Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

They may have fooled you but they have never fooled me.

Sorry to say your last post with a figure proves you're way easily fooled.

I should add that I have no bone to pick with you sir .... my angst is toward people who do not reveal the whole truth ... off camera we call them a bunch of liars , flown in luxury on multi million dollar budgets raised from school children and unsuspecting city folk.

My coded prediction I will reveal later , it is not a big deal , it is about my grade 9 education , which to some people puts me squarely in the redneckerson category. In other words I am simply an uneducated denier . Right ?

But WE are here the informal "representatives" of those people, so to speak, so there's no use to say you hate them and love us. It's a trick. And about your supposed redneckness there's no prejudice but your very posts which are earning for you the distrust held against those people that perorate like visitor professors about what they don't know nor are able to manage.

Behind every photographer is a helicopter pilot. Look between the cubs. I was there , I am there. Best wishes

You should be more careful to assert **** in these times of Internet applications. The image you linked is still from Norway and you forgot to explain that you have been a "helicopter pilot" in Norway and was present the time Gordon Buchanan was attacked, so we can safely say your whole identity and profile, redneckness and all, is a falsification, what was the strongest option here from the moment you started to post.

Anyway, I really like your decadent posts and I'm looking forward to continue our exchange.

Now I'm leaving to celebrate Christmas. There was 100°F out there a while ago, but now is just about 92. In sight of the next week forecast, undoubtedly the hottest December here ever.

Merry Christmas to all of you. See you tomorrow.

 

[r-j]

would you care to explain to me and others why did the Antarctic region radiate about the same -a bit less indeed- than its Arctic counterpart provided yesterday

You must be joking. It's like asking "would you care to explain to me why Antarctica, eastern Brazil, and the central US all are radiating the same amount of OLR? "

Where did all the heat go? How can the tropics, the south pole, and the central part of the US all show the same OLR?

I will wait a few days then ask somebody else to explain this to you.

 

[Trakar]

Most of the photos , videos , personnel , environmentalists , film crews , scientists , are transported by helicopters , all terrain vehicles , or snow machines.

Guys like me see it all , hear it all , and see the tremendous bias in the reporting . They exclusively follow their preset agenda they refuse to record or report anything not according to what they proclaim is happening

The Inuit Elder who comments about the increase in polar bears is edited out. The bleeding heart flown in from New York steps into the cold for 5 minutes and tells the world the Bears are facing extinction.

They may have fooled you but they have never fooled me.

I should add that I have no bone to pick with you sir .... my angst is toward people who do not reveal the whole truth ... off camera we call them a bunch of liars , flown in luxury on multi million dollar budgets raised from school children and unsuspecting city folk.

My coded prediction I will reveal later , it is not a big deal , it is about my grade 9 education , which to some people puts me squarely in the redneckerson category. In other words I am simply an uneducated denier . Right ?

Behind every photographer is a helicopter pilot. Look between the cubs. I was there , I am there. Best wishes

LLNL employs many maintenance and groundskeepers; working at LLNL does not mean you are automatically qualified to discuss the constraints of self-synchronization of particle beams and the theories upon which such practical expressions depend, much less the competencies of the engineers who maintain beam calibration.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You must be joking. It's like asking "would you care to explain to me why Antarctica, eastern Brazil, and the central US all are radiating the same amount of OLR? "http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/3332552b75df70f43b.gif
Where did all the heat go? How can the tropics, the south pole, and the central part of the US all show the same OLR?

I will wait a few days then ask somebody else to explain this to you.

Now, your flailing and ranting, trying to mock and distort the question. The whole sign of a defeated person.

I'll come back to what is left of your person tomorrow. Meanwhile do some of you quotation cut and pastes to entertain yourself. Here's an aid for your collages:

The whole sign of a defeated person.

 

[Arnold Martin]

I have been around for a long time and have seen it all.

Global warming has always concerned me
Global cooling has always concerned me

The planet has gone through some severe cycles in the past
And likely will again in the future

But mankind makes an error when he thinks he controls the thermostat of planet earth.

I was involved in some of the making of this video ... mainly the placing of weather sensors and flying scientists around the Far North.

Anyone who thinks Global Warming is frightening .... well 40 years ago Global Cooling was plain terrifying.

Back then the scientists did not blame mankind for the Cooling

The modern scientist makes an error when he blames mankind for the "lack of Cooling"

This is a sincere look at the havoc climate change caused back then , I was there , I lived through it , and I am thankful it ended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw#t=1272

 

[Trakar]

You are still avoiding the ones brought up.
I asked if anyone else agreed with the DC/macdoc "theory of AGW", which is claimed to be "a fact", which avoids the science completely. Nobody else has agreed with their definition.
We still haven't had anyone step up and provide a scientific theory, or theories, much less the predictions that would allow , from a scientific POV, a way to know if the theory is correct. Here it is used in two seemingly different ways. As AGW, and as theory of global warming.
So we are still talking about "it", but aside from myself, no one has linked to "the theory", much less met the scientific burden of explaining the predictions, that would allow us to know if the theory is correct.

Remember as well, that several people denied there is any such theory. If you think such bold claims are forgotten, you would be unscientific.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

So it's not hard for even the casual observer to note several things being claimed here.

AGW is a fact, not a theory or hypothesis..
AGW does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia.
AGW is well known.
AGW is a theory.
AGW is not a theory.
AGW can't be proved wrong with out our "fundamental understanding of physics" being overturned.
AGW just is and most people know it.
AGW is something deniers made up.
Asking about what AGW means is considered trolling.
AGW doesn't need to be proven, it just is how it is.


There's a lot more to be found.(this seems to have been discussed here for about the last decade)

You might think there could be some confusion over what AGW is.

Your rant is unsupported by what you present as supporting evidences.

 

[Trakar]

Cool photos. You should start a topic about your life out there, it would be interesting. These global warming threads are not for reality.

Oh please! If this makes you angry, you need to turn off the computer, or phone. Speaking of which, while I don't believe in you-know-what, that doesn't save me from the festivities.

You still haven't explained what you are talking about,much less what predictions are made. In essence you have "something", you call it AGW, but it isn't science.

that continues to be your unsupported and incorrect assertion

 

[Trakar]

Sorry to say your last post with a figure proves you're way easily fooled.



But WE are here the informal "representatives" of those people, so to speak, so there's no use to say you hate them and love us. It's a trick. And about your supposed redneckness there's no prejudice but your very posts which are earning for you the distrust held against those people that perorate like visitor professors about what they don't know nor are able to manage.



You should be more careful to assert **** in these times of Internet applications. The image you linked is still from Norway and you forgot to explain that you have been a "helicopter pilot" in Norway and was present the time Gordon Buchanan was attacked, so we can safely say your whole identity and profile, redneckness and all, is a falsification, what was the strongest option here from the moment you started to post.

Anyway, I really like your decadent posts and I'm looking forward to continue our exchange.

Now I'm leaving to celebrate Christmas. There was 100°F out there a while ago, but now is just about 92. In sight of the next week forecast, undoubtedly the hottest December here ever.

Merry Christmas to all of you. See you tomorrow.

Merry Christmas to those in the "lower" hemisphere!

 

[Arnold Martin]

As you're so knowledgeable in science, I hope you'll or your Jules Galen will answer the question Arnold Martin passed so far. Here goes again:

So you are versed enough in polar regions to answer this, my question:

This is the outgoing longwave radiation for yesterday, December 21st (click on for a larger version)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3332552b75df70f43b.gif[/qimg]

Look carefully the region between 75N and 90N and appreciate how about a half of it -a tiny little bit less than a half- radiated more than 180 W/m2, with regions where the figure was even above 220 W/m2.

Now look carefully at the region between 75S and 90S and appreciate how about a half of it -a not so tiny bit less than a half- radiated more that 180W/m2 with no region radiating more than 220.

Got the facts?

As yesterday was the longest day in the year -in the hemisphere that matters the most regarding the planet's energy budget- would you care to explain to me and others why did the Antarctic region radiate about the same -a bit less indeed- than its Arctic counterpart provided yesterday was a 24-hour night in the Arctic and a 24-hour day -with the sun up to 38.5° above the horizon at midday- in the Antarctic region? Where does all that heat in the North come from?

Before making any wrong speculation, take a look to the anomalies in OLR for yesterday (again, click on the image for a larger version and to see how I'm roasting here now):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3332552b76110cb962.gif[/qimg]

so, as you can surely appreciate, the Antarctic is in "business as normal" while the Arctic is radiating way above the normal. Again, why is that so? I assure you in the end this will relate with those funny, rioting, nice polar bears you cared to mention.

I hope other eager newcomers like Jules, Arnold et al will also dive in to reply these questions. If not -in a few days- I'll invite the normal crowd to reply.

I'm gonna think other interesting questions for some other nice visitors who are eager to engage in debate, no matter who -the feistier(livelier), the merrier-.

C'mon r-j, Jules Galen, Haig, jobberone, Arnold Martin, AlBell, skeptsci, mhaze, furcifer, justinian, Herzblut, Wangler, everybody in the denialist bunch who participated in the last few weeks, answer this. It's so easy. If you know the science as much as many of you claim to do.

I'll be adding more easy questions for denialists, and once they fail or refuse to answer -I hope not- for everybody else, on a weekly -or shorter- basis.

Nice try my friend , your anomaly in your pretty pictures tries to tell the world the arctic is warm .... my problem is that my thermometer said otherwise.

Who should we believe ?

If you were an honest researcher you would also have included all the pretty pictures showing unusual cooling.

 

[lionking]

Nice try my friend , your anomaly in your pretty pictures tries to tell the world the arctic is warm .... my problem is that my thermometer said otherwise.

Who should we believe ?

If you were an honest researcher you would also have included all the pretty pictures showing unusual cooling.

Are you going to post any evidence at all? All you have are assertions and anecdotes.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Sorry to say your last post with a figure proves you're way easily fooled.



But WE are here the informal "representatives" of those people, so to speak, so there's no use to say you hate them and love us. It's a trick. And about your supposed redneckness there's no prejudice but your very posts which are earning for you the distrust held against those people that perorate like visitor professors about what they don't know nor are able to manage.



You should be more careful to assert **** in these times of Internet applications. The image you linked is still from Norway and you forgot to explain that you have been a "helicopter pilot" in Norway and was present the time Gordon Buchanan was attacked, so we can safely say your whole identity and profile, redneckness and all, is a falsification, what was the strongest option here from the moment you started to post.

Anyway, I really like your decadent posts and I'm looking forward to continue our exchange.

Now I'm leaving to celebrate Christmas. There was 100°F out there a while ago, but now is just about 92. In sight of the next week forecast, undoubtedly the hottest December here ever.

Merry Christmas to all of you. See you tomorrow.

I also fight fires in Greece , Norway is close by comparison , I am only in Churchill for the Polar Bear tourist season ... which unfortunately ended much too early because everything froze over way ahead of schedule.

I wish the darn planet would obey the warmists predictions .... that way I would still be flying and making money instead of typing truthful things on this forum.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Are you going to post any evidence at all? All you have are assertions and anecdotes.

Much easier if you post them .... I am talking about the cooling trends since 1998 .... the ones you conveniently leave out of the equation.

Maybe "cooling Trends" is the wrong phrase ... "Warming has plateaued" would be more appropriate.

By the way I wish Global warming would continue , it has many benefits , I am not afraid of warming , I am terrified of governments who employ biased scientists to gain control .

Thankfully Kyoto failed and Copenhagen died in its sleep

Remember that ??

Cant fool all the people all the time.

Why are you so afraid of indications the planet may have stopped warming ? I would think you should jump with glee if the danger has passed.

 

[r-j]

AGW is falsifiable.

Still no evidence for your claim. No link to the theory. No predictions. No explanation of how we can tell if it's AGW causing the warming. No science at all.

Certainly this doesn't mean much about "AGW", whatever "it" means. But it says volumes about the people posting about it.

There are a lot of people using the terms "AGW". "global warming" and "climate change", and they use them all as if they all mean the same thing. (they certainly don't of course). And people say a lot of crazy and unscientific things, as if they are some sort of "truth". "It's just a fact."

The increase of greenhouse gas concentration (mainly carbon dioxide) led to a substantial warming of the earth and the sea, called global warming. In other words: The increase in the man-made emission of greenhouse gases is the cause for global warming. For the effects of global warming see below.

Effects of global warming
There are two major effects of global warming:

Increase of temperature on the earth by about 3° to 5° C (5.4° to 9° Fahrenheit) by the year 2100.
Rise of sea levels by at least 25 meters (82 feet) by the year 2100.

http://timeforchange.org/cause-and-effect-for-global-warming

These people and organisations actually seem insane in what they claim.
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...4/3462/the-top-100-effects-of-global-warming/

 

[Arnold Martin]

Are you going to post any evidence at all? All you have are assertions and anecdotes.

My biggest angst is the continuous use of assertions and anecdotes by the AWG crowd.

And for that reason I reply in kind

If all we had were honest scientists and researchers studying changing weather we would not have all the political propaganda . Nor would any of us have to stoop down to using assertions and anecdotes pretending it is science.

That would be my preference.

And be careful not to push the issue to far because I am liable to spend the next two days gleaning all the assertions and anecdotes employed by the AWG crowd in this thread.


Thank you and best wishes

 

[Jules Galen]

Effects of global warming

There are two major effects of global warming:
* Increase of temperature on the earth by about 3° to 5° C (5.4° to 9°
Fahrenheit) by the year 2100.
* Rise of sea levels by at least 25 meters (82 feet) by the year 2100.

All this- principally - from an increase in Carbon Dioxide? I doubt it, and so do a lot of Climate Scientists. I mean, it's no wonder that reputable Scientists like Richard Lindzen and Bill Gray think these Global-Warming Alarmists are clowns.

Now...I am not so arrogant as to believe that the Global Warming Alarmists are clowns - I think most are well-meaning people. However, they do demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge as to how Science is performed, and they seem way too influenced by political pressure.

 

[ideogram]

I am talking about the cooling trends since 1998

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

[ideogram]

they do demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge as to how Science is performed

I haven't seen any science in your posts.

 

[Trakar]

I have been around for a long time and have seen it all.

Global warming has always concerned me
Global cooling has always concerned me

The planet has gone through some severe cycles in the past
And likely will again in the future

But mankind makes an error when he thinks he controls the thermostat of planet earth.

I was involved in some of the making of this video ... mainly the placing of weather sensors and flying scientists around the Far North.

Anyone who thinks Global Warming is frightening .... well 40 years ago Global Cooling was plain terrifying.

Back then the scientists did not blame mankind for the Cooling

The modern scientist makes an error when he blames mankind for the "lack of Cooling"

This is a sincere look at the havoc climate change caused back then , I was there , I lived through it , and I am thankful it ended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw#t=1272

So you drag forth more canards in an attempt to support your previous conspiracy tale?

Actually, back in the 70's we not only blamed mankind for the cooling, we established that it was the emissions from high-sulfur coal power plants that were the primary forcing for that "cooling."

Atmospheric Particles and Climate: The Impact of Man’s Activities
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-5779-6_2#page-1

Early Computer Climate Models
Mid-to-late 1970s
Early computer models of the global climate attempted to factor in aerosols. It was a daunting task: A wide spectrum of aerosols exists in the atmosphere—small sulfate particles, salt crystals from the oceans, soot, and many others. How these particles, at various heights, cause absorption or reflection of the sun's radiation was poorly understood. Yet different groups of modelers came to the same tentative conclusion. Human-made aerosols, they found, were contributing to cloud formation, increasing the planet's reflectivity, and causing a modest cooling. Some scientists even suggested that air pollution, if unrestrained, might trigger a new ice age. Yet great uncertainty remained over how the complex mix of pollution affected the climate.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html

MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.58.11.2043

"Atmospheric aerosols: increased concentrations during the last decade."
Science. 1968 Oct 4;162(3849):120-1

The possibility of climate modification resulting from increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols has been a popular topic of discussion in meteorology. McCormick and Ludwig explored this idea from the viewpoint that man-made pollutants are the source of increasing numbers of aerolsols.

And of course such has been amply demonstrated and confirmed in the last four decades.

 

[Trakar]

Much easier if you post them .... I am talking about the cooling trends since 1998 .... the ones you conveniently leave out of the equation.

This is because there are no sustained global cooling trends in evidence in the observed and measured scientific data.

 

[macdoc]

reputable Scientists like Richard Lindzen

“Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/09/203788/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

pardon my laughter... just more koolaid.

•••

If all we had were honest scientists and researchers studying changing weather we would not have all the political propaganda . Nor would any of us have to stoop down to using assertions and anecdotes pretending it is science.

It's not weather it's climate and you sir are a fossil fuel shill. You have no interest in climate science.

The major companies are pulling out of the climate denial game. Exxon is gone, GM is gone,

General Motors Decides Climate Change Is Real, Pulls Support ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../general-motors-heartland-institute-climate-c...‎
Mar 30, 2012 - After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has ... acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change ...

Ford and Toyota no longer want to pay to distort and pulled out a while ago...
All you have left is a shrill bunch of clowns as well evidenced here who are joining forces with the anti-evolution dolts in a last gasp anti-science effort.

Much has been made lately of the Heartland’s Institute’s implosion over it extreme position on climate change. In February there was the revelation of internal strategy documents that included a plan to promote climate change scepticism in schools. In early May they unveiled a billboard equating those who believe in global warming with the Unabomber.

In the resulting uproar, nearly 50% of the Heartland Institute’s projected corporate donors for 2012 have pulled out. The funding drop has been so dire that at Heartland’s latest climate change sceptics conference in Chicago last month, Heartland president Joe Bast was reduced to asking the audience to find a ‘rich uncle’ to fund future conferences.

But the most telling outcome may prove to be the defection of Heartland’s entire Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate division. As team leader Eli Lehrer told the Guardian

"As somebody who deals mostly with insurance I believe all risks have to be taken seriously and there certainly are some important climate and global warming related risks that must be taken account of in the insurance market.

Trivialising them is not consistent with free-market thought. Suggesting they are only thought about by people who are crazy is not good for the free market."

http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1634

and you still don't get it.....living in some alternate reality with Dear Anthony and Lord Monckton...