APP - Scientists Answer the Questions of the Flat Earth Society...

[Cypress]

Well I know all of that, but still.... Don't you imagine, if mankind were doing something to "increase" the temps, we would see the "top" temp being set each summer?

From the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (A research consortium of some of the most prestigious research universities in the U.S.):

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

2009-11-12 00:00:00.0

BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp#

DIXIE: It went up to 136 degrees in 1922, and it hasn't been that high since... we aren't making the planet warmer.

The temperature reading from one thermometer in the Libyan desert in 1922 is irrelevant to global climate change; temperature readings from one thermometer reflect localized and possibly anomalous weather conditions e.g., . such as anomalous inversion layers.

DIXIE: Nominal rises and falls in median temps over a few decades, have more to do with sun cycles and solar activity, than something we are doing to increase the temps.

Solar irriadiance is at a minimum and should be having its maximum cooling effect, but temperatures keep rising. Solar output trends and cosmic ray trends haven't changed appreciably in 30 years. The best peer reviewed research on the planet has concluded with high confidence that the warming trend of the last half century cannot scientifically be explained by natural variation and is very likely due mostly to human emissions of GHG.

DIXIE: The median temp has risen by 1 degree Celsius in a CENTURY! Big fucking WOOP!

Scientific estimates are that global mean temperatures will rise several degrees over the next 50 to 100 years. Global mean temperatures do not mean every where on the planet will rise by the same amount. The higher latitudes and the arctic are susceptible to even higher degrees of warming, and ice sheets, snow packs, environment, ecology, weather, agriculture, water supplies, precipitation and nation's economies are scientifically known to be susceptible to significant climate shifts resulting from rapid changes on the order of a few degrees C.




References:

US National Research Council, 2010
http://americasclimatechoices.org/

International Panel on Climate Change, 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/

US National Academy of Sciences, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=17

 

[tinfoil]

 

[tinfoil]

yeah, what the warmers ignore is the error band shown in gray.

LOL warmers don't know the difference between science and statistics

You don't have to be a climate scientist to point out statistics errors
this is where you warmers are fucking clueless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

From the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (A research consortium of some of the most prestigious research universities in the U.S.):

With all due respect, this is from Wikipedia:

Sunspot populations quickly rise and more slowly fall on an irregular cycle of 11 years, although significant variations in the number of sunspots attending the 11-year period are known over longer spans of time. For example, from 1900 to the 1960s the solar maxima trend of sunspot count has been upward; from the 1960s to the present, it has diminished somewhat.[3] Over the last decades the Sun has had a markedly high average level of sunspot activity; it was last similarly active over 8,000 years ago.[4]

The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation over the period since 1979, when satellite measurements of absolute radiative flux became available. Since sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere it might be expected that more sunspots would lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding margins of sunspots are brighter than the average, and so are hotter; overall, more sunspots increase the sun's solar constant or brightness. The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% of the solar constant (a peak-to-trough range of 1.3 W m−2 compared to 1366 W m−2 for the average solar constant).[5][6] Sunspots were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum in the second part of the 17th century (approximately from 1645 to 1715). This coincides with the middle (and coldest) part of a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age.​

The temperature reading from one thermometer in the Libyan desert in 1922 is irrelevant to global climate change; temperature readings from one thermometer reflect localized and possibly anomalous weather conditions e.g., . such as anomalous inversion layers.

I didn't claim this "proved" anything, only that it doesn't comport with logic and common sense. IF we were causing some dramatic increase in overall global temperatures, these "anomalous" events would routinely be surpassing each other. We haven't seen the 'high' surpassed in 88 years, and since that time, we've added millions and millions of cars on the road, we've invented rayon and nylon, as well as most plastics production, and we've invented aerosol. It seems if these things are contributing to warming the planet, they would have done so to a point of breaking the record high at least a few times along the way, but that hasn't happened. Yeah, I know... anomalous events... but don't anomalous events happen regardless? They certainly didn't just stop happening in 1922. You'd think we would have seen one of these anomalous events since then, and the high temp would be surpassed at some point in the past 88 years. This has not happened. Like I said, it doesn't "prove" anything, but then, you haven't "proven" anything either.

Solar irriadiance is at a minimum and should be having its maximum cooling effect, but temperatures keep rising. Solar output trends and cosmic ray trends haven't changed appreciably in 30 years. The best peer reviewed research on the planet has concluded with high confidence that the warming trend of the last half century cannot scientifically be explained by natural variation and is very likely due mostly to human emissions of GHG.

Again, this is a speculation. You have no substantial proof to support the idea. Solar activity has been on the INCLINE, not the DECLINE as you seem to be saying. Scientific conclusions are largely based on data, which we now know was fraudulently manipulated by people with an agenda. That taints all opinions and conclusions on the subject, whether peer reviewed or not. If a team wins the Super Bowl by cheating and taking steroids or something, it doesn't matter that the referees did a thorough job officiating the game. That is what you are saying here. These "peer reviewed conclusions" are the result of analyzing faulty or incomplete data, and I categorically REJECT the concept that "science" draws "conclusions" on ANYTHING. The very nature of "science" is to continue asking questions and NOT drawing a conclusion. Conclusive determinations are made on FAITH... you know, like those who had FAITH the Earth was flat?

Scientific estimates are that global mean temperatures will rise several degrees over the next 50 to 100 years. Global mean temperatures do not mean every where on the planet will rise by the same amount. The higher latitudes and the arctic are susceptible to even higher degrees of warming, and ice sheets, snow packs, environment, ecology, weather, agriculture, water supplies, precipitation and nation's economies are scientifically known to be susceptible to significant climate shifts resulting from rapid changes on the order of a few degrees C.

Again, this is based on the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been proven to be a fraud. The mean temperature has increased 1 degree in the past century, and there is no "conclusive" evidence this was caused by man.

 

[Good Luck]

From the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (A research consortium of some of the most prestigious research universities in the U.S.):

...

References:

US National Research Council, 2010
http://americasclimatechoices.org/

International Panel on Climate Change, 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/

US National Academy of Sciences, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=17

You know, I'm starting to notice something. All these articles you keep referencing are actually news releases and the like. They are NOT the peer reviewed scientific studies you claim they are. Where is the presentation of data? Where is the description of methodology so their study can be repeated?

They look more like propaganda sheets than scientific studies to me. "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" That is not a scientific study - it is a propaganda sheet aimed at presenting conclusions to government bodies.

Where is the science? You have been bragging how you present "peer reviewed" studies. Where are they? Do you even know what a genuine scientific study looks like, or are you too wound up in ACC propaganda?

 

[Cypress]

You know, I'm starting to notice something. All these articles you keep referencing are actually news releases and the like. They are NOT the peer reviewed scientific studies you claim they are! Where is the presentation of data? Where is the description of methodology so their study can be repeated?

wow, more guesswork, assumptions and speculation

Like shooting fish in a barrel.....

US National Research Council Climate Report, 2010

WASHINGTON — As part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, the National Research Council today issued three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices.

Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Research Council's conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

As for the International Panel on Climate Change 2007 Assessment, that was probably the most peer reviewed scientific report in the history of the science.

They look more like propaganda sheets than scientific studies to me. "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" That is not a scientific study - it is a propaganda sheet aimed at presenting conclusions to government bodies.

This is getting embarrassing. Refer to the above respons. Why do some of you dudes just get angry and/or resort to making things up out of thin air when you've been completely outclassed?

Where is the science? You have been bragging how you present "peer reviewed" studies. Where are they? Do you even know what a genuine scientific study looks like, or are you too wound up in ACC propaganda?

After all the hundreds of links I've provide, and you freaking serious! Do a search on any of my posts, with links to IPCC, NRS, NASS. They have compiled, docuemented, and reviewed all of the worlds best peer reviewed science.


As for your "questions" about natural variation refer to post 1.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27317




If you think the current warming is natural, then you should have no problem finding a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support that assertion.

But oddly enough, you can't.



I think you asked somewhere what the problem was with asking questions.

Nothing. You just don't like the answers. Furthermore, it's hilarious that the Climate Gate Clown Cabal even has the nerve to back peddle and crab walk backwards to claiming now that your just innocently asking question.

The Climate Gate Clowns spent nine months yucking it up, accusing reputable scientists of lying, fabricating data, misleading, committing fraudulent research, and faking data for the sake of getting grant money.

It's completely hilarious for the Climate Gate Clowns to back peddle to claiming they're just innocently asking questions now. The wingnuts were claiming with absolute certainty that climate scientists were lying their asses off, and some wingnuts were praying for innocent scientists to be fired, or in some cases criminally prosecuted.

so now you're just "Innocently just asking questions"?? After praying for innocent scientists to be fired, and falsely accusing them of lying, fraud, and conspiracy? Yeah, riiiiight..... sure you're just "innocently" asking questions.... This is some side-splitting comedy, bro!


And btw, stop begging me to look at OpEd articles, rightwing blogs, and webposted non-peer reviewed articles. That's not science. That's opinion and assertion. Are you even remotely familiar with the scientific method? I ain't wasting my time on that. If your assertions and guesses have any merit at all, it should be no problem for you to find actual, legitimate peer reviewed science to support them. Unfortunately, you won't be able to. And finally, don't get mad at me if there isn't any actual legitimate scientific literature to support your guesses. I'm just posting the best actual scientific research on the planet pertaining to climate. If you don't like the research, and have emotional reasons for being angry about it, don't take it out on me.

 

[Good Luck]

wow, more guesswork, assumptions and speculation

Like shooting fish in a barrel.....



As for the International Panel on Climate Change 2007 Assessment, that was probably the most peer reviewed scientific report in the history of the science.



This is getting embarrassing. Refer to the above respons. Why do some of you dudes just get angry and/or resort to making things up out of thin air when you've been completely outclassed?






After all the hundreds of links I've provide, and you freaking serious! Do a search on any of my posts, with links to IPCC, NRS, NASS. They have compiled, docuemented, and reviewed all of the worlds best peer reviewed science.


As for your "questions" about natural variation refer to post 1.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=27317




If you think the current warming is natural, then you should have no problem finding a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support that assertion.

But oddly enough, you can't.



I think you asked somewhere what the problem was with asking questions.

Nothing. You just don't like the answers. Furthermore, it's hilarious that the Climate Gate Clown Cabal even has the nerve to back peddle and crab walk backwards to claiming now that your just innocently asking question.

The Climate Gate Clowns spent nine months yucking it up, accusing reputable scientists of lying, fabricating data, misleading, committing fraudulent research, and faking data for the sake of getting grant money.

It's completely hilarious for the Climate Gate Clowns to back peddle to claiming they're just innocently asking questions now. The wingnuts were claiming with absolute certainty that climate scientists were lying their asses off, and some wingnuts were praying for innocent scientists to be fired, or in some cases criminally prosecuted.

so now you're just "Innocently just asking questions"?? After praying for innocent scientists to be fired, and falsely accusing them of lying, fraud, and conspiracy? Yeah, riiiiight..... sure you're just "innocently" asking questions.... This is some side-splitting comedy, bro!


And btw, stop begging me to look at OpEd articles, rightwing blogs, and webposted non-peer reviewed articles. That's not science. That's opinion and assertion. Are you even remotely familiar with the scientific method? I ain't wasting my time on that. If your assertions and guesses have any merit at all, it should be no problem for you to find actual, legitimate peer reviewed science to support them. Unfortunately, you won't be able to. And finally, don't get mad at me if there isn't any actual legitimate scientific literature to support your guesses. I'm just posting the best actual scientific research on the planet pertaining to climate. If you don't like the research, and have emotional reasons for being angry about it, don't take it out on me.

Actually, when I look, you are NOT posting what you claim. What you post is links to news releases and non-technical descriptions from various science organizations. You don't link to ANY actual studies. All you links simply make the same claims without pointing to the supposed mass of supporting evidence.

The fact is ACC does NOT answer how the current trend is so different as to be unnatural. It is ALL based on the claim that CO2 coming from human activity is the main driver. But there is not actual supporting research for that claim. Again (and I have REPEATEDLY shown you the PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH) planetary modeling clearly indicates current CO2 levels are TOO LOW to be a climate driver. Additionally, the hundred-plus year lag between temperature changes and CO2 changes also clearly indicate a cause/effect relationship opposite of what ACC claims.

What you ACC freligious freaks refuse to understand and acknowledge is the fact that MONEY is the driver behind ACC theory. You have all these universities and outfits ALL of whom are receiving multi-million dollar research grants about ACC. How many do you think are going to cut off their golden egg laying goose by looking into things like CO2 as a climate driver at low concentrations? You have an organization which is known to be a prime mover in the ACC arena, what are the chances a scientist whose research does not agree with their preconclusions is going to get published?

And no, I am not implying it is some huge organized conspiracy to promote ACC. What I AM saying, and have shown historical precedent to back it, is consensus science has a tendency to shut off conflicting view points; not as any organized conspiracy, but as a where-the-bread-and-butter-comes-from, keep-the-research-dollars-flowing self preservation symptom.



And you keep talking about only posting information in right wing blogs, etc. You lie. I have shown several times that the links I post are to genuine, full blown scientific studies published in peer reviewed science journals, or constain information directly from peer reviewed scientific studies. You would know that if you READ anything, but you continue your program of "rejecting out of hand" anything that does not conform to your preconceptions. When one has to lie about what their opponent has posted, then it becomes clear who is blowing smoke. In short, I HAVE shown you what you keep claiming is needed. I have referenced two independent studies showing why CO2 at low concentrations cannot be account for as driving climate change. I have shown multiple references to studies showing that natural trends in the past have resulted in climatic changes far in excess of current observed phenomena - thus giving lie to the claim of "unprecedented change".

Conversely, not one article you have referenced has contained actual study data showing why the current observed trend should be considered different. All you show is "consensus reports" which repeat the conclusions of the ACC propopnents, but without detailing any studies. I ask you again, do you even know what an actual scientific study looks like, or is all you know "consensus reports"?

In the world of REAL science, consensus reports are no better than a propaganda sheet. All a consensus report contains is a list of conclusions. They do NOT contain the data, they do NOT caontain a description of research methodology, they do NOT contain ANYTHING that is required to genuinely qualify as a peer reviewed scientific research article.

OTOH, the article refderenced by http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=8a4a00b05a09ac234f95a79051dcaa1a DOES meet those criteria you keep expounding on. It is a RESEARCH paper, published in a peer reviewed journal of science. It contains a description of the hypothesis being tested and the research methodology used to test the hypothesis. It contains the data sets used and how those data sets were gathered. It contains a step-by-step description of the experiments as well as step-by-step description of the analysis procedure. And it contains the conclusions gained from the analysis. IOW, this referenced scientific paper is EXACTLY what you keep demanding, and is what you, yourself, do NOT supply in your own references.

And it is not the only one I have posted in past threads on this topic. I have also posted studies about analysis of climatic conditions prior to the current ice age. You reject them out of hand, even though they are articles published in peer reviewed science journals - or refer to the studies from which the presented data was derived.

Bottom line is you are a pathetic liar on this issue. You claim to post peer reviewed scientific studies. What you post is "peer reviewed" consensus reports where the peers are part of the group that generated the reports. What the hell kind of "review" is that? It's like asking Richard Nixon to review the report on the Watergate break in. An then when an actual scientific study is referenced, you lie about its source, lie about its presentation, and lie about its relevance to the issue.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) I ask.... 'WHO COMPRISED THE PANELS FOR THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS'.... it does not require a link to be a legitimate question.

That's not how science works. We do not put some random ass onto a panel just because he disagrees with gravity. We put good scientists on the board. Just because there is a highly popular misconception that practically no scientist agrees with doesn't mean we should start stacking the decks and create a false balance by putting morons on the panels. You are an idiot. Get over it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The fact is ACC does NOT answer how the current trend is so different as to be unnatural. It is ALL based on the claim that CO2 coming from human activity is the main driver. But there is not actual supporting research for that claim. Again (and I have REPEATEDLY shown you the PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH) planetary modeling clearly indicates current CO2 levels are TOO LOW to be a climate driver. Additionally, the hundred-plus year lag between temperature changes and CO2 changes also clearly indicate a cause/effect relationship opposite of what ACC claims.

What you ACC freligious freaks refuse to understand and acknowledge is the fact that MONEY is the driver behind ACC theory. You have all these universities and outfits ALL of whom are receiving multi-million dollar research grants about ACC. How many do you think are going to cut off their golden egg laying goose by looking into things like CO2 as a climate driver at low concentrations? You have an organization which is known to be a prime mover in the ACC arena, what are the chances a scientist whose research does not agree with their preconclusions is going to get published?

I think it's funny that you'd cite some oil company supported paper and THEN IN the NEXT paragraph GO on a RANT about how MONEY influences DECISIONS. The FACT is that DENIALIST conspiracy THEORISTS get all of THE money. ALL we HAVE is THE truth.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well I know all of that, but still.... Don't you imagine, if mankind were doing something to "increase" the temps, we would see the "top" temp being set each summer? It went up to 136 degrees in 1922, and it hasn't been that high since... we aren't making the planet warmer.

Nominal rises and falls in median temps over a few decades, have more to do with sun cycles and solar activity, than something we are doing to increase the temps. The median temp has risen by 1 degree Celsius in a CENTURY! Big fucking WOOP!

Double facepalm!

Dixie, do the conspiracy theorist nuts a favor and go away.

 

[Cypress]

You know, I'm starting to notice something. All these articles you keep referencing are actually news releases and the like. They are NOT the peer reviewed scientific studies you claim they are! Where is the presentation of data? Where is the description of methodology so their study can be repeated?...........

I'm still LOL'ing over this.

Hey bro, are the OpEd columns and the non-peer reviewed articles posted on obscure webistes and which you present to allegedly support your assertions, given this kind of scrutiny and peer review?

U.S. National Research Council/National Academies of Science – 2010 Climate Assessment Report – “America’s Climate Choices”

The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For more information, visit http://americasclimatechoices.org. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Research Council's conflict-of-interest standards.

The reports of the National Academies of Sciences are viewed as being valuable and credible because of the institution’s reputation for providing independent, objective, and non-partisan advice with high standards of scientific and technical quality. Checks and balances are applied at every step in the study process to protect the integrity of the reports and to maintain public confidence in them.

As a final check on the quality and objectivity of the study, all National Academies reports—whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or other documents—must undergo a rigorous, independent external review by experts whose comments are provided anonymously to the committee members. The National Academies recruit independent experts with a range of views and perspectives to review and comment on the draft report prepared by the committee.

The review process is structured toensure that each report addresses its approved study charge and does not go beyond it, that the findings are supported by the scientific evidence and arguments presented, that the exposition and organization are effective, and that the report is impartial and objective.


The members of the Panel – who serve voluntarily and pro bono (free of charge) - on Advancing the Science of Climate Change are:

Dr. Pamela A. Matson (Chair), Stanford University
Dr. Thomas Dietz (Vice Chair), Michigan State University
Dr. Waleed Abdalati, University of Colorado at Boulder
Dr. Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Dr. Robert W. Corell, H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
Dr. Ruth S. DeFries, Columbia University
Dr. Inez Y. Fung, University of California Berkeley
Dr. Steven Gaines, University of California Santa Barbara
Dr. George M. Hornberger, Vanderbilt University
Dr. Maria Carmen Lemos, University of Michigan
Dr. Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
Dr. Richard H. Moss, World Wildlife Fund
Dr. Edward A. Parson, University of Michigan
Dr. A. R. Ravishankara, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Dr. Raymond W. Schmitt, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr. B. L. Turner, II, Arizona State University
Dr. Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dr. John P. Weyant, Stanford University
Dr. David A. Whelan, The Boeing Company

http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

I guess you haven't figured this out yet, but IPCC and the NRC reports are scientific reports that compile and document the best peer reviewed science on the planet, under the auspices of an independent panel of scientific experts - who serve voluntarily and free of charge - whom then put their report out for vigorous external peer review. Scientific reports compiling the best known science are routine in the scientific world. Are you aware of this?


There is not a single thing you've ever posted that remotely comes close to this level of credibility, expertise, and consensus.


Feel free to keep posting assertions and speculations.

I would think if there is any merit to any of your assertions you would easily be able to find a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support it, or be able to find reports, conclusions, and statements from the world's most prestigious and internationally-recognized science institutions to substantiate your guesses.

The stuff you and your climate gate buddies isn't even remotely close to being in the same universe of credibility, expertise, and peer review as I routinely and repeatedly provide. Why is that?

Can you explain why you've been completely unable to provide anything even remotely and infinitesimally close to the credibility of the stuff I provide, to substantiate your assertions and guesses?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay Wicked, you didn't like that dose of logic, how about this one...

We know beyond any reasonable doubt, millions of years ago, the Earth was much warmer and had a much higher concentration of CO2. In fact, most of our plants evolved in a much higher concentration than present. Given these much higher concentrations of CO2, and a much warmer climate, it's obvious the result was not detrimental to man. How has CO2 and warming suddenly become detrimental to us, when the exact same conditions existed as we emerged from the ranks of evolution?

 

[Cypress]

Okay Wicked, you didn't like that dose of logic, how about this one...

We know beyond any reasonable doubt, millions of years ago, the Earth was much warmer and had a much higher concentration of CO2. In fact, most of our plants evolved in a much higher concentration than present. Given these much higher concentrations of CO2, and a much warmer climate, it's obvious the result was not detrimental to man. How has CO2 and warming suddenly become detrimental to us, when the exact same conditions existed as we emerged from the ranks of evolution?

I wouldn't expect an evolution-denier who thinks the earth is 6000 years old to know this.......but modern man - homo sapiens - , modern civilization, and modern agriculture didn't exist two million years ago.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

National Geographic
June 18, 2009

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide.html

I give you permission to keep squawking that "more CO2 will be GOOD for us!" if you must.

But, I suspect the informed and the scientifically literate poster realizes that modern agriculture, modern population distributions, water supplies, precipitation patterns, and the biosphere of today existed in a relatively stable climate associated with the Holocene geologic era. The current changes in CO2, weather, and climate aren't natural as determined by the best science on the planet. And most informed people know that high levels of CO2, simply in an of themselves, aren't the problem. It's the results and consequences of changing GHG atmospheric composition will have on humans, weather, and environment which spooks all informed people.

You can pray for glaciers to melt and climate to shift, if you feel compelled too. History is going to judge you harshly for doing that. You probably don't realize that glaciers and snow pack are the major source of water supplies for humans on much of the planet. Because it is scientifically known that as climate undergoes a rapid shift it will have significant - and mostly detrimental - impacts on water supplies and agriculture for humans. As well as disruptions of nation's economies. Not to mention the impacts and shifts to the biosphere we can likely expect.

U.S. National Research Council - National Academies of Sciences

July 16, 2010 -- Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia, says a new report from the National Research Council. Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

"Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States"

from: The U.S. Global Climate Change Program:
a consortium of leading scientific organizations including National Science Foundation, NASA, Smithsonian Institute, NOAA, US Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of the Interior.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NASA)

"Current and Future Consequences of Climate Change"

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I hope you will be prepared to explain to your grandkids and future generations why, in the year 2010 and beyond, you were cheering for climate change and/or using every fiber in your being to deny the science of climate change.**





**FOOTNOTE: I've always wondered how dudes who were easily duped into supporting an expensive and bloody war on Iraq on the basis of the flimsiest and most circumstantial of evidence are in contrast so emotionally invested in denying a scientific topic that ranks among one of the most thoroughly studied, corroborated, and validated scientific topics in modern science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I wouldn't expect an evolution-denier who thinks the earth is 6000 years old to know this.......but modern man - homo sapiens - , modern civilization, and modern agriculture didn't exist two million years ago.

Well, that's kind of my point, Prissy! Two million years ago, in much higher concentrations of CO2 and with a much warmer planet, we did indeed evolve into existence and begin growing things. The very things you claim are threatened now, were enabled two million years ago, what has changed?

I give you permission to keep squawking that "more CO2 will be GOOD for us!" if you must.

Well that is good that I have your permission, I feel so much better about that now! Increased CO2 will certainly benefit ALL plant life, as it thrives on CO2. At present, CO2 is about 340 ppm in our atmosphere... If we can get that up to about 650 ppm, we could grow rain forests in the desert. Imagine, no more world hunger! Imagine being able to grow wheat and corn in the Sahara!

But, I suspect the informed and the scientifically literate poster realizes that modern agriculture, modern population distributions, water supplies, precipitation patterns, and the biosphere of today existed in a relatively stable climate associated with the Holocene geologic era.

No, actually, according to the geological record, the stability of the climate is exactly the same. In fact, in previous eras, it has been much more unstable, and still, man evolved and thrived, obviously. The 'evidence' you had for this supposed instability, was that infamous hockey stick graph, which has proven to be a hoax and fraud, like YOU!

The current changes in CO2, weather, and climate aren't natural as determined by the best science on the planet. And most informed people know that high levels of CO2, simply in an of themselves, aren't the problem. It's the results and consequences of changing GHG atmospheric composition will have on humans, weather, and environment which spooks all informed people.

It doesn't spook me, and I seem to be better informed than you on the subject. The results and consequences of our previously high temps and levels of CO2, was the emergence of mankind and agriculture, you've already admitted that. God forbid, we experience something like that again, huh?

You can pray for glaciers to melt and climate to shift, if you feel compelled too. History is going to judge you harshly for doing that. You probably don't realize that glaciers and snow pack are the major source of water supplies for humans on much of the planet. Because it is scientifically known that as climate undergoes a rapid shift it will have significant - and mostly detrimental - impacts on water supplies and agriculture for humans. As well as disruptions of nation's economies. Not to mention the impacts and shifts to the biosphere we can likely expect.

As CO2 levels increase, ALL plant life will flourish, because plants feed on CO2... This is what we KNOW to be a fact of science. You see, the CO2 helps plants retain moisture, enabling them to grow and thrive in the most arid of conditions. And I am not understanding how frozen glaciers and ice packs supply water.... have you ever tried to drink a glacier or ice pack?

As for disrupting nation's economies, I fear Communists Socialists more than Climate Change!

I hope you will be prepared to explain to your grandkids and future generations why, in the year 2010 and beyond, you were cheering for climate change and using every fiber in your being to deny the science of climate change.

Rah! Rah! Go Climate Change Go!

YOU are the one using every fiber of your being to deny science here! Not only are you denying science, but also logic and common sense. People have literally lined up to school your ass on the very science you claim to hold so dear, and you just keep right on arguing the same discredited points. Now, I don't know if this is because you are just plain ignorant of science and how it works, or if you are an active Communist Socialist, who just wants to promote your political agenda, but either way, you have been exposed as a fraud and this whole entire AGW hoax is done... stick a fork in it! Congress just announced it is dropping the Climate Change legislation slated next on their list.... they are done with this thing too! It's OVER! Try not to cry too hard!

 

[Good Luck]

I'm still LOL'ing over this.

Laugh away donkey boy. All you have left is your pathetic laughter derived from self delusion.

Hey bro, are the OpEd columns and the non-peer reviewed articles posted on obscure webistes and which you present to allegedly support your assertions, given this kind of scrutiny and peer review?

Yea, continue to lie about the status of Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, SCIENCE magazine, American Journal of Science, etc. as "non-peer reviewed" publications. You are right about one thing: these publications do NOT undergo the kind of scrutiny your links do. These publications invite and welcome opposing ideas. IPCC, NRC, et al do anything BUT invite opposing view points.

I guess you haven't figured this out yet, but IPCC and the NRC reports are scientific reports that compile and document the best peer reviewed science on the planet, under the auspices of an independent panel of scientific experts - who serve voluntarily and free of charge - whom then put their report out for vigorous external peer review. Scientific reports compiling the best known science are routine in the scientific world. Are you aware of this?

Actually the types of reports you extol are relatively new in the scientific world, as are "scientific" panels whose actual function is political rather than scientific. Prior to the (perceived) need for scientists to promote their theories politically, review articles published in the journals which contain the research being reviewed were enough.

There is not a single thing you've ever posted that remotely comes close to this level of credibility, expertise, and consensus.

Feel free to keep posting assertions and speculations.

I would think if there is any merit to any of your assertions you would easily be able to find a body of legitimate peer reviewed scientific research to support it, or be able to find reports, conclusions, and statements from the world's most prestigious and internationally-recognized science institutions to substantiate your guesses.

Yes, we all know how Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, SCIENCE magazine, and American Journal of Science are nothing more than right wing blog rags. (What a pathetic liar you are.) However I will continue to post scientific research published in peer reviewed journals of science. You can lie about them all you want since lying is what you do best.

The stuff you and your climate gate buddies isn't even remotely close to being in the same universe of credibility, expertise, and peer review as I routinely and repeatedly provide. Why is that?

Can you explain why you've been completely unable to provide anything even remotely and infinitesimally close to the credibility of the stuff I provide, to substantiate your assertions and guesses?

Maybe because you lie about what has been referenced.

What you cannot figure out is a consensus report, approved by a panel of scientists who all already agree on ACC theory, is nothing more than a propaganda document. Peer review is NOT done by a panel - it is done by scientists all over reviewing research and REPEATING the experiments to verify the results, and publishing the results of their experiments. This is NOT done in your precious consensus reports. Your "peer review" is performed by a panel already in agreement of the results before they do the review; which pretty much guarantees the result of the review

Would you trust a review of a republican politician caught doing something illegal if the review were performed by the RNC? Of course not. But somehow a panel of ACC proponents writing and then reviewing ACC propaganda sheets is acceptable to you, It only proves your religious level mania on the topic.

Again, I have provided you links to actual scientific research. These documents referenced are full blown research which include all the necessary components. They are published in peer reviewed journals of science. In short they meet every requirement you demand, but you still refuse to even consider them. You are a liar, pure and simple. You lie about what type of documents you post, and you lie about the content of the documents I post. You keep calling them "op-ed articles" and "non-peer reviewed" You LIE. Anyone else can see that when someone posts a research document which was published in a journal of science, it meets the requirements of peer reviewed science. You lie about it because then you cannot claim I have no scientific counter argument to ACC theory.

When the opposition is reduced to repeating bullshit lies, then it is apparent they have nothing left to their argument. You cannot discuss the science, all you can do is blow smoke. You are the most pathetic lying loser on these boards.

 

[Good Luck]

Here is one more reference to the right wing blog Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

From the article:

It is therefore interesting to ask what, if any, correspondence exists between ancient climate and the estimate of pCO2 in Fig. 4. The gray bars at the top of Fig. 4 correspond to the periods when the global climate was cool; the intervening white space corresponds to the warm modes (18). The most recent cool period corresponds to relatively low CO2 levels, as is widely expected (30). However, no correspondence between pCO2 and climate is evident in the remainder of the record, in part because the apparent 100 My cycle of the pCO2 record does not match the longer climatic cycle. The lack of correlation remains if one calculates the change in average global surface temperature resulting from changes in pCO2 and the solar constant using energy-balance arguments (7, 26).

Superficially, this observation would seem to imply that pCO2 does not exert dominant control on Earth's climate at time scales greater than about 10 My. A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control [see Crowley and Berner (30) for a recent review]. Fig. 4 cannot by itself refute this assumption. Instead, it simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone.

So, an article in one of your own preferred references states that there is no demonstrable correlation between CO2 levels and climate in paleoclimatic data, and that the null hypothesis that the two are unrelated CANNOT BE DISMISSED.

So much for you claims that human sources of CO2 as a driver of climate change is a foregone and irrefutable conclusion.

So I will ask one more time: Why does ACC theory exclude paleoclimatic data earlier than 600,000-800,000 years ago from their analysis?

 

[Cypress]

Here is one more reference to the right wing blog Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

From the article:

So, an article in one of your own preferred references states that there is no demonstrable correlation between CO2 levels and climate in paleoclimatic data, and that the null hypothesis that the two are unrelated CANNOT BE DISMISSED.

So much for you claims that human sources of CO2 as a driver of climate change is a foregone and irrefutable conclusion.

So I will ask one more time: Why does ACC theory exclude paleoclimatic data earlier than 600,000-800,000 years ago from their analysis?

You're article is hopelessly outdated, it's from 2001 - a decade ago - and is irrelevant to the state of modern climate science.

This has your author - Rothman's - publications.
http://segovia.mit.edu/papers.html

He doesn't do research on modern climate change. He does geological research on tectonics and ancient carbon cycles. And I don't see anything he's written that pertains to modern climate research, or even disputes the recent conclusions of IPCC, NRC or NAS.



Ancient carbon cycles, natural variation, and ancient paleoclimate have all been exhaustively reviewed by modern climate researchers, and the IPCC reports. The modern and rapid rise in temperature cannot plausibly be scientifically explained by natural variation


Yo man, this link has all the current and modern research on climate science that will answer all your questions on how they determined the human signature in recent climate change.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1



Please stop wasting my time man, with hopelessly outdated links, blogs, and OpEd columns.

 

[Good Luck]

You're article is hopelessly outdated, it's from 2001 - a decade ago - and is irrelevant to the state of modern climate science.

This has your author - Rothman's - publications.
http://segovia.mit.edu/papers.html

He doesn't do research on modern climate change. He does geological research on tectonics and ancient carbon cycles. And I don't see anything he's written that pertains to modern climate research, or even disputes the recent conclusions of IPCC, NRC or NAS.



Ancient carbon cycles, natural variation, and ancient paleoclimate have all been exhaustively reviewed by modern climate researchers, and the IPCC reports. The modern and rapid rise in temperature cannot plausibly be scientifically explained by natural variation


Yo man, this link has all the current and modern research on climate science that will answer all your questions on how they determined the human signature in recent climate change.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1



Please stop wasting my time man, with hopelessly outdated links, blogs, and OpEd columns.

So, where is the MODERN data showing the data presented is outdated? Or are you just using publication date as an excuse?

The latter, obviously, since the analysis is using paleodata gathered over a large number of years, just as ACC analysis is based on data gathered over a large number of years. The idea that a 9 year old analysis is "hopelessly" out of date is absurd in the extreme - unless you have reference to an newer analysis that shows errors in the older. Do you? No, all you have is IPCC propaganda sheets.

Is Einstein's original paper on special relativity "hopelessly out of date"? Surely it has been added to, portions supported by experimental data, etc. But out of date simply due to publication date? Hardly.

And I have addressed your pathetic Q&A crap before. All you present is conclusions. Where is the supporting data? Where is the analysis leading to the conclusions? Where is the methodology of the analysis? These are the things of REAL science: hypothesis, method(s) of gathering and testing data, analysis methods, and conclusion. The links I provide have these things included in them. NONE of yours even come close. (though I still wonder at the audacity of criticizing my references, then you use YOURSELF in a POLITICAL BLOG as a reference. Talk about hypocrisy in action!)

You are a hack. Pure and simple. A stupid one at that. You prove time and again that you will find an excuse, no matter how lame, to reject out of hand anything that does not step heel-and-toe with your religion. Pathetic dweeb pretending to have a brain. Can you even read a genuine scientific article, or do you need some other political hacks to condense it for you into a consensus report?