Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from jem:

I note... that I put up new very interesting information... and fc did not try to understand it at all.

I suspect his "degree" is from al gore online university.
More...

You put up irrelevant obfuscation and diversion in an attempt to appear knowledgeable, when in fact all you are doing is providing a good lesson for agnotology.

How well are the Koch bros paying you?

Al Gore was and is essentially right. I know deluded, crazed right wing fanatics like you won't allow yourselves to believe it, but it's true.
 
Quote from Wallet:

Maybe you should learn who's pulling your strings.
More...

Yeah OK. There are enough paranoid ignorant deluded righties out there already. We don't need another.

Look out! The UN ! They're right behind you !

Guess what. It's a small world, that all countries share. The time when we could or should act as an island was gone long long ago.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Collecting air samples is supposed to make you more qualified to talk about AGW ? Sorry I don't buy that.

As far as sunspots. I was wrong to say they mean nothing. I was referring to the eleven year cycle which in terms of GW mean nothing, but sunspot activity over longer time periods is a good proxy for TSI and of course solar irradiation has an effect on the climate.

However, since the 70's solar activity is dropping even as temps continue to rise so solar is being overcome by the greenhouse effect. So even if solar were to continue it's decrease, which we cannot predict, the greenhouse effect would overwhelm the small solar drop. And the problem of acidified oceans would still remain even if the sum were turned off..

As far as the right wing meme of cooling predicted in the 70's, we have gone over this many times. Yes, the popular press made a big deal of it, however, the vast majority of scientists, not writers, were predicting warming. Your continuing to ignore this fact is evidence of a closed mind.
Your saying that you were "forced to watch films about global cooling" is highly suspect and probably just a plain lie and is further evidence that you are a partisan drone more than yo are a rational scientific person. Regardless of what was said back then, the fact that you continue to harp on this although it is irrelevant to the current science is disappointing.

I'm tired of right wing guys like you who should know better, appear on the surface to be reasonable, but instead toe the party line.

"clinging to theories that are now in question based on recent and far more accurate evidence produced by modern and improving techniques."

I have no idea what you are talking about here. As time goes on, the science behind AGW just gets stronger. And please don't bring up the 17 year "pause" or I will have to totally write you off as a reasonable person.
More...

You already wrote me off as a reasonable person. At least a couple of times; pretty much when I don't agree with you 100%. Your insults proved that.

Collecting meteorological data, including temps through a parcel of air (we didn't collect samples, we collected data) made me an expert in one area...knowing how flawed data used in the models could be up until about 20 years ago or so.

Don't call me a right winger, because I'm not. I've agreed with you many times regarding AGW, but simply think there are many forces greater in nature, including phases involving the sun as well as Earth's orbital cycles, and any combination of the two, and firmly believe that many of those factors were left out of the models...intentionally or not. I saw an article the other day about GRBs where the scientists are now saying they may need to re-think some physics they thought were solid. Though unrelated, why couldn't the same be true with AGW science? The variables are nearly infinite.

Perhaps the films I am recalling were about pollution (seems when I was 7 or 8 I watched one where we would all be in space suits by 2000) or maybe they were TV news items. Been a long time, but I do remember the media hype, something we have a great deal of now. What a surprise.

Regarding sunspot diminishing while warming continues: You've been at war with jem over the ocean temps for weeks now. Perhaps the oceans are simply creating a lagging effect. After all, they do play a role in the temps of the atmosphere.

I wasn't even thinking about the 17 year pause, but since you brought it up, and I've concluded that you view me as a right wing toe-the-line bought and paid for Koch shill, allow me to address it. I left the Navy in 86. It wasn't too much longer after that when full atmospheric temp readings with satellite came on line...and began to be perfected around maybe 20 years or so ago. If there is actually a pause in warming, perhaps one with an open mind might conclude that having such a drastic increase in temp reading accuracy running about the same time period as a "pause in heating" is not merely coincidental.

Our difference is not over the existance of AGW. I'll some up our difference for you in two sentences. You believe AGW will triumph over nature. I don't. It's that simple. There is no need for you to insult me over that difference, but if you insist, I'm more than happy to go that road with you. It will be your call.

Later
 
so you put up a chart of temps and co2 ... and pretend it stands of co2 leading... when it does no such thing.

I then find a chart which drills down into the data in recent years and it shows temps lead co2 by 9 months.

Yet, you are so dumb or such a troll that you call that obfuscation.

I guess real data and science is obfuscation to an ignorant troll.




Quote from jem:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf


FlaticecoreCO2.jpg


Fc don't you get tired of just lying your ass off and being wrong every time you argue with me.

There is a reason for it. I have science to back up my statements or I tell you its my opinion. When you make factual statements you should try and google it to make sure.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf

It appears from this graph that CO2 concentrations follows temperature with a lag of
approximately 6-9 months. The interesting part is off course that the CO2 trends so
markedly responds to temperature changes. I wanted to get a clearer picture of this
relationship, and thus took approximately 20 datasets from this graph:
More...
 
Quote from jem:

so you put a chart of temps and co2 ... and pretend it stands of co2 leading... when it does no such thing.

I then find data which drills down further and shows that temps lead co2 by 9 months...

and you call that obfuscation.

I guess real data and science is obfuscation to an ignorant troll.
More...

I really can't believe that you are this dumb. Below is the atmospheric levels of CO2. To say that there is a discernable nine month resolution correlation between this and world temps is the height of ignorance and/or deception.

But you are not ignorant. You are just a fucking scumbag liar.

2013-04-03-MaunaLoa.PNG
 
Here we can see that rising CO2 levels reverses a cooling trend into a warming trend, providing evidence that rising CO2 levels precede or coincide with rising temperature.

The Co2 levels are rising because man is dumping 8 billion tons of it into the air every year.

from NOAA...not a blog or the website funded by the Koch bros and run by a TV weatherman.


global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Here we can see that rising CO2 levels reverses a cooling trend into a warming trend, providing evidence that rising CO2 levels precede or coincide with rising temperature.

The Co2 levels are rising because man is dumping 8 billion tons of it into the air every year.

from NOAA...not a blog or the website funded by the Koch bros and run by a TV weatherman.


global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
More...

so you think one data point equals causation. See the dip in the middle I could argue it shows temps lead co2



If you had half a brain you would drill down into the month by month data.

You would see temperature leads co2 by 9 months from multiple sources.

And if you really cared about science you read the graphs I posted and see why some academics are saying Salby shows that the change in ocean temps leads the change in c02 by about 1 year and is very close correlation.

You might even wonder since the correlation is so close you might say hey... it looks like change in ocean temps is the cause of the co2 change.
 
Quote from jem:

so you think one data point equals causation.

If you had half a brain you would drill down into the month by month data.

You would see temperature leads co2 by 9 months from multiple sources.

And if you really cared about science would would read the graphs I posted and see why some academics are saying Salby shows that the change in ocean temps leads the change in c02 by about 1 year and is very close correlation. A correlation so close it looks like change in ocean temps is the cause.
More...


Wow, maybe you are just plain stupid. I guess you don't see how accurate and how good the resolution of the CO2 is. One can even see the annual CO2 cycle from the seasonal plant growth. How is one supposed to correlate monthly temperature with that ?

You are a lying fuck-head. Kill yourself now.

2013-04-03-MaunaLoa.PNG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top