice versa.

Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

&#8220;We need to understand this unprecedented level of activity,&#8221; Usoskin told PhysicsWeb. &#8220;Is it is a rare event that happens once a millennium - which means that the Sun will return to normal - or is it a new dynamic state that will keep solar activity levels high?&#8221; The Finnish-German team also speculates that increased solar activity may be having an effect on the Earth&#8217;s climate, but more work is needed to clarify this.

</H1>
source

 

[IanC]

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....

lol, exactly! you probably werent referencing the missing tropical hotspot but that is a major proof that computer models just dont describe reality!

all theories have to start with understanding the simplest scenarios. with climate the simplest area is the equatorial band where most of the energy from the sun is collected. once you get away from the equator you have many more complexities from heat transfers by Hadley cells and ocean currents, etc. that is why the tropics are the most stable and polewards is more unpredictible. eg tropical temps have warmed or cooled the least.

if climate understanding and especially climate models dont work for the tropics, how can we have any faith that they work for the much more chaotic and non-linear areas away from the equator? where is the tropical hotspot? why isnt atmospheric CO2 acting and reacting the way the theories predict, even in the simplest area of the system?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is like a religious mantra to him. I have read it from beginning to end and I can't imagine which part of it he beleives constitutes proof of anything. Nothing there mentions any experimental proof, or hard observation, or repeatable result of any kind. The mental state required to actually believe that that represents proof is just sad and an indictment on the public school system of wherever he went to school.

Like you don't have your own mantras! What about "But CO2 is just a trace gas". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't trap energy. Trap enough and temps will rise. Don't see how you get around that one. In all your posts you never seem to explain that. WHY??? My guess is because your objections are mainly political, since neither science nor logic are on your side, as evidenced by your ridicule of the Greenhouse Effect, a well-established scientific principle.

Science requires a few things. One is repeatable experiments. You haven't even got ONE experiment that shows anything claimed by the CO2 theory. You make the claim, it is not OUR job to disprove it, it is your job to PROVE it.

Quite on the contrary. There have been several times in the Earth's history where there was a sudden dramatic rise in CO2 and CH4. Have a look at the timeline on this fun little geologic timeline for our planet. Look at what happened at the Permian-Triassic boundry. In fact there have been many periods of extinction, both from sudden increases and sudden decreases in temperature, caused by rapid variation in CO2.

Geologic and Biological Timeline of the Earth

Scientifically it is a fact that before global warming became the end all be all argument of the kooks and crazies it was accepted that as CO2 went up it had a DIMINISHING effect on its supposed ability to retain heat. Further it is scientifically proven that rising CO2 FOLLOWS raising temperatures, it does not LEAD them.

Now you are just flapping yap. No such diminishing effect exists. You want what real scientists state concerning that, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics. However, you might also want to consider why Venus, with a dense CO2 atmosphere, is not just slightly hotter than the Earth, instead of being able to melt lead on the surface.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Further there is no evidence that the sea levels are rising any faster now then before the claim of man made global warming. And the argument about arctic sea ice has been shown to be the canard it is. I believe the low year was 2005 and since then every year the ice has GROWN. Further the hottest year was 1998. CO2 kept going up, why didn't temperatures?

It is your theory, it is your job to USE science, not guessing, to prove your theory. Or at least make it plausible.

Now are you really this stupid? There is a lot of natural variation in nature. 2007 was a very low year with the Arctic Ice. 2008, 2009, were both a little better, but 2010 was second to 2007.

The hottest years were 1998, 2005, and 2010. There was no statistically significant differance between them. And the mean for the period from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any of the high points of the mean in the previous satellite record. That according to Dr. Spencer at the University of Alabama.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

And where did you get that twaddle about sea level rise? Cracker Jacks box? All the scientific agencies that do the data state differantly

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Explain this one warmers:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Or is this another one of those times we need to conveniently leave out science?

Yes, that is very interesting.

<H1 class=articleHeadline>Solar activity reaches new high

Dec 2, 2003

Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

Sunspots are produced by magnetic activity inside the Sun. The more active the Sun is, the more spots are produced. Observations of sunspots began in 1610 – soon after the telescope was invented – and no other directly obtained data exists from before this time.

Now, Usoskin and co-workers have used the concentration of beryllium-10 in polar ice as a proxy for historic levels of solar activity. Beryllium-10 is produced when cosmic rays interact with particles in the Earth’s atmosphere. The radioisotope then falls to the ground where it is stored in layers of ice. The Sun’s magnetic field can deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, so a stronger field should lead to less beryllium-10 being produced, and vice versa.

Using modelling techniques, the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

“We need to understand this unprecedented level of activity,” Usoskin told PhysicsWeb. “Is it is a rare event that happens once a millennium - which means that the Sun will return to normal - or is it a new dynamic state that will keep solar activity levels high?” The Finnish-German team also speculates that increased solar activity may be having an effect on the Earth’s climate, but more work is needed to clarify this.

</H1>
source

Yet by 2008, we had a record minimum of sunspots. But the temperatures continued to go up. 2008, with a strong La Nina, and a record minimum, scored as the tenth warmest year on record in the last 180. 2010, with a moderate El Nino, and, at the end, a very strong La Nina, tied 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year on record. 2011, starting with a very strong La Nina, could only just break below the zero line for the first three months, and the fourth month, April, was positve, and the seventh warmest April on record.

Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age - NASA Science

Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."

A spotless day looks like this:

 

[wirebender]

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....

Perhaps you would be more accurate if you said the science of dismantling pseudoscience has a glowing hot spot in climatology. There is precious little actual science within climatology.

 

[westwall]

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....

Perhaps you would be more accurate if you said the science of dismantling pseudoscience has a glowing hot spot in climatology. There is precious little actual science within climatology.

No, I think Sparky is correct. Climatologists are constantly attacking the hard sciences (you know the sciences that actually use empirical data) in an effort to discredit any who disagree with them. Climatology is actively attacking science and it's methodologies. Sparky is correct.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, and at the same time Uranas is cooling.
Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting


t is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:

Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.

You're telling us you've eliminated all other variables in Earth based climate expect for a 60PPM increase in CO2 but you can never show us how this happen....why is that?

Why yes! yes he is!

CO2 is MAAAAAAGICAL!!!!!

at least the CO2 man produces. that natural CO2... it's not magical! It's just... you know... gas.

 

[hendrickL]

this is really interesting if it's really true.

 

[Old Rocks]

the science of dismanteling science has a glowing hot spot in climatology.....

Perhaps you would be more accurate if you said the science of dismantling pseudoscience has a glowing hot spot in climatology. There is precious little actual science within climatology.

No, I think Sparky is correct. Climatologists are constantly attacking the hard sciences (you know the sciences that actually use empirical data) in an effort to discredit any who disagree with them. Climatology is actively attacking science and it's methodologies. Sparky is correct.

Getting deep into the bullshit and lies again, there, old boy. Links? No? Of course not, because this is just another lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps you would be more accurate if you said the science of dismantling pseudoscience has a glowing hot spot in climatology. There is precious little actual science within climatology.

No, I think Sparky is correct. Climatologists are constantly attacking the hard sciences (you know the sciences that actually use empirical data) in an effort to discredit any who disagree with them. Climatology is actively attacking science and it's methodologies. Sparky is correct.

Getting deep into the bullshit and lies again, there, old boy. Links? No? Of course not, because this is just another lie.

Was Phil Jones lying when he said there's been no Global Warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I think Sparky is correct. Climatologists are constantly attacking the hard sciences (you know the sciences that actually use empirical data) in an effort to discredit any who disagree with them. Climatology is actively attacking science and it's methodologies. Sparky is correct.

Getting deep into the bullshit and lies again, there, old boy. Links? No? Of course not, because this is just another lie.

Was Phil Jones lying when he said there's been no Global Warming?

No, Frank, you are lying because Jones did not say that.