October 'Noreaster!

[CrusaderFrank]

There are only two ways that the surface of the Earth gets heat. One is from the sun.

Joseph Fourier established that when you combine the albedo of the earth with the amount of sunlight it recieves, you should have a much colder earth. He reasoned that there had to be something in the atmosphere that trapped outgoing radiation.

The second is the absorption of outgoing heat by the atmosphere. The last fifty years has seen a slight decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance. So we are getting very slightly less heat from the sun.

But we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. The amount of CH4 by 150%. Increased nitrous oxides, and put chemicals in the atmosphere for which there are no natural analogs. Not only no natural analogs, but some are more than 10,000 times as effective as CO2.

In the last inter-glacial, the increase in CO2 reached 300 ppm. And the sea level was 3 to 6 meters higher than today. We are presently at 390 ppm CO2. During the past 2 million years, the CH4 seldom reached 800 ppt. Yet today we have pushed that level to over 1800 ppt.

So what you are stating is that these increases have no effect? That with the solar TSI in decline, but the globe warming, there has to be some other reason for the increase in heat? Your politics are overpowering your reasoning, Sis.

Global Warming?
Climate Change?
Unstable Climate?
What are you calling it today?

We're stating that you can't show how your "Theory" works in a lab so, as science, it's hold no more weight than astrology or phrenology, Enviromarxist Warmer

That all you got, quibbling over names?!?! I don't care if you call it the "Greenhouse Effect", "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect", if enough CO2 is in the atmosphere temps WILL rise. It's simple logic!!!

Quibbling? When you can't decide if Manmade Global Warming means things are getting warmer or colder ( ) that's not "quibbling"

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[edthecynic]

That was back when they were predicting a decent into an ice age.

Can you post anything without lying, Walleyes? Or do you get your science from Newsweek and Time?

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

 

[gslack]

We give a serious critique regarding the so-called "greenhouse effect" theory contentions and hours later we get a response from edthetrollingblundereunich citing an irrelevant and unreadable source that we cannot see without a subscription...

Trollinged...We can't see the source you cited moron...

 

[konradv]

I just love it when they use the claim "CO2 traps heat" or "CO2 traps "IR radiation"...

CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat... All this nonsense to make it easy for people to understand is what leads to confusion and keeps otherwise intelligent people (not konradv or oldsocks of course) from asking the obvious questions about infinite energy creation from a finite source..

Exactly.

It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that.

But there is no new heat.

But also, folks acknowledge that "greenhouse" is a misnomer in discussing GHGs in the environment.

Lots of areas for misunderstanding whenever accuracy isn't valued. I know that in other sciences, such blatant inaccuracies are dealt with immediately.

What BS. 'Trap', 'absorb', you're just quibbling. I do know quite a bit about chemistry and maybe I was being colloquial, but they mean the same thing. You're also quibbling about "greenhouse". It's just a convenient term. "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect" would suffice just as well. No one is saying that it works just like a greenhouse. That's just a red-herring.

So you admit that CO2 does absorb infra-red photons, right? So what happens when said photon is re-emitted back towards earth?

 

[gslack]

I just love it when they use the claim "CO2 traps heat" or "CO2 traps "IR radiation"...

CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat... All this nonsense to make it easy for people to understand is what leads to confusion and keeps otherwise intelligent people (not konradv or oldsocks of course) from asking the obvious questions about infinite energy creation from a finite source..

Exactly.

It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that.

But there is no new heat.

But also, folks acknowledge that "greenhouse" is a misnomer in discussing GHGs in the environment.

Lots of areas for misunderstanding whenever accuracy isn't valued. I know that in other sciences, such blatant inaccuracies are dealt with immediately.

What BS. 'Trap', 'absorb', you're just quibbling. I do know quite a bit about chemistry and maybe I was being colloquial, but they mean the same thing. You're also quibbling about "greenhouse". It's just a convenient term. "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect" would suffice just as well. No one is saying that it works just like a greenhouse. That's just a red-herring.

So you admit that CO2 does absorb infra-red photons, right? So what happens when said photon is re-emitted back towards earth?

Konrad can you read? Can you comprehend what you read?

READ BOY!

what I said:

"CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat."

What SI said:

"It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that."

If you do in fact know something about chemistry, than you would know first how to read for comprehension, and second what it is that happens when a photon reacts with a CO2 molecule..

The "heat" gained as per greenhouse theory from IR and CO2 interaction, is gotten through the vibrational reaction when a quanta of IR radiation interacts with the CO2 molecular bonds. The bonds vibrate from the energy reception converting that received energy to kinetic energy dispelling that energy out from the molecule, In the form of heat or IR. That energy goes out from the molecule from all possible sides. Not just down...

And WTH does "pot lid effect" or "blanket effect" imply here? Likening a lid, a blanket, or a glass roof to what actually happens in the atmosphere with any accuracy is lunacy. That was the point she made. Even Fourier didn't like using that comparison. It makes the effect unclear scientifically, allowing for misunderstandings and misconceptions which lead to inaccurate descriptions and confusion. That's just one of the reasons we have such a discrepancy in models versus real world data.

Now if you want to pretend you know some chemistry, than stop with the "re-emitted photon" inaccuracy, as if its just bouncing back and forth endlessly... jesus junior you go and claim you are versed in chemistry than show you aren't in the same post...

 

[Si modo]

Exactly.

It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that.

But there is no new heat.

But also, folks acknowledge that "greenhouse" is a misnomer in discussing GHGs in the environment.

Lots of areas for misunderstanding whenever accuracy isn't valued. I know that in other sciences, such blatant inaccuracies are dealt with immediately.

What BS. 'Trap', 'absorb', you're just quibbling. I do know quite a bit about chemistry and maybe I was being colloquial, but they mean the same thing. You're also quibbling about "greenhouse". It's just a convenient term. "Blanket Effect" or "Pot Lid Effect" would suffice just as well. No one is saying that it works just like a greenhouse. That's just a red-herring.

So you admit that CO2 does absorb infra-red photons, right? So what happens when said photon is re-emitted back towards earth?

Konrad can you read? Can you comprehend what you read?

READ BOY!

what I said:

"CO2 DOES NOT TRAP ANYTHING!!!!! It reacts to IR.. There is no heat sponge and it being a gas it will not expand and hold in IR..

CO2 reacts to IR by molecular vibration. IR hits it causing the molecules to vibrate. This vibration is what is claimed to cause new heat."

What SI said:

"It doesn't 'trap' IR, it absorbs it in quantums equivalent to the energy associated with the available modes of molecular vibration.

But, the poster is obviously not too informed in chemistry, so I just let that slide. If that is what he needs to believe, I can work with that.

There is no new heat at all. IR energy is converted to modes of molecular vibration, thus kinetic energy, and there is heat associated with that."

If you do in fact know something about chemistry, than you would know first how to read for comprehension, and second what it is that happens when a photon reacts with a CO2 molecule..

The "heat" gained as per greenhouse theory from IR and CO2 interaction, is gotten through the vibrational reaction when a quanta of IR radiation interacts with the CO2 molecular bonds. The bonds vibrate from the energy reception converting that received energy to kinetic energy dispelling that energy out from the molecule, In the form of heat or IR. That energy goes out from the molecule from all possible sides. Not just down...

And WTH does "pot lid effect" or "blanket effect" imply here? Likening a lid, a blanket, or a glass roof to what actually happens in the atmosphere with any accuracy is lunacy. That was the point she made. Even Fourier didn't like using that comparison. It makes the effect unclear scientifically, allowing for misunderstandings and misconceptions which lead to inaccurate descriptions and confusion. That's just one of the reasons we have such a discrepancy in models versus real world data.

Now if you want to pretend you know some chemistry, than stop with the "re-emitted photon" inaccuracy, as if its just bouncing back and forth endlessly... jesus junior you go and claim you are versed in chemistry than show you aren't in the same post...

Oh, and we can't forget the minor detail that the absorption of CO2 is just a small portion of the IR and near-IR spectrums.

Right. There is NO re-emitted photon. The absorbed photon is converted to molecular vibrations. This is not fluorescence.

 

[edthecynic]

Can you post anything without lying, Walleyes? Or do you get your science from Newsweek and Time?

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

We give a serious critique regarding the so-called "greenhouse effect" theory contentions and hours later we get a response from edthetrollingblundereunich citing an irrelevant and unreadable source that we cannot see without a subscription...

Trollinged...We can't see the source you cited moron...

Notice how after I expose the dishonest quote mining of the deniers which they cannot rebutt, they stoop to personal attacks.
Thank you!

 

[gslack]

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

We give a serious critique regarding the so-called "greenhouse effect" theory contentions and hours later we get a response from edthetrollingblundereunich citing an irrelevant and unreadable source that we cannot see without a subscription...

Trollinged...We can't see the source you cited moron...

Notice how after I expose the dishonest quote mining of the deniers which they cannot rebutt, they stoop to personal attacks.
Thank you!

Really????

Then please tell me how we can see what you cited without a subscription? You own link says so moron....

Now your words is not enough and does not constitute proof asshole.. You cite a source we want to see that source not what you claim the source says.. get it yet?

And I am not done with your silly astroturfing ass by a long shot tard....

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

We give a serious critique regarding the so-called "greenhouse effect" theory contentions and hours later we get a response from edthetrollingblundereunich citing an irrelevant and unreadable source that we cannot see without a subscription...

Trollinged...We can't see the source you cited moron...

Notice how after I expose the dishonest quote mining of the deniers which they cannot rebutt, they stoop to personal attacks.
Thank you!

Really????

Then please tell me how we can see what you cited without a subscription? You own link says so moron....

Now your words is not enough and does not constitute proof asshole.. You cite a source we want to see that source not what you claim the source says.. get it yet?

And I am not done with your silly astroturfing ass by a long shot tard....

Funny how you accepted without question the out of context quote from your fellow denier which had no link to anything. HYPOCRITE

Originally Posted by wirebender

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

 

[gslack]

Notice how after I expose the dishonest quote mining of the deniers which they cannot rebutt, they stoop to personal attacks.
Thank you!

Really????

Then please tell me how we can see what you cited without a subscription? You own link says so moron....

Now your words is not enough and does not constitute proof asshole.. You cite a source we want to see that source not what you claim the source says.. get it yet?

And I am not done with your silly astroturfing ass by a long shot tard....

Funny how you accepted without question the out of context quote from your fellow denier which had no link to anything. HYPOCRITE

Originally Posted by wirebender

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Trolling ed, he cited the magazine by date and name.. he didn't have a link to it probably because he didn't have one for it at the time maybe because he didn't have a SUBSCRIPTION . As I recall the magazine was in fact linked to a little bit later. And matter of fact as i recall it was not contended what the magazine article said by either side. What ensuing argument was about was if it was PR or not...

Not the same thing at all edthebluneringtroll.... YOU cited a website as a source, that source required a subscription to view it. A subscription you must not have otherwise you would have linked to it directly instead of hotlinking which is why they blocked your silly ass... People don't like their bandwidth leeched...

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

 

[chikenwing]

Big Snowstorm Headed for the Northeast This Weekend

Read it and weep my fellow New Englanders ..... cuz it's coming.

Can anyone remember a Halloween when kids went trick-or-treating when there was snow on the ground? I can't.

Yep lots of times over the years,sometimes its warm sometimes not,while not common these storms do happen at times.

 

[gslack]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

Socks you can be as dishonest as you want to be, and i will call you on it like I always do. However if you ever are honest on here and provide the magazine name and date and we can verify it (like we did westwall's )I won't cry about your posting it, only its merit...

Now isn't there some windmills you have to sell?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

OR, in you laboratory experiments on CO2, is it dangerous to add 100PPM all at once? I mean we've added that much over 150 years and we're getting "unstable climate"

When you do your experiments how much CO2 do you add?

 

[edthecynic]

Really????

Then please tell me how we can see what you cited without a subscription? You own link says so moron....

Now your words is not enough and does not constitute proof asshole.. You cite a source we want to see that source not what you claim the source says.. get it yet?

And I am not done with your silly astroturfing ass by a long shot tard....

Funny how you accepted without question the out of context quote from your fellow denier which had no link to anything. HYPOCRITE

Originally Posted by wirebender

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Trolling ed, he cited the magazine by date and name.. he didn't have a link to it probably because he didn't have one for it at the time maybe because he didn't have a SUBSCRIPTION . As I recall the magazine was in fact linked to a little bit later. And matter of fact as i recall it was not contended what the magazine article said by either side. What ensuing argument was about was if it was PR or not...

Not the same thing at all edthebluneringtroll.... YOU cited a website as a source, that source required a subscription to view it. A subscription you must not have otherwise you would have linked to it directly instead of hotlinking which is why they blocked your silly ass... People don't like their bandwidth leeched...

What you claim to "recall" is just another lie!!!

The "website" I linked to is the website to get the article from "Science." You know, the mag by date and name you blindly accepted without a link. So I am the ONLY person to provide a link for getting the actual article from "Science." And the dishonestly edited quote of the "Science" article did not come from "Science," it came from a George Will "The Shill" article in the Washington Post. An article that was totally debunked when it was published, but dishonest deniers continue to cite to this day, so your bullshit that the dishonestly edited quote was not contested by either side is just another lie!

I know CON$ like to play dumb because they have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not lying, but no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
J. D. Hays, John Imbrie and N. J. Shackleton
Science
New Series, Vol. 194, No. 4270 (Dec. 10, 1976), pp. 1121-1132
(article consists of 12 pages)

Just to show what a nice guy I am, I got a copy of the article just for you, but I bet you won't bother to read it so you can continue to pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

Socks you can be as dishonest as you want to be, and i will call you on it like I always do. However if you ever are honest on here and provide the magazine name and date and we can verify it (like we did westwall's )I won't cry about your posting it, only its merit...

Now isn't there some windmills you have to sell?

 

[gslack]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

Socks you can be as dishonest as you want to be, and i will call you on it like I always do. However if you ever are honest on here and provide the magazine name and date and we can verify it (like we did westwall's )I won't cry about your posting it, only its merit...

Now isn't there some windmills you have to sell?

Cry pretty now princess... you sensitive little fella, gonna squirt some tears for us now? Its okay, careful not get any on your slip..

 

[gslack]

Funny how you accepted without question the out of context quote from your fellow denier which had no link to anything. HYPOCRITE

Trolling ed, he cited the magazine by date and name.. he didn't have a link to it probably because he didn't have one for it at the time maybe because he didn't have a SUBSCRIPTION . As I recall the magazine was in fact linked to a little bit later. And matter of fact as i recall it was not contended what the magazine article said by either side. What ensuing argument was about was if it was PR or not...

Not the same thing at all edthebluneringtroll.... YOU cited a website as a source, that source required a subscription to view it. A subscription you must not have otherwise you would have linked to it directly instead of hotlinking which is why they blocked your silly ass... People don't like their bandwidth leeched...

What you claim to "recall" is just another lie!!!

The "website" I linked to is the website to get the article from "Science." You know, the mag by date and name you blindly accepted without a link. So I am the ONLY person to provide a link for getting the actual article from "Science." And the dishonestly edited quote of the "Science" article did not come from "Science," it came from a George Will "The Shill" article in the Washington Post. An article that was totally debunked when it was published, but dishonest deniers continue to cite to this day, so your bullshit that the dishonestly edited quote was not contested by either side is just another lie!

I know CON$ like to play dumb because they have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not lying, but no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
J. D. Hays, John Imbrie and N. J. Shackleton
Science
New Series, Vol. 194, No. 4270 (Dec. 10, 1976), pp. 1121-1132
(article consists of 12 pages)

Just to show what a nice guy I am, I got a copy of the article just for you, but I bet you won't bother to read it so you can continue to pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf

I am referring to the part I made bold in your post above.... WHAT LINK???

Seriously you have no link in that.. Now if you are referring to the post you claimed I let him slide with, What part of "he cited the magazine name and date" do you not understand?

Did you cite a specific science journal date and time? No all you did was provide a link. When we are given a link and see a excerpt we expect to see more on that excerpt or the full article it refers to. Not a page telling us we need a subscription.

He didn't have the link for it at the time I figure he didn't know where to get it online and seeing as it came from 1976 I could hardly blame him for that..

You linked to a subscription page and not to your claimed article. A new and relatively modern paper as well..

Also, I remember when i was in grade school being told scientists were believing we had an ice age coming and attributed it to among many things CO2... That I remembered so I saw little reason to doubt his cited article..

YOU can claim its was something else ALL YOU WANT TO SHITHEAD! it will not matter, he cited his source and if George Will referred to the same article or not I do not care. He cited his source, and his source was accurate for the time... YOU SIR ARE A LYING LITTLE POS!!!!!

Now onto your little cherry picked source....

You cherry picked the paper why?

the title: "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages"

Whats that tell you moron? Why it tells me the paper is making a case for the earths orbit in climate change... You cherry picked a simple line meant to protect themselves from backlash from the psychos like you..

Lets see if we get this, the paper claims the orbit of the earth is the cause of climate changes all through the past and into the future and it still controls the climate now. Yet for some odd reason man made CO2 is now the driving force?? Yeah... Right... More science punctuated with a kiss ass/save ass line to keep from offending the ecomentalist psychos and keep funding coming..

The entire paper tells us how the earths orbit dictates climate and makes one little comment to prevent eco- backlash and you cherry pick that to try and change it all???

Who is the dishonest one here??

 

[edthecynic]

Trolling ed, he cited the magazine by date and name.. he didn't have a link to it probably because he didn't have one for it at the time maybe because he didn't have a SUBSCRIPTION . As I recall the magazine was in fact linked to a little bit later. And matter of fact as i recall it was not contended what the magazine article said by either side. What ensuing argument was about was if it was PR or not...

Not the same thing at all edthebluneringtroll.... YOU cited a website as a source, that source required a subscription to view it. A subscription you must not have otherwise you would have linked to it directly instead of hotlinking which is why they blocked your silly ass... People don't like their bandwidth leeched...

What you claim to "recall" is just another lie!!!

The "website" I linked to is the website to get the article from "Science." You know, the mag by date and name you blindly accepted without a link. So I am the ONLY person to provide a link for getting the actual article from "Science." And the dishonestly edited quote of the "Science" article did not come from "Science," it came from a George Will "The Shill" article in the Washington Post. An article that was totally debunked when it was published, but dishonest deniers continue to cite to this day, so your bullshit that the dishonestly edited quote was not contested by either side is just another lie!

I know CON$ like to play dumb because they have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not lying, but no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
J. D. Hays, John Imbrie and N. J. Shackleton
Science
New Series, Vol. 194, No. 4270 (Dec. 10, 1976), pp. 1121-1132
(article consists of 12 pages)

Just to show what a nice guy I am, I got a copy of the article just for you, but I bet you won't bother to read it so you can continue to pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf

I am referring to the part I made bold in your post above.... WHAT LINK???

Seriously you have no link in that.. Now if you are referring to the post you claimed I let him slide with, What part of "he cited the magazine name and date" do you not understand?

Did you cite a specific science journal date and time? No all you did was provide a link. When we are given a link and see a excerpt we expect to see more on that excerpt or the full article it refers to. Not a page telling us we need a subscription.

He didn't have the link for it at the time I figure he didn't know where to get it online and seeing as it came from 1976 I could hardly blame him for that..

You linked to a subscription page and not to your claimed article. A new and relatively modern paper as well..

Also, I remember when i was in grade school being told scientists were believing we had an ice age coming and attributed it to among many things CO2... That I remembered so I saw little reason to doubt his cited article..

YOU can claim its was something else ALL YOU WANT TO SHITHEAD! it will not matter, he cited his source and if George Will referred to the same article or not I do not care. He cited his source, and his source was accurate for the time... YOU SIR ARE A LYING LITTLE POS!!!!!

Now onto your little cherry picked source....

You cherry picked the paper why?

the title: "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages"

Whats that tell you moron? Why it tells me the paper is making a case for the earths orbit in climate change... You cherry picked a simple line meant to protect themselves from backlash from the psychos like you..

Lets see if we get this, the paper claims the orbit of the earth is the cause of climate changes all through the past and into the future and it still controls the climate now. Yet for some odd reason man made CO2 is now the driving force?? Yeah... Right... More science punctuated with a kiss ass/save ass line to keep from offending the ecomentalist psychos and keep funding coming..

The entire paper tells us how the earths orbit dictates climate and makes one little comment to prevent eco- backlash and you cherry pick that to try and change it all???

Who is the dishonest one here??

Look, playing dumb is not going to make you any less of a liar, so stop the act.

I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from. The liar you defend didn't have a link to the 1976 "Science" article because he didn't get it from "Science," not because it was a 1976 article as you rationalize.

I linked to the source of the original 1976 "Science" article, not "a new and relatively modern paper" that you fabricated!

And you "remember" bullshit! I have already shown that your recollections are just more lies, and he didn't cite his source, which was George Will "The Shill" who cited the "Science" article "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that he dishonestly edited.

Here is "The Shill's" column where he lies his denier's ASS (Anti-Science Syndrome) off.

George F. Will - Dark Green Doomsayers
In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively).

And here is the full quote in context that "The Shill" deliberately misrepresented from the already linked to Dec 10, 1976 "Science" article.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf
"Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends -- and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

So that "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" is supposed to happen "over the next 20,000 years", not imminently, and more importantly: it's a prediction that does not take into account anthropogenic changes in climate, like those "due to the burning of fossil fuels."


The George Will Scandal