So the Oceans are rising are they?

[RollingThunder]

And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....ah, the old Inhofe/Morano denier cult circus, sponsored by the oil corps who put Inofre in office, that you denier cult retards fall for every time.

REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers
(short excerpt)

Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)’s environmental communications director, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine — of fifty-two people. Conservative columnist Fred Barnes recently refused to tell TPM Muckraker who’s informed him “the case for global warming” is falling apart, but all signs point to Marc Morano. Morano’s “entire job,” Gristmill’s David Roberts explains, “is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts” to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Morano’s email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.

 

[westwall]

And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....ah, the old Inhofe/Morano denier cult circus, sponsored by the oil corps who put Inofre in office, that you denier cult retards fall for every time.

REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers
(short excerpt)

Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)’s environmental communications director, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine — of fifty-two people. Conservative columnist Fred Barnes recently refused to tell TPM Muckraker who’s informed him “the case for global warming” is falling apart, but all signs point to Marc Morano. Morano’s “entire job,” Gristmill’s David Roberts explains, “is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts” to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Morano’s email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.

Sure blunder sure. I guess you missed the fact that Kyoto was heavily promoted by ENRON....you remember them don't you? Yeah, they were an energy company specialising in natural gas...kinda like you

Here are some peer reviewed studies just for you...they all come from alarmist scientists and they have have a common thread...I'll see if you can fgure out what that common thread is. Please note I used oltrakrfrauds most favored sources for this little comparison.

Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate

Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region

Cooling of daytime temperatures in coastal California air basins during 1969-200

 

[RollingThunder]

Sure blunder sure. I guess you missed the fact that Kyoto was heavily promoted by ENRON....you remember them don't you? Yeah, they were an energy company specialising in natural gas...kinda like you

Yeah....so?....so what? In your little pea brain, what fantasies do you have about what that means? And what do you imagine it has to do with all of the quite provable support for climate change denial front groups and propaganda outlets that has come from various fossil fuel interests?

Here's a nice summary article with excellent links to all of the sources. I'm excerpting a couple of key sections.

Business action on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(short excerpt)

ExxonMobil has been a leading figure in the business world's position on climate change, providing substantial funding to a range of global-warming-skeptical organizations. Mother Jones counted some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that "either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." Between 2000 and 2003[alone] these organizations received more than $8m in funding.[3]

It has also had a key influence in the Bush administration's energy policy, including on the Kyoto Protocol,[8] supported by both $55m spent on lobbying since 1999,[3] and direct contacts between the company and leading politicians. It was a leading member of the Global Climate Coalition. It encouraged (and may have been instrumental in) the replacement in 2002 of the head of the IPCC, Robert Watson.

From 2005 to 2008, Koch Industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated a total of nearly $48 million to climate opposition groups.[15] According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of what Greenpeace calls "climate denial".[16][17] Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.[18][19]

Here are some peer reviewed studies just for you...they all come from alarmist scientists and they have have a common thread...I'll see if you can fgure out what that common thread is. Please note I used oltrakrfrauds most favored sources for this little comparison.

Ah, gee, I'm sorry, Walleyed, but I have a firm rule against playing silly guessing games with retards. If you think(?) you have a point, make it.

 

[wirebender]

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level. The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level. The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.

Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica? What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate? What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[wirebender]

Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that on this board, one can't link to any outside site till one has made a minimum number of posts. Ever read the rules of your own forum?

What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica?

More important than that question is the question of whether or not the claimed ice loss is in any way extraordinary when compared to the past. If it is not, then your hysterical handwringing is wasted. Do you have any data that proves that the claimed present ice loss is in any way unique to the present?

What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate?

Again, more important than your question is whether or not your claim of glaciear loss is in any way unique to the present. The fact that remains of settlements and mining operations are being found in the wake of receeding glaciers tends to put your claims of melting glaciers firmly in the land of business as usual.

What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

Perhaps you are unaware climate science's present inability to explain the declining heat content of the oceans. Far from warming at an accelerate rate, the heat content of the oceans is falling.

You seem to place great stock in links to this or that. How about you provide a link to a bit of data that provides unequivocal proof of man's responsibility for climate change on a global level. If such proof exists, surely you have the link at the tips of your twitching fingers. If it doesn't exist, what exactly is the reason you work so hard trying to defend the pack of charlatans that presently represent the fledgeling branch of science known as climate science?

 

[konradv]

Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that on this board, one can't link to any outside site till one has made a minimum number of posts. Ever read the rules of your own forum?

What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica?

More important than that question is the question of whether or not the claimed ice loss is in any way extraordinary when compared to the past. If it is not, then your hysterical handwringing is wasted. Do you have any data that proves that the claimed present ice loss is in any way unique to the present?

What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate?

Again, more important than your question is whether or not your claim of glaciear loss is in any way unique to the present. The fact that remains of settlements and mining operations are being found in the wake of receeding glaciers tends to put your claims of melting glaciers firmly in the land of business as usual.

What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

Perhaps you are unaware climate science's present inability to explain the declining heat content of the oceans. Far from warming at an accelerate rate, the heat content of the oceans is falling.

You seem to place great stock in links to this or that. How about you provide a link to a bit of data that provides unequivocal proof of man's responsibility for climate change on a global level. If such proof exists, surely you have the link at the tips of your twitching fingers. If it doesn't exist, what exactly is the reason you work so hard trying to defend the pack of charlatans that presently represent the fledgeling branch of science known as climate science?

Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. We know the energy trapping properties of CO2. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that's not proof, then where's the CO2 coming from and if it keeps rising wouldn't more energy be trapped as well. I don't like discussing temps, ocean levels and ice thickness, because it just goes around and around in circles. I prefer the logic of A does B, A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B. QED

 

[wirebender]

Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Hardly. Paleohistory reveals that atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 5000ppm and more than 3000ppm during ice ages. That fact alone pretty much devestates the idea that CO2 drives global warming.

We know the energy trapping properties of CO2.

Actually, we know no such thing. There is no mechanism by which a gas (other than water vapor) can trap heat. When energy strikes a CO2 molecule an absorption spectrum indicates the fact that energy has been absorbed by said CO2 molecule almost instantaneously, an emission spectrum that is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectrum indicates that the energy absorbed has been emitted. There is no "trapping" of energy by a CO2 molecule.

Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Better get your facts straight. A single volcano emits more CO2, SO2, etc., than mankind can produce in a decade or longer depending on the force of the eruption.

I prefer the logic of A does B, A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B. QED

If you like logic, consider the fact that all of the observable historical evidence we have (ice cores, stalagtites, stalagmites, lake bed cores, etc.) indicate that CO2 increases do not preceed rising temperatures but follow them instead. Logic dictates that rising CO2 levels are a result of temperature rises rather than a cause. Consider the simple fact that warm oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans. How much CO2 do you suppose the oceans have outgassed since the onset of the end of the present ice age some 14,000 years ago?

 

[RollingThunder]

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.

And up pops another denier cultist with his head up the Exxon/Koch Industries blungehole. LOL.

I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades. Then I remember that because, by definition, half of the population is of below 'average' intelligence, there will always be more pig-ignorant, semi-retarded, rightwingnut conspiracy theorists who actually are idiotic enough to believe that all of those scientists, governmental leaders, etc., etc., are all in on a worldwide conspiracy to take away your gas guzzlers and make you live in a shack with only candlelight and no plumbing. LOL.

Scientific opinion on climate change - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(small excerpt - you should really read the whole thing and check out the references and citations)

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[9] that:

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

"Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested."


Statements by concurring organizations
Academies of Science

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* and of Zimbabwe.

Joint science academies' statements
(continued)

The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

That is total denier cult drivel that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The data supports the conclusions of the climate scientists, the computer models have proven to be pretty accurate and are being constantly refined and made even better. It is you denier cult trolls and retards who are in the intellectual class of 'flat earthers' and 'birthers', 'creationists' and the kind of sub-cretins who hallucinate that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman aren't braindead, power-tripping psychotics.

Climate change: How do we know?

NASA

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
The effects of climate change will likely include more frequent droughts in some areas and heavier precipitation in others.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification
The carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent. 12

(This material is not copyrighted and is freely available to reprint)

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.

How about some actual evidence instead of more hot air and recycled fossil fuel industry propaganda, lies and myths.

 

[westwall]

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.

And up pops another denier cultist with his head up the Exxon/Koch Industries blungehole. LOL.

I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades. Then I remember that because, by definition, half of the population is of below 'average' intelligence, there will always be more pig-ignorant, semi-retarded, rightwingnut conspiracy theorists who actually are idiotic enough to believe that all of those scientists, governmental leaders, etc., etc., are all in on a worldwide conspiracy to take away your gas guzzlers and make you live in a shack with only candlelight and no plumbing. LOL.

Scientific opinion on climate change - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(small excerpt - you should really read the whole thing and check out the references and citations)

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[9] that:

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

"Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested."


Statements by concurring organizations
Academies of Science

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* and of Zimbabwe.

Joint science academies' statements
(continued)

The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

That is total denier cult drivel that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The data supports the conclusions of the climate scientists, the computer models have proven to be pretty accurate and are being constantly refined and made even better. It is you denier cult trolls and retards who are in the intellectual class of 'flat earthers' and 'birthers', 'creationists' and the kind of sub-cretins who hallucinate that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman aren't braindead, power-tripping psychotics.

Climate change: How do we know?

NASA

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
The effects of climate change will likely include more frequent droughts in some areas and heavier precipitation in others.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification
The carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent. 12

(This material is not copyrighted and is freely available to reprint)

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.

How about some actual evidence instead of more hot air and recycled fossil fuel industry propaganda, lies and myths.

Yada yada yada. Worldwide temps are going down in direct opposition to what Hansen said would occur. That is going to continue for the next 20 years. The little test I gave you is quite fun you should try it!

Oh, and typing in all bold doesn't help your argument...it just makes you look like a kook.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yada yada yada. Worldwide temps are going down in direct opposition to what Hansen said would occur. That is going to continue for the next 20 years.

LOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyed, to get things completely ass backwards. Does that come from having your head jammed so far up your ass? Or maybe you just secretly live in Bizarro World and smuggle your idiotic posts into our world somehow. In any case, you're still a poor delusional fool who manages to be wrong about everything.

Worldwide temperatures are still going up and doing that faster too. This is going to continue for much, much longer than 20 years. Here's some of the latest research.

Trend towards rising global temperatures
The Sydney Morning Herald
March 22, 2011
(excerpt)

Global temperatures are on the increase, with a new study showing a rise of about half a degree Celsius over the past 160 years. An Australian National University (ANU) report on global temperature(pdf) found a trend towards a rise in worldwide temperatures since 1850, with a steeper increase since the mid 1970s. [The] original independent study commissioned by the government...was prepared...in 2008...and has since been updated with the latest data. "There is sufficient evidence in the long run of temperature records to support the existence of a warming trend," Professor Breusch said today. "From the 1850s to today it's somewhere over half a degree a century. The additional three years for which temperature data are now available were among the warmest on record." Professor Breusch said since about the mid 1970s there had been an increase in the warming trend. "There is no evidence of a weakening or reversing trend in more recent years, as suggested by some commentators," he said.

Copyright © 2011 Fairfax Media

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The little test I gave you is quite fun you should try it!

Uh-uh, no, no, walleyed, you're forgetting my firm rule about never playing guessing games with retards. If you can muster the words to make an intelligible point, do so (very doubtful), and if not, stfu, you flaming halfwit.

Oh, and typing in all bold doesn't help your argument...it just makes you look like a kook.

I didn't "type in all bold", numbnuts. I highlighted some of the quoted text so retards like you would have a better chance of reading the most important parts. Everything you ever post, no matter how you "type" it, makes you look like a complete moron.

 

[IanC]

I didnt read Westwall's links in his 'little test' but I assume from the titles that he is referring to the common practise of CAGW alarmists to produce studies claiming catastrophy in both directions. Climate change will cause drought/flood, warm/cold, up/down, black/white. Heads we win, tails you lose. thanks for playing sucka.

Science is built from making falsifiable statements. Climate science is doing an end run by claiming everything so it can not be 'proved' wrong.

Old Rocks and his cadre are quite happy to point out any evidence, no matter how irrelevent, that could possibly support his side. but also easily ignore anything contrary. and OR is adamant that he will not discuss the integrity of his heroes such as Mann, Jones and Hansen, or their less than stellar methodologies.

 

[wirebender]

I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades.

OK. I read your tripe. All of it. And rather than tear down the lies and put the few truths you had into a proper context which I don't have time to do this morning, let me ask you a simple question. What, exactly would falsify AGW in your mind?

By the way, I don't, and have never argued that the climate is not changing. The fact is that the climate, in the entire history of the world, has never been static. It is always changing. What I argue is that the present climate is in no way unusual, or unprecedented and that you and yours can not produce a single piece of hard, observed evidence that proves, unequivocally, that man is responsible for the present changing climate.

If you can provide such evidence, by all means step on up to the plate and post it.

 

[code1211]

Well no, it appears they are not. Surprise surprise. And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists. Poor oltrakarfraud.

<snip>

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
<snip>


]

And this is the nugget that inspires the digging in the mine. Change "investigations" to read "the funding" and we have the entire basis of the Climate Change movement.

One part of the debate that is always peer reviewed is the amount of funding recieved and from whom.

 

[code1211]

Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't. I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?

Environmental regulations. Whatever happened to knowing about a topic before posting? Limits on SO2 reduced the "acid rain" problem, just like banning CFCs led to the shrinking of the ozone hole. Funny how many deniers talk about "junk science". That's what they said about the two examples I gave. They just can't help being on the wrong side of science, history AND logic again, now that we're talking CO2 and GHGs.

I am not a scientist. I'm sure that a scientist can tell the difference between dog poop and cow poop. If it's on my shoe, I'm not concerned so much with the origin as the removal.

The content of CO2 in the air may be tangently related Climate Change. The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned. Go figure. The hole disappears and reappears every year. Every year. The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

The reduction of sulfur belched into the air to reduce the sulfuric acid in the rain was good, straight line thinking:

1. The rain contains sulfuric acid. 2. Where might the sulfur come from? 3. Allot of sulfur in the air comes from burning coal. 4. Let's remove the sulfur from the coal or trap it before it gets to the rain to form the acid.

Done and done. Everytime any loosely jointed causal chain is proposed now, the acid rain success is brought forward. Sadly, the connections are generally so loose that they hardly exist. Acid rain was as obvious as food coloring.

Ozone hole? Not so much.

CFC's were banned in the USA in 1978 and the rest of the world following that.

The Ozone Hole-Ozone Hole History

<snip>


3 October2006 World Meteorological Organization This year’s hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was the most serious on record exceeding that of 2000. Not only was it the largest in surface area (matching 2000) but also suffered the most mass deficit, meaning that there was less ozone over the Antarctic than ever previously measured.

<snip>

 

[Old Rocks]

I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades.

OK. I read your tripe. All of it. And rather than tear down the lies and put the few truths you had into a proper context which I don't have time to do this morning, let me ask you a simple question. What, exactly would falsify AGW in your mind?

By the way, I don't, and have never argued that the climate is not changing. The fact is that the climate, in the entire history of the world, has never been static. It is always changing. What I argue is that the present climate is in no way unusual, or unprecedented and that you and yours can not produce a single piece of hard, observed evidence that proves, unequivocally, that man is responsible for the present changing climate.

If you can provide such evidence, by all means step on up to the plate and post it.

That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.

 

[code1211]

Environmental regulations. Whatever happened to knowing about a topic before posting? Limits on SO2 reduced the "acid rain" problem, just like banning CFCs led to the shrinking of the ozone hole. Funny how many deniers talk about "junk science". That's what they said about the two examples I gave. They just can't help being on the wrong side of science, history AND logic again, now that we're talking CO2 and GHGs.

What about the OP there konrad?

Like temperature you can argue back and forth about sea levels, too. The bottom line is, if GHGs keep going up, how can we expect anything but warming? You can argue all you want about absolute figures, but if GHGs keep going up, you've never posted anything that proves that temps and sea levels won't eventually go up, too. I'm not tied to any timeline myself, just the LOGIC of, if there's an increase in an energy-trapping substance, lo and behold!, more energy will be trapped. Since humans put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, to what would you ascribe the cause for the increase in atmospheric GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?

Two quick points:

1. Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding interglacial.

2. The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution. If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.

 

[code1211]

FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)

Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?

I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.

That's also about the increase over the last 2000 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

What about the OP there konrad?

Like temperature you can argue back and forth about sea levels, too. The bottom line is, if GHGs keep going up, how can we expect anything but warming? You can argue all you want about absolute figures, but if GHGs keep going up, you've never posted anything that proves that temps and sea levels won't eventually go up, too. I'm not tied to any timeline myself, just the LOGIC of, if there's an increase in an energy-trapping substance, lo and behold!, more energy will be trapped. Since humans put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, to what would you ascribe the cause for the increase in atmospheric GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?

Two quick points:

1. Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding interglacial.

2. The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution. If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.

1. Well, yes. It's called the Milankovic Cycles.

2. It is not my arguement. It is that of all the physicists worldwide. Because you would deny that changes the physics not one whit. The likes of Ayn Rand simply confuse their view of reality with reality. Which has never changed reality in the least. Same goes for you.

 

[code1211]

Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?

I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.

Are you aware that the 'Ice Age' was only 8 degrees (c) cooler than current temperatures? Took about 20,000 years to rise to current levels.

.7 degrees in 100 years is astoundingly fast from a historic perspective, especially since there is every scientific reason to believe it will continue and increase along with increasing CO2 levels.

Plucking this nugget entirely out of any context might be a cause for panic. Putting it back into context raises an entirely different question.

The increase in temperature has been .7 degrees in the last 100 years. It has also been .7 degrees in the last 2000 years. Obviously, given these two indentical increases to the same identical current temperature, there was also a very dramatic DECREASE in temperature during that period.

The real question might be to find out what caused the decrease.

Once the cause of the decrease was removed, the recent increase we are experiencing is exposed not as an increase, but rather as a return to the prevailing conditins that were interupted briefly by that other, cooling, cause.

Taken in context, this does not give cause to believe that the increase will continue and, in truth, those, like Dr. James Hansen, who have tried to do so have been shown to be wrong.