They have identified the cause of global warming, except for one minor problem. The globe isn’t warming.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
- Chief Executive Kamala
- “Investigated And Discredited”
- Ice-Free Arctic Warning
Recent Comments
- Luigi on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Greg in NZ on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- conrad ziefle on Woke Grok
- conrad ziefle on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- arn on Woke Grok
- Tommyb on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Archie on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- arn on Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- arn on Woke Grok
If you are skeptical of Steve’s understanding on this, check out the real science at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Maybe the parrot should have read this first…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html?m=1
Gator, the first impression from looking at what you wanted me to see is that it is one person simply saying all these things are not true. There was not one link to a peer reviewed science paper showing how he came to such a conclusion. You all can bash the Skeptical Science site all you want, but all of their articles are sprinkled with links to the underlying science from which they base their conclusion. Skeptical Science may have an editor, but the material on the site always references many sources. You send me one man’s opinion, I send you many references to underlying science. What is more credible?
Wow! You’re a speedy reader! NOT!!!
Point 9 clearly lists “Rasool and Schneider predicted a new ice age in 1971 – in an article in Science”
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
Liar, liar, Arctic’s not on fire! 😆
Now, do tell us the reaction of the IPCC, and Skeptical Science, when you confronted them over their incestuous behavior.
PS – While you are all lathered up about peer reviewed science, maybe now is the time for you to back YOUR claims by citing the literature upon which it is based.
You should practice what you preach. I just read the abstract you sent. The quote that stands out is this. “the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”. Where the hell does that come from? There is certainly no peer reviewed science to support that. There was certainly no link to even a semi scientific sounding paper.
You are as stupid as you pretend! 😆
You have never heard of CO2 bandwidths becoming saturated? 😆
You are indeed a moronic parrot afraid to learn anything new.
“CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”
FERENC MISKOLCZI’S SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY
by Miklos Zagoni | December 18, 2009
The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air.
With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.
The surface temperature of Venus is hot, because the total cloud cover prevents heat from escaping to outer space. Mars’ surface is cold, because there is not enough greenhouse gas to reach the energy-saturation limit. Only the Earth has these two important features that have allowed it to maximize its greenhouse effect, completely using all available energy from the Sun.
This assertion is not a result of desk speculations. Nor is it a special hypothesis based on assumptions of limited application. It is the outcome of detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere.
The project started about 25 years ago, when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist, began to write a high-resolution atmospheric radiative transfer code — a special computer program that is necessary if we want to calculate the atmosphere’s infrared radiative processes precisely.
Understanding the downwelling and upwelling long-wave fluxes in the atmosphere is essential if we are to compute the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect accurately.
Miskolczi used his program in remote-sensing satellite projects such as the Japanese ADEOS2 and NASA’s CERES. In the meantime, Jeffrey Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth released their global mean energy budget in 1997. They based their energy distribution on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976, and used several estimations and approximations.
Miskolczi decided to check their work by using his computer code on the best available observed global atmospheric database. He chose the TIGR global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris. 3
Miskolczi reported the launch of his project in 2001 in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (QJHMS), a 110-year-old English-language learned journal.
From that archive, he selected about 230 vertical atmospheric profiles, representing the global average well, and started the computations on each of the selected profiles, and also on their global average. He reported the results in 2004, also in the QJHMS. The co-author of the paper was his boss at NASA.
Three interesting findings emerged –
First, Miskolczi discovered that the proportion of the surface upward longwave radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere is equal to the downward longwave atmospheric radiation. This relation (within the usual error margins) was there in the Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 distribution implicitly. However, Miskolczi stated it exactly and explicitly.
Secondly, Miskolczi found that the global mean upward longwave radiation of the atmosphere is half of the surface upward longwave radiation. Again, this correlation had been known and taken into account implicitly earlier, but Miskolczi proved it with a higher accuracy, and wrote it down as a new balance condition.
Thirdly, on the TIGR database, using his program, he was able to derive (probably for the first time in the climate literature) the global mean infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere — the exact radiative-transfer measure of the greenhouse effect.
In 2007, Miskolczi published another—more theoretical—article in QJHMS. He realized that his new, explicit flux relations, added to the well-known set of global energy balance conditions, led to a system of solvable equations describing an equilibrium greenhouse effect – equations that could be tested against the measurements. Miskolczi found that the solution of the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse equations is equal (within less then 0.1 per cent) to the real observed greenhouse effect shown in the TIGR database.
In the 2007 paper, he also made an important theoretical step forward. He realized that Eddington’s long-standing solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne radiative transfer equation contained an approximation that applies only to an infinite atmosphere, but was invalid in the finite atmosphere of the Earth. Miskolczi solved the equation with real boundary conditions. It was this exact, analytical solution that allowed him to calculate the global average infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere correctly.
The theoretical explanation of Miskolczi’s set of equations was clear. There are two opposite forces determining radiative processes. The Earth is a hot stove in a cold room, heated by the sun. It must cool as effectively as it can: it has to reach its minimum energy state in accordance with the principle of least time. The most effective cooling is perspiration – releasing heat by evaporation, in the form of latent heat.
So, on the one hand, the amount of water vapor in the air is maximized in accordance with the principle of minimum energy. On the other hand, this maximum amount of water vapor, 4
as greenhouse gas, in the air causes a maximized greenhouse heating. In this process, all of the available incoming energy from the Sun is transformed into longwave radiation upwelling from the surface of the Earth.
These two opposite forces maximize both the heating and the cooling of the surface. For as long as there is enough water in the oceans, these two forces are able to maintain equilibrium in the form of maximal heating and cooling.
Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –
? constant, not increasing;
? equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
? equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.
Surface warming is possible only if the available energy increases. This may happen through changes in the activity of the Sun, or through variations of our planet’s orbital parameters, or through long-term fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere.
There are also some man-made sources. Air-pollution by aerosols (soot, black carbon, dust, smog etc.), and large-scale surface modifications according to urbanization and land-use change may—and probably do—alter the amount of absorbed and reflected shortwave energy, and can hence lead to change in the long-term energy balance. 5
These terms are all involved in the “available energy”. They can all modify the “effective temperature” of the Earth – i.e. the temperature of a planet with the Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) at the Earth’s current distance from the Sun, without the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.
Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value.
It is possible that in the 21st century the effective temperature may change a little, just as it has changed in previous centuries. But the additional (greenhouse) temperature will be 33 C°, within a variation of about 0.1 C° of recent decades. Physically, it cannot increase (as the UN IPCC has predicted it will increase) to 35-38 C° to produce a 2-5 C° warming.
The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.”
http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/saturated-greenhouse-effect-fact.pdf
Ok, I read that gator. Interesting science, as far as it goes; and interesting hypothesis. Still we are back to who is right about the effect of the CO2 that is being dumped into the sky. You will bash me for not having the souce at hand, but I have seen various reports about long term measurements from satellites showing the lower atmosphere warming and the upper atmosphere cooling. It is sumized that CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape to the upper atmosphere. Before you say cigarette smoke doesn’t cause cancer, you should wait for more science to come in.
Interesting…. So, if the lower humidity vs. higher CO2 relationship holds, there should be less energy available for storm activity.
Perhaps Gore got it exactly backwards, and higher CO2 will result in far fewer, much milder hurricanes… So far, the worst hurricanes all occurred in the low CO2 era.
Quite the opposite of the consensus opinions…
Still, the point remains, it is a big gamble to think a few anecdoctal good things about climate change mitigates all the possible big unknowns.
That’s no gamble. That’s pure physics. Systems always seek equilibrium, and if that equilibrium includes less humidity due to increased CO2, then less severe storm activity would be an expected consequence.
In this area, we rarely see pop-up thunderstorms when the dewpoint is less than 70 def F. Humidity is a necessary ingredient / energy feedstock for storm activity. Condensing water vapor gives up a lot of energy.
I don’t have any fake climate models to prove or disprove this, and time will tell where the real trends lie. So far, all of the CO2 induced global warming climate models have failed miserably. I’m beginning to think all those political climatologists trained at Obombya’s CCRI*.
*( Choom Climatological Research Institute )
Matayaya:
So what underlying science says CO2 can trap, i.e. hold onto heat energy? It cannot! It can only absorb and emit according to the laws of physics, i.e. spontaneously absorb from a higher energy molecule and spontaneously emit to lower a energy one. This process takes tiny tiny fractions of a second. A CO2 molecule cannot ‘decide’ to hold on to that energy when colliding with a lower energy particle. Impossible! This is why CO2 is such a good CONDUCTOR of heat (and also used as a refrigerant). Water vapour on the other hand can hold heat. It therefore exhibits a very different behavior to CO2. This ‘heat trapping’ assumption is just that, an assumption.
You have to ask yourself the basic questions: Why are daytime temperatures on Earth with an atmosphere COOLER than the Moon without (and nighttime temperatures warmer)? And, how does Earth cool itself, except by radiation to space, and how does the heat get to the boundary to be radiated except by convection and radiation, and which gases are radiatively responsive to (bands of) IR? All these provide clues that CO2 is not a warming gas, that water vapour is by far the largest heat transfer/holding/temperature regulator gas with CO2 being a bit-player, and Earth’s atmosphere fundamentally COOLS it.
I can predict your response. Per review, peer review, peer review! So let me say this straight out, that peer review is no guarantee whatsoever that what a paper contains is correct. To believe that it does is pure nonsense.
While megayammer says he approves of peer review, he has never read any of that work, and never references any papers.
“Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.
And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.”
Yes, Gleick only assumed a false identity, stole documents, and then later forged documents. They need to step up their game! 😆
All this stuff was looked into by four or five independent groups. Nothing came out that changed the underlying science. You can obsess on misconstrued words and conspiracy theories all you want, but you still end up on the wrong side of history.
Cite references parrot! 😆
You know, like this…
“Peter Gleick, described in a related UK Guardian story as “a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute,” said last week that he “obtained” documents from the Heartland Institute about its strategy to, in part and in Borenstein’s words (from his 1,000-word dispatch), “teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming.” Now, Gleick has admitted that he stole them (Gleick’s description: “I solicited and received additional materials directly … under someone else’s name”). Oops. It get worse for Borenstein and the wire service on at least two levels.”
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/02/21/how-will-aps-borenstein-respond-peter-gleicks-admission-he-stole-documen
You are an idiot.
John Cook, the following are all the criticisms of Skeptical Science to which you and your moderators have not responded, and almost all of them focus on the science:
motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-cooks-blog-photosynthesis-is.html
motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/climate-sensitivity-from-linear-fit.html
http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf
joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/
joannenova.com.au/2010/08/skeptics-iphone-app-endorsed-de-facto-by-critic/
joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/
joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/tisdale-schools-the-website-skeptical-science-on-co2-obsession/
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com/
theinconvenientskeptic.com/?s=skepticalscience.com
theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/12/more-bad-science-with-antarctica/
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/…/…
icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/computer_model_temperature_predictions_accurate/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=%22skeptical+science%22
nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
Pick out one or two those for starters you would recommend. I don’t time for all that. A long list does not denote credibility.
Once again, you can lead a jackass to literature, but you cannot make it think.
You provide ZERO proof, and then refuse what we provide.
You are a self imposed moron.
HA… Credibility? Credibility? really? … perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with Cook’s most recent 97% consensus bullshit paper, then come back and talk to me about credibility … ppfffftttt…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/how-fast-is-arctic-sea-ice-melting?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-4%20Pixies:Pixies:Position2
“There is also a consideration of where the extra heat goes. Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli explains:
“Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it’s only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming.”
So we got nothing to worry about … with the heat forever lost in the deep oceans we can load up on oil and party hearty 😉
Not quite, the heat in the ocean continues to mount even if we don’t feel it here on land for the moment. Logic says it is going to bite us in the ass before long. It already is for those that know how to see.
The Pacific has not warmed since 1994. You keep speaking of ocean warming but never give a reference.
You are an idiot.
The oceans are not warming. Trenberth’s paper claiming same, was just more computer model projections – and that no doubt was because none of the surface temperature measurements show any such thing so he had no actual data to point to. Just like the rest of this AGW nonsense.
Google about the ARGO project and its several thousand ocean temperature monotoring instruments. They vary their measurements from the surface down to fairly deep. The science of this is admitidly in its infancy, but it is getting better all the time. Bottom line, hold off on the absolutist opinions and keep an open mind to constantly improving science.
Please stop this nonsense about the deep oceans heating up from above.
There is no mechanism to transport heat trough the thermocline to the deep oceans.
In fact the deep oceans have cooled a staggering 17K the last ~80 million years.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
@ matayaya
Unfortunately your view, “Logic says it is going to bite us in the ass before long.” is scientifically untenable as the minimum of time for abyssal ocean heat to circulate back to the surface is estimated t be 1,000 years. You dress up your unscientific appeal in logic but you have not displayed any logic thus far and have only presented Argumentum ad Verecundiam with reference to one known climate activist website.
Too funny … “Keep an open mind …” … ROFLMAO … this from someone who has already drawn conclusion and continues to spout nonsense.
Gator and Steve, classic; you don’t like the message so attack the messenger. Let’s forget trying to change each other’s minds with sources. It obviously isn’t working. I prefer to just say what I think in my own words about why all this has become so politicized. Reminds me of the monkey trial on evolution. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
How about you cite literature, like we do, instead of parroting propaganda you moron.
Sundance, goggle about the ARGO project. The science is trying to get better about ocean temperature measurements. You are right about the circulation pattern but leave out the fact that the overall ocean is getting warmer, deeper down. Also, edit down the personal attack stuff, it just waste time trying to get to any legitimate point you may be trying to make.
How sneaky for the warmth to go to the one place we still cant measure – deep ocean. Its almost like its playing a game of hide and seek. Is it on the surface? NO. Is it in the top layer of the oceans? NO. Is it in the tropical troposphere? NO. Gosh darn it it must be somewhere. Come out come out wherever you are!
I would not be surprised that if we end up measuring the temperature of the deep ocean and find its not there we would see several papers stating its gone into the deep rocks or maybe the magma temperature is increasing and therefore CO2 increases the likelihood of volcanoes erupting. Anything but that the warmth has escaped into that cold space thingy above our heads using crappy science like convection… hold on my kettle is boiling…
Sorry dear, but reading through your replies and…well… how can I best put it.
Gator69’s right your a moron.
If I am such a moron why do you bother responding. I generally would avoid people I think can’t carry on an intelligent conversation. This is not a particurally intellegent conversation, but it has it mud wrestling appeal.
.
Rome is burning, but it has nothing to do with the climate. No warming in 17 years and the faithful just can’t have that, so they come up with some more models that say it’s “hiding” in the oceans. 25 years of the scam is enough. You would think they would be somewhat optimistic about the lack of warming, but NO, all they show is anger and frustration which proves it’s has nothing to do with science. IF you use science, then what’s happening is right on schedule for cooling, historically there has been 30-40 years of cooling and then warming. Amazing that people treat the output of computer models as some kind of gospel rather than a sophisticated rattling of chicken bones. Without the created alarmism, nobody would ever take notice of the weather.
One thing they don’t ever talk about is the actual temperatures. People just don’t care if there was 1/10 of an increase, so they say “hottest” year and “hottest” decade. Reading comments on alarmist blogs will reveal the real truth. They talk more about greedy capitalist, over-population and over-consumption more than climate. The world is their neighborhood and they want to force the undesirables to go away.
Here’s an exercise for you. Go back prior to 1988, when CO2 was “safe”, and take notes of the extreme weather events and then compare them to the extreme events after 1988 and remind people again why it’s important to cut emissions. The one thing AGWers count on is people not checking. The only reason there is a political division is that conservatives tend to double check things like a claim of apocalypse, more than liberals, but there are still many open-minded liberals that don’t buy into the religion as well. Global warming always ends dead-last on all surveys. How does the greatest threat mankind ever faced end up there? It must really hurt Hansen and company’s feelings after all those arrests and all those papers, nobody cares………..
“Even with something so unbelievable as a talking bear, eventually people just don’t give a shit”. Ted, the movie.
“matayaya parrots:
September 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Google about the ARGO project and its several thousand ocean temperature monotoring instruments.”
Parrot, what instruments do you think I spoke of when I told you that the claimed warming was less than the sensitivity of the instruments. I have read each paper not protected by a paywall as they have come out, I was a climatology student thirty years ago. Maybe you should find a major university, study Earth sciences for eight years, read for an additional thirty, and then comment.
I thought you said you came here to learn, and not to preach.
You are an idiot.
Not much to learn from someone only interested in politicizing science. I have read more of your stuff than you have of mine.
Bullshit parrot. I have been subjected to alarmist dogma for decades. I actually signed up for classes, spent money, and attended every one of my climatology classes at a major university three decades ago. I spent seven years prior to that as a geology and geography student.
You have nothing new to offer, except maybe more lies about your intent here.
Have you forgotten your claim that you are layman here to learn.
Lie some more little bitch.
If you are so educated on the subject, why are you so one sided in your conclusions? Real science is skeptical about everything, always.
ROFLMAO!!!
Do you think before commenting? How many subjects have you studied as intently as I have Earth sciences for over thirty years? And if you have studied even one subject to this degree, and failed to come to a conclusion, you are a moron.
I was not sure until I saw the cheating being done by the alarmists, and then discovered they ignored the Scientific Method and censored all skeptical scientists. That is what is called a religion, and not science.
Thanks for admitting your stupidity, even in this roundabout fashion.
Matayaya,
What’s interesting is you keep ignoring everything gator is saying only to push forward unsubstantiated claims. “Google this, google that” is not citing what you and your “skeptical science” buddies have “concluded.” Gator has cited material and has proven you and CAGW theory wrong. Actually, Steven proved you wrong from the get-go. And I’ll one up him: everything that you’re peddling (increased temps, melting ice, heating oceans) has been proven wrong by observations.
No matter what I say or what I reference I provide, you will just blow it off. I am not talking science right now, just psychology. I am trying to get at what makes you all such absolutist in your “science” and politics.
Hen you should not ignore your ‘projection’, moron. 😆
“push forward unsubstantiated claims. “Google this, google that”
Matayaya has obviously learned a trick or two from the grand master of the technique, the great bladder of pomposity himself, aka David Appell.
Matayaya has not mastered his misdirection, while trying to delivering a put-down though. Or the rapid fire cut and paste retorts from a stock of ready-made generic replies. I’m sure with practice they’ll learn.
Mata, you make zero sense.
Exactly where did Gator (or anyone else on here) “politicizing science” ?
You are daft…
Meanwhile, Rome burns.
No, and it wasn’t burning during the RWP either. We have a ways to go before the world gets that warm and prosperous again. Meanwhile, the long slide continues…
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/194_2.jpg
Will matayaya next claim the IPCC is not political?
No doubt he’s read this paper:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-cannot.html
BTW matayaya, at the HockeySchtick you will find dozens and dozens of published research John Cook and his ilk at SkS will never mention.
You reminded me of a personal antedote of climate change. I moved from South Georgia where I grew up, to Maryland about 30 years ago. My area of expertise includes working with plants and trees. I was very familiar with the plant material of Georgia and recognized very few plants when I got to Maryland. Now, 30 years later, I see lots of plants around here in Maryland that I grew up with in Georgia. Also, the USDA has always put out a plant hardiness zone map to give people an idea of what plants will grow in their temperture zone. They have revised the map to account for the poleward movement of plants.
Noone here denies that climates change. They always have.
Noone who knows anything about climate history denies we have been rebounding from the LIA for over 150 years.
I conducted my first CO2 soybean experiment in 1978, and the result is always the same, more CO2 means healthier plants that use less water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded
It makes you understand that modern CO2 levels are starving our plants! Notice the potential plants have when properly fed.
I bet you get a retort of something like “but it causes weeds to grow and poison ivy” and is not as nutritious. You will never get anything positive out of doomer, that would put a damper on the doom.
Yes, and retreating glaciers have revealed forests that flourished earlier in the Holocene. Has anyone here denied some warming since the little ice age? Changing plant hardiness zones is just as consistent with long term natural climate variability as it is with your boogie man CAGW.
The difference is time frame.The Holocene was a lot longer time period than the past 30 years.
Parrot, nuh-uh is STILL not an argument. And had you actually been listening, you would not STILL be parroting bullshit.
Nuttercelli….all I can say is that the name perfectly fits the BS.
Case rest.
Actually Nuttercelli would have made a fine urologist….
Nuccitelli is quickly achieving the status of the Baghdad Bob of climate science.
I see that he and his buddy are happy to cite his study that came up with the 97% figure – again. Like our irrepressible commentator, matayaya, he has that strange combination of insularity and brazenness that seems to be a common affliction in our times.
Here’s a revealing quote from German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart:
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
– See more at: http://drtimball.com/2013/ipcc-ar5-renews-demand-governments-buy-their-climate-change-pig-in-a-poke/#sthash.DfUnRMzX.dpuf
This is a major problem – it’s so easy to suppose that people in another field know what they’re talking about. And disregard any comments from the great unwashed outside the groves of Academe.
Most ‘honest’ academics (scare quotes in deference to Nietzsche) simply are not facing what has happened to Academia over the last 40 years. Maybe AGW will force them to wake up.
I am an engineer and trained in statistics. My company sells a product. I am held accountable: bad or phony analysis, we lose customers, and I lose my job.
In the AGW scientific world you sell a service: make the data say what your grant provider tells you or no more grant money. Absolutely pathetic.