Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y1x0ljvT

Answer me this all ye that believe you can change global climate patterns
Why would anyone follow this guys logic?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/opinion/friedman-is-it-weird-enough-yet.html?_r=1&hp

Friedman studied at the University of Minnesota for two years but later transferred to Brandeis University and graduated summa cum laude in 1975 with a degree in Mediterranean studies. He then attended St Antony's College at the University of Oxford on a Marshall scholarship, earning an M.Phil. in Middle Eastern studies. He names Professor Albert Hourani among his important academic influences.

Over this guys logic?

Ivar Giaever (Giæver, born April 5, 1929, in Bergen, Norway) is a physicist, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson "for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids". Giaever's share of the prize was specifically for his "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in ... superconductors". Giaever is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied Biophysics.

Incontrovertible evidence? I think not.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Ivar Giaever

He sounds like a goddamn foreigner.

"Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier."

Question: If this rate of global warming is unprecedented, how do we know what the rules are? Don't you need to have some sort of baseline and experience to draw from in order to postulate such "rules"? Seems to me that we've only been keeping records for maybe 100 - 150 years. A fucking microsecond of a microsecond's microsecond in Earth's timeline.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

God is making the earth warmer because he hates gay marriage and abortion. Our punishment is due!!

Warhawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Remember the first rule of global warming. The
> way it unfolds is really “global weirding.”
> The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the
> wets wetter; and the dries get drier."
>
> Question: If this rate of global warming is
> unprecedented, how do we know what the rules are?
> Don't you need to have some sort of baseline and
> experience to draw from in order to postulate such
> "rules"? Seems to me that we've only been keeping
> records for maybe 100 - 150 years. A fucking
> microsecond of a microsecond's microsecond in
> Earth's timeline.

From what I recall, they have been able to determine temps much further back with ice drilling. They drill a cylinder of ice from hundreds of feet down and can gain a lot of info about what was happening on the surface of the earth from years previous.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warhawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Remember the first rule of global warming. The
> > way it unfolds is really “global weirding.”
> > The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter;
> the
> > wets wetter; and the dries get drier."
> >
> > Question: If this rate of global warming is
> > unprecedented, how do we know what the rules
> are?
> > Don't you need to have some sort of baseline
> and
> > experience to draw from in order to postulate
> such
> > "rules"? Seems to me that we've only been
> keeping
> > records for maybe 100 - 150 years. A fucking
> > microsecond of a microsecond's microsecond in
> > Earth's timeline.
>
> From what I recall, they have been able to
> determine temps much further back with ice
> drilling. They drill a cylinder of ice from
> hundreds of feet down and can gain a lot of info
> about what was happening on the surface of the
> earth from years previous.


Duh, I completely forgot about that. Shame on me for forgetting about my lessons in paleo-climatology class. I paid good money for that education! However, I guess my point would be that while you could tell what global temperatures were at certain points in time, I have to believe that it would be difficult to speak to "global weirding" as a rule.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2011 11:22AM by Warhawk.

"global weirding"

That phrase is hilarious.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is making the earth warmer because he hates
> gay marriage and abortion. Our punishment is
> due!!

You jest but still make more sense than Algore

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warhawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Remember the first rule of global warming. The
> > way it unfolds is really “global weirding.”
> > The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter;
> the
> > wets wetter; and the dries get drier."
> >
> > Question: If this rate of global warming is
> > unprecedented, how do we know what the rules
> are?
> > Don't you need to have some sort of baseline
> and
> > experience to draw from in order to postulate
> such
> > "rules"? Seems to me that we've only been
> keeping
> > records for maybe 100 - 150 years. A fucking
> > microsecond of a microsecond's microsecond in
> > Earth's timeline.
>
> From what I recall, they have been able to
> determine temps much further back with ice
> drilling. They drill a cylinder of ice from
> hundreds of feet down and can gain a lot of info
> about what was happening on the surface of the
> earth from years previous.

Don't forget the "tree ring " studies they were trying to massage in the infamous cover up attempt by East Anglia professors. That is part of the "silliness" I'm sure that fucking loser Friedman wants us to forget.

He's not a climatologist. This is like a climatologist resigning over a conflict related to quantum singularities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

See, you all missed it - the Little Ice Age was caused by humans killing off all the megafauna (see Mammoths). Once those bovine like creatures were no longer around to produce methane farts, the temperature dropped.

All I have to say is LOL

Mammoth farts could have stopped the ice age 12,000 years ago
http://io9.com/5545910/mammoth-farts-could-have-stopped-the-ice-age-12000-years-ago
When humans migrated to the Americas roughly 13 thousand years ago, they hunted megafauna like mammoths to extinction. The result? Scientists say that without giant animal farts, there was a massive depletion in atmospheric methane, possibly causing an ice age...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's not a climatologist. This is like a
> climatologist resigning over a conflict related to
> quantum singularities.

Word up, Hommie.

He won the prize in 1973. The Same year that all the Conservatives thinking stopped at.

So much for the dramatic sea level rise that was predicted.

Sea Level Continues Its Historic Decline
http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/sea-level-continues-historic-decline
The latest sea level numbers are out, and Envisat shows that the two year long decline is continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.

No doubt Al Gore will pass this good news on to all his viewers this afternoon. James Hansen expects sea level to rise a few mm per day, towards the end of the century. No natural heat source has been discovered which could produce enough heat to melt that much ice, so perhaps aliens will zap Greenland with laser beams.

LOL

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's not a climatologist. This is like a
> climatologist resigning over a conflict related to
> quantum singularities.


+1 it's amazing how you cut through all the hilarity of others.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He won the prize in 1973. The Same year that all
> the Conservatives thinking stopped at.


What are the odds? Is that the same year you started ending sentences with a preposition?

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist 1970

More stories you won't see in MSM. So, now that climate change has supposedly gotten worse, and we should have believed AlGore years ago when he said we only had 10 years to turn this all around... the glaciers in Alaska grew for the first time in 250 years or so... Cause and effect seem to be completely mismatched to the events AlGore is predicting.

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm

Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers
http://www.adn.com/2008/10/13/555283/bad-weather-was-good-for-alaska.html
...Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too....

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

Right up there with Green Jobs.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More stories you won't see in MSM. So, now that
> climate change has supposedly gotten worse, and we
> should have believed AlGore years ago when he said
> we only had 10 years to turn this all around...
> the glaciers in Alaska grew for the first time in
> 250 years or so... Cause and effect seem to be
> completely mismatched to the events AlGore is
> predicting.
>
> Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
> http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for
> +First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm
>
> Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers
> http://www.adn.com/2008/10/13/555283/bad-weather-w
> as-good-for-alaska.html
> ...Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in
> Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of
> 2007-2008.
>
> Unusually large amounts of winter snow were
> followed by unusually chill temperatures in June,
> July and August.
>
> "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at
> sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S.
> Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On
> the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of
> new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in
> late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am
> studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation,
> did not become snow free until early August.
>
> "In general, the weather this summer was the worst
> I have seen in at least 20 years."
>
> Never before in the history of a research project
> dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield
> witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this
> year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers
> too....


LOL you are a dumbass. So ONE summer out 250 and its all good again? What an Jackass you are.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL you are a dumbass. So ONE summer out 250 and
> its all good again? What an Jackass you are.

Well lets see - in the 1970s it was the coming Ice Age, and then it was Global Warming - now it's climate change. Yet in all the time that we are now being told it is even worse than before, suddenly we actually get a year of growth out of the glaciers that have not seen growth in more than 250 years. So, is the climate change warming, or cooling? Or... as many of us know, it is just normal that the earth gets warmer or cooler depending on the output of the Sun, and other factors such as cosmic radiation, cloud formation, etc. The cult of CO2 = heat have a problem, as the CO2 has continued to increase, and yet it has gotten cooler over the last few years - nothing their models predicted. They were clamoring on how there would be no more snow 10 years ago, and yet, we have had record snows all over the place in recent years. The answer is obvious - they don't know shit - they are just capitalizing on weather events as they always have to try and sell you a pet rock. All I am pointing out is, they haven't gotten it right yet, so why in the world should anyone spend billions of dollars supporting something that isn't happening even by their own measurements. You know the Ocean levels went down this year right? ( http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/nasa_notes_sea_level_is_falling_in_press_release_but_calls_it_a_pothole_on_/ ) And even their chart only shows a slope of 3.2mm per year (based on a very short chart in range of years likely due to how long they have actually been able to measure it - and coinciding with some of the warmer years in the record) - a lot less than anything predicted by anyone's climate models - even if this year is just a pothole as they say.

Because they aren't as hot, the volume of water decreased - because yes, the Sun wasn't putting out as much energy and hasn't been for the last few years. And additionally they indicated a lot of rain fell from evaporating sea water and was retained by land (as ice or other things like lakes, etc).

Who's that jackass here? Yeah, that would be you as you stick your head in the sand again.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 11:09AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL you are a dumbass. So ONE summer out 250
> and
> > its all good again? What an Jackass you are.
>
> Well lets see - in the 1970s it was the coming Ice
> Age, and then it was Global Warming - now it's
> climate change. Yet in all the time that we are
> now being told it is even worse than before,
> suddenly we actually get a year of growth out of
> the glaciers that have not seen growth in more
> than 250 years. So, is the climate change warming,
> or cooling? Or... as many of us know, it is just
> normal that the earth gets warmer or cooler
> depending on the output of the Sun, and other
> factors such as cosmic radiation, cloud formation,
> etc. The cult of CO2 = heat have a problem, as the
> CO2 has continued to increase, and yet it has
> gotten cooler over the last few years - nothing
> their models predicted. They were clamoring on how
> there would be no more snow 10 years ago, and yet,
> we have had record snows all over the place in
> recent years. The answer is obvious - they don't
> know shit - they are just capitalizing on weather
> events as they always have to try and sell you a
> pet rock. All I am pointing out is, they haven't
> gotten it right yet, so why in the world should
> anyone spend billions of dollars supporting
> something that isn't happening even by their own
> measurements. You know the Ocean levels went down
> this year right? (
> http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/na
> sa_notes_sea_level_is_falling_in_press_release_but
> _calls_it_a_pothole_on_/ ) And even their chart
> only shows a slope of 3.2mm per year (based on a
> very short chart in range of years likely due to
> how long they have actually been able to measure
> it - and coinciding with some of the warmer years
> in the record) - a lot less than anything
> predicted by anyone's climate models - even if
> this year is just a pothole as they say.
>
> Because they aren't as hot, the volume of water
> decreased - because yes, the Sun wasn't putting
> out as much energy and hasn't been for the last
> few years. And additionally they indicated a lot
> of rain fell from evaporating sea water and was
> retained by land (as ice or other things like
> lakes, etc).
>
> Who's that jackass here? Yeah, that would be you
> as you stick your head in the sand again.

So you are hanging your hat and you whole argument on ONE good year? rather than ALL the overwhelming evidence? You sound like John mcain did when he pronounced the Economy "fundamentally sound" The Earth is being profoundly effected by human activity. The evidence is all around. And AND not just because ALASKA. ONE SMALL region of the world had ONE good year. DUMBASS you are.

Another good one - it seems AlGore is doomed whenever he calls some sort of summit, meeting or other time to expound on his failed narrative.

Summer Snow Falls on Mauna Kea after Al Gore’s “24-Hours of Reality” broadcasts from Hawaii
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5076/Summer-Snow-Falls-on-Mauna-Kea-after-Al-Gores-24Hours-of-Reality-broadcasts-from-Hawaii.aspx
...Al Gore treated the globe to “24 Hours of Reality” Wednesday and Thursday, but before the finale, Mother Nature stepped in with a show of her own.

As Hour Six opened from the Hilo, Hawaii offices of the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory, Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz warned ominously that Hawaii is “particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”

Schatz mentioned, “rising sea levels, impacts to marine and costal eco-systems, and impacts to our fresh water supply from encroachment of sea water into our aquifers.”

The Lieutenant Governor didn’t mention “summer snow”, but that is exactly what Hawaii received. By sunrise, the crown of Mauna Kea--clearly visible across the saddle from the CO2 observatory on Mauna Loa--was dusted with about an inch of the white stuff. ...

On May 21, 2007, the late Augie Auer, Chief of the Meteorological Service of New Zealand, said of Global Warming: “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years.”

His prediction has come true eight months early.

Snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming predictions
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
...“Science is and always has been a work in progress,” Thompson said. “As scientists, we publish the data based on our best understanding of that data at the time. That is the way science works.”

“When we went to Kilimanjaro to conduct this research in 2000, there had not been any studies conducted on those ice fields for 30 years,” he said.

Hardy says that since their initial visit to the mountain, the researchers have made periodic return trips to collect data. They found that although the glaciers cover less and less area, they are not losing thickness at the pace expected, and it is the thickness that will allow the glaciers to persevere for longer.

“Since 2000, we’ve lost about 30 percent of the ice area as of 2009, but the thickness of at least the main glacier, the northern ice field, hasn’t changed a great deal. It was 50 meters thick then and now it’s on the order of 45 meters thick,” he said.

Lack of long-term data concerning the thickness of the glaciers is what undermined their forecast, Hardy said. “Before 2000, we had no reference for how to treat the thinning other than by looking at historical photographs.”

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction “is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.”...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are hanging your hat and you whole argument
> on ONE good year?

Again, read much? Reading comprehension not your forte? That much is OBVIOUS.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005 PRIMAILY DUE TO the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels. The rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years and temperatures are certain to go up further.

"95% water vapour" Global warming debunked by New Zealand Meteorologist
http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/849/quot95-water-vapourquot-Global-warming-debunked-by-New-Zealand-Meteorologist.aspx
...A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047, and 0.046 per cent respectively.

“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.

“We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.” ...

So humans contribute 3.2% of the overall CO2 in the atmosphere - of which that is only 3.6% in total of the atmosphere. Yeah, I can see how our cutting CO2 emissions is going to make a significant impact... NOT.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you are hanging your hat and you whole
> argument
> > on ONE good year?
>
> Again, read much? Reading comprehension not your
> forte? That much is OBVIOUS.


again got Blinders MUCH? unreasonably partisan much? NOT BELIEVING IT SINCE ITS A LIBERAL AGENDA MUCH?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> again got Blinders MUCH? unreasonably partisan
> much? NOT BELIEVING IT SINCE ITS A LIBERAL AGENDA
> MUCH?

I am showing you actual observable science that flies totally in the face of any of the models that account for the doom and gloom of the left's agenda. So please - show me the observable scientific information that shows the opposite. Otherwise the only parrot here is you furbrain.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

ok I'll take your New zealand Climatoligist (really?) a FUCKING Climatoligist from NEW ZEALAND IS ALL YOU HAVE?!?!?!??!

and RAISE YOU a NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U.K. Meterological (Met) Office.


THIS IS NASA. AND THE UK MET. not some sheep fucker form new Zealand.

In your view, what's the most compelling piece of evidence for global warming?
The most compelling piece of evidence that the public are aware of is the increase in the surface temperature of the planet. And that's certainly very compelling, but I don't think it's enough on its own to make the case. What's really important is to look at all sorts of other aspects of the climate system that are now providing us with an increasingly compelling case that something is happening to our climate and that it is indeed warming. Things like the decline in Arctic sea ice and the warming not just of the surface of the oceans, but down to several hundred meters in depth.

There are other more unusual pieces of compelling evidence, such as the fact that the atmosphere above the troposphere — the part where our weather doesn't really exist, which we call the stratosphere — is systematically cooling. It’s very difficult to explain that cooling except from the ways in which we’re altering the carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere, which we believe are leading to the warming that we see.

So it’s a whole basket of measures, and it’s very important to take a complete view — a holistic view — of what’s happening to the planet to provide us with the compelling evidence that we need to take action and that something is happening.


What’s the "smoking gun"of man-made global warming?
It’s the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Those levels have been rising systematically ever since the Industrial Revolution, and, in fact, have risen very rapidly over the last fifty years, so that the levels we now measure in the atmosphere are at least a third higher than they’ve been for at least 800,000 years. But, of course, that’s not enough to prove that it’s human activities that are leading to that rise. We can also tell that a lot of the extra carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is coming from very ancient carbon — it isn’t the result of our current biosphere changing its activity or anything like that. This is ancient carbon that’s being released into the atmosphere — in other words, through burning fossil fuels.

The other piece of evidence that really links into this is that if we look at oxygen levels in the atmosphere, they have been declining over the last fifty years. The latest measurements show that quite clearly, and, again, it’s entirely consistent with the combustion [of fossil fuels]. So it’s the burning of ancient carbon that’s leading to the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the decline in oxygen. There’s a complete story here, for which there is no other explanation, really, than it is our activities and ways of generating energy that are causing our climate to change.

How confident are scientists that the global warming we’re seeing today is man-made?
We’re 90 percent certain that what we’re seeing is manmade. As a physicist, it’s very hard to think of any other explanation. It makes sense scientifically. It makes sense in terms of the fundamental physics of how the climate system works. Yes, there are other things that could come into play, and we may have missed something, but actually the physics is so robust that we are very confident indeed.
What role should climate scientists play in shaping or informing future policy?
I think it’s really important that scientists do not get involved in shaping policy. We have to be independent. We have to keep scrupulously to the science and present it in a very objective, rational and honest way. Our role is purely to provide the best scientific evidence to policymakers to enable them to do their job. Therefore, there has to be a very clear divide between the two.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=506

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to
> 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906
> and 2005 PRIMAILY DUE TO the greenhouse gases
> released as people burn fossil fuels. The rate of
> temperature increase has nearly doubled in the
> last 50 years and temperatures are certain to go
> up further.



Notice the 13 month running average and the overall average indicators (the sine wave) and you will nothing like any of the current IPCC gloom and doom models of temperature change have predicted.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The article you cite @ 11:24 AM is 4.5 years old.

I don't see too many sane people laughing about the Earth's rising temperature.

Global warming isn't a joke.

You are.

yes because massive industrialization in emerging countries and Rapid deforistation Wouldnt POSSIBLY effect the earth. No WAY!

From you clip - and it is hilarious that for the inclusion.

> How confident are scientists that the global
> warming we’re seeing today is man-made?

> We’re 90 percent certain that what we’re
> seeing is manmade. As a physicist, it’s very
> hard to think of any other explanation. It makes
> sense scientifically. It makes sense in terms of
> the fundamental physics of how the climate system
> works. Yes, there are other things that could come
> into play, and we may have missed something, but
> actually the physics is so robust that we are very
> confident indeed.

> What role should climate scientists play in
> shaping or informing future policy?

> I think it’s really important that scientists do
> not get involved in shaping policy....

Says the physicist providing data to a website run by the government that is currently promoting a policy on committing to combating climate change.

Yeah, that is some irrefutable evidence there furbrain.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes because massive industrialization in emerging
> countries and Rapid deforistation Wouldnt POSSIBLY
> effect the earth. No WAY!

Deforestation is most likely the strongest reason why we are seeing increases in CO2 today. They predicted that back before they started completely upending the Amazon rain forest. How does that still deal with man-made sources only contributing 3.2 percent of overall CO2? Deforestation is NOT what they are fighting unfortunately - if they were I would be all for planting tens of thousands of new trees.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 11:37AM by Registered Voter.

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> The article you cite @ 11:24 AM is 4.5 years old.
>
> I don't see too many sane people laughing about
> the Earth's rising temperature.

Where was the laughter?

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Mean global surface temperature anomalies (°C), 2001-2008
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 11:42AM by Registered Voter.

The graph below illustrates how the earth has warmed over the past 130 years due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's the APS's disclaimer about the article from which you lifted those nifty graphs:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be all for planting tens of thousands
> of new trees.

you're a regular fuckin Johnny Appleseed, douche

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2012 07:49PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------

I really wish Ferfux would punch you directly in your face.

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Here's the APS's disclaimer about the article from
> which you lifted those nifty graphs:
>
> The following article has not undergone any
> scientific peer review, since that is not normal
> procedure for American Physical Society
> newsletters. The American Physical Society
> reaffirms the following position on climate
> change, adopted by its governing body, the APS
> Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of
> greenhouse gases from human activities are
> changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the
> Earth's climate."

OOOOOH BURN!!!!!!

Alias Wrote:

>
> And, the award for the first poster on the thread
> to resort to ad hominem attacks goes to....
> (pretty girl with plunging neckline opening the
> envelope)..... ferfux!


Your Mom's an ad hominem

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From you clip - and it is hilarious that for the
> inclusion.
>
> > How confident are scientists that the global
> > warming we’re seeing today is man-made?
>
> > We’re 90 percent certain that what we’re
> > seeing is manmade. As a physicist, it’s very
> > hard to think of any other explanation. It
> makes
> > sense scientifically. It makes sense in terms
> of
> > the fundamental physics of how the climate
> system
> > works. Yes, there are other things that could
> come
> > into play, and we may have missed something,
> but
> > actually the physics is so robust that we are
> very
> > confident indeed.
>
> > What role should climate scientists play in
> > shaping or informing future policy?
>
> > I think it’s really important that scientists
> do
> > not get involved in shaping policy....
>
> Says the physicist providing data to a website run
> by the government that is currently promoting a
> policy on committing to combating climate change.
>
> Yeah, that is some irrefutable evidence there
> furbrain.


Registered voter, Proud Banner waver for the 10% who are wrong about Global warming and climate change!

I do remember two winters ago wanting to kick Al Gore right in the nuts while I was shoveling 2 feet of snow in the RECORD breaking blizzard in VA!

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2012 07:57PM by Alias.

It wasn't that long ago you would have been put in the nut house for saying that man can control the weather.

News flash !!NO ONE CAN OR EVER WILL BE ABLE TO EFFECT GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS!...STOP...

Pull the tin foil hat off your stupid skull and learn to listen...Listen to learn!

Everything is a crisis with these socialist idiots. They don't stop to think how they're being duped by a bunch of supposed climatology scientists that are reading freaking tree rings to prove a .5 increase in whatever over a period of 300 years.
Tree rings!

The broader story behind WAPOs article.

Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29



...Professor Giaever and the rank and file of scientists are increasingly aware that the ‘consensus’ Cohen and his collaborators alludes to is little more than 77 of 10,000 scientists polled.

Surge in Government Climate Experts Going Skeptic

To further llustrate just how off base Cohen’s spin really is just observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global warming junk science. (Hat Tip: The Galileo Movement).
...

50 Scientists that were involved with the IPCC that do NOT agree...

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

...

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

18. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

21. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

22. Dr Georg Kaser ( http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/georg-kaser) : "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

...

44. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

45. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

46. Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

48. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 03:53PM by Registered Voter.

Here is a great summary of articles from previous times including when the North Pole ice cap actually melted. Hmm...

Articles from early 1900s to today.

Been There, Done That In The Arctic
http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/arctic

Saturday, May 31, 1947


Friday, June 22, 1934


Saturday, May 26, 1906
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> News flash !!NO ONE CAN OR EVER WILL BE ABLE TO
> EFFECT GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS!...STOP...

NEWS FLASH: This discussion is about the global TEMPERATURE, not global WEATHER PATTERENS.

Before you try to converse with adults, you need to step up your game.

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > News flash !!NO ONE CAN OR EVER WILL BE ABLE TO
> > EFFECT GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS!...STOP...
>
> NEWS FLASH: This discussion is about the global
> TEMPERATURE, not global WEATHER PATTERENS.
>
> Before you try to converse with adults, you need
> to step up your game.

News Flash - they can't even predict the weather from day to day - what makes anyone truly believe they can predict climate changes over decades? In particular when their current conclusions have been shown to be completely wrong?

You must be one of those "useful idiots" they rely on to propagate the BS.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > News flash !!NO ONE CAN OR EVER WILL BE ABLE TO
> > EFFECT GLOBAL WEATHER PATTERNS!...STOP...
>
> NEWS FLASH: This discussion is about the global
> TEMPERATURE, not global WEATHER PATTERENS.
>
> Before you try to converse with adults, you need
> to step up your game.

NEWS FLASH! Global weather patterns, global warming, climate change, global temperature as you put it, it's all the same.......

La Nina is going to give us another cold and snowy winter...

La Nina’s Reprise has important implications globally
By Joe Bastardi and Joe D’Aleo
http://www.weatherbell.com/weather-news/la-ni-a-reprise-has-important-implications-globally/

PDF:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/La_Nina_Reprise_Implications_on_Upcoming_Winter_Globally.pdf

http://www.weatherbell.com/fitch/index.php?cmd=homepage

Most importantly, they are showing that based on what the ocean is doing, they can make better predictions of the weather patterns than what anyone else is doing right now with computer models. So even with dramatic rises in CO2, it appears the ocean can give us a better indication of what temperature trends are going to look like.

It seems like NOAA and NASA are behind the curve when it comes to the climate and weather - go figure.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Fuck.

I'm clearly going to have to make a thread to represent the skeptics.

I need some time to figure out how I can make my presentation simple enough for you mouth drooling obama supporters to understand simple logical concepts.

Yeah, I can see this is where we are heading...

An excellent bit of testimony by a professor of Physics who has been involved in climate change studies since the 1990s...

CLIMATE CHANGE
Statement of William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42
...The climate has changed many times in the past with no help by mankind. Recall that the Romans grew grapes in Britain around the year 100, and Viking settlers prospered on small farms in Greenland for several centuries during the Medieval Climate Optimum around 1100. People have had an urge to control the climate throughout history so I suppose it is no surprise that we are at it again today. For example, in June of 1644, the Bishop of Geneva led a flock of believers to the face of a glacier that was advancing “by over a musket shot” every day. The glacier would soon destroy a village. The Bishop and his flock prayed over the glacier, and it is said to have stopped. The poor Vikings had long since abandoned Greenland where the advancing glaciers and cooling climate proved much less susceptible to prayer. Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change. The widespread dissatisfaction of the people who were unfortunate enough to be the source of these sacrifices played an important part in the success of the Spanish conquest of Mexico. ...

Thank God the Christians finally came along with Jesus and got them to stop with the animal sacrifices... oh wait, they are talking about killing off cows now so maybe not...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Even better...

...The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel “1984:” “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I'll say it. The green movements goal has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with incapacitating mankind and destroying western civilization.

Here is Hansen's original predictions back from 1988 versus reality. Why anyone takes the guy seriously is beyond comprehension.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

The bottom line? Hansen's Scenario B is pretty close to the recorded observations and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!
Attachments:

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line? Hansen's Scenario B is pretty
> close to the recorded observations and certainly
> well within the error estimates of the real world
> changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10%
> overestimate of the forcings in a simple way,
> Scenario B would be right in the middle of the
> observed trends. It is certainly close enough to
> provide confidence that the model is capable of
> matching the global mean temperature rise!

Yeah, that sounds great except the actual numbers for CO2 are more or less what model A says, and the temperature numbers are nothing like what is predicted. And even better, where is the model that properly emulates the past temperature record? That is the point really. No one has a real handle on the reality - and the biggest problem for all of them is they try to paint this as some kind of horrible problem - when all you have to do is look back at the record to see the earth has experienced much warmer and colder times - and there was no one around to put artificial pressure on the system. Instead the record is very clear that the earth manages to get a lot hotter and a lot colder without any help from us at all. We are at the height of arrogance to believe we can truly control the weather or the climate. Even better, why does anyone believe that us handicapping ourselves while the Chinese continue to push ahead and build out power plants and other factories is a good idea? For every 1 coal plant we close, the Chinese are opening something like 5 or 6.

All this is with "climate change" is another scare tactic to funnel money to a different class of "fat cats" who are trying to maximize their profits (see Al Gore - the ultimate climate change hypocrite).

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Another for instance - the models are wrong as far as how much energy actually is radiated back into space. This is based on actual observed data - it clearly shows the Earth's atmosphere radiates a much larger amount of heat into space than anyone shows in their models.



140 decades of Climate Models vs. Observations
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-rest-of-the-cherries-140-decades-of-climate-models-vs-observations/
As you can see, the observations of the Earth (in blue, CERES radiative energy budget versus HadCRUT3 surface temperature variations) are outside the range of climate model behavior, at least over the span of time lags we believe are most related to feedbacks, which in turn determine the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. (See Lindzen & Choi, 2011 for more about time lags).

Now, at ZERO time lag, there are a few decades from a few models (less than 10% of them) which exceed the satellite measurements. So, would you then say that the satellite measurements are “not inconsistent” with the models? I wouldn’t.

Especially since the IPCC’s best estimate of future warming (about 3 deg C.) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is almost exactly the AVERAGE response of ALL of the climate models. Note that the average of all 140 model decades (dashed black line in the above graph) is pretty darn far from the satellite data.

So, even with all of 140 cherries picked, we still see evidence there is something wrong with the IPCC models in general. And I believe the problem is they are too sensitive, and thus are predicting too much future global warming.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Skeptics argue that we should wait till
climate models are completely certain
before we act on reducing CO2 emissions.
If we waited for 100% certainty, we would
never act. Models are in a constant state
of development to include more processes,
rely on fewer approximations and increase
their resolution as computer power develops.
The complex and non-linear nature of climate
means there will always be a process of
refinement and improvement. The main point
is we now know enough to act. Models have
evolved to the point where they successfully
predict long-term trends and are now developing
the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term
changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled
and empirical, tell us global temperatures will
change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Models don't need to be exact in every respect
to give us an accurate overall trend and its major
effects - and we have that now. If you knew there
were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't
get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a
seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than
90% probability, that humans are causing global
warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is
recklessly irresponsible.

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Skeptics argue that we should wait till
> climate models are completely certain
> before we act on reducing CO2 emissions.

Nice NON link btw to your usual source of brain function. ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=40 )

So, 30 years of models isn't enough for you huh?

Fucking lol.

30 years of FAILED models - sorry. The science has shown that CO2 is 3.6% of the atmosphere and of that, 3.2% is contributed by the actions of man burning fossil fuels. So... That is what the science really says. Anyone who believes that our moderation/reduction of 3.2% of 3.6% of the atmosphere is going to have some appreciable affect - in particular when you have 1.6 billion Chinese and another 1.3 Billion folks in India, plus a host of other 3rd world countries who could give a shit about how much CO2 they are going to produce when they just desperately need electricity - needs to get their heads examined.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2011 12:23PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So...when you have 1.6 billion Chinese and another
> 1.3 Billion folks in India, plus a host of other
> 3rd world countries who could give a shit about
> how much CO2 they are going to produce when they
> just desperately need electricity - needs to get
> their heads examined.

So your REAL argument has nothing to do with science.

Your honest position is: Other people on this planet
don't give a shit about its survival, so we, in the US,
shouldn't either. Brilliant.

In high school, you were that schmuck who was so desparate
to be liked that you'd do every dangerous, irresponsible,
stupid-assed thing the other morons did, just to be 'poular',
right?

Fucking lol, indeed.

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So your REAL argument has nothing to do with
> science.
>
> Your honest position is: Other people on this
> planet
> don't give a shit about its survival, so we, in
> the US,
> shouldn't either. Brilliant.
>

No, my real position has been stated clearly before this. My point here is that EVEN IF you were to believe the falsehood of man-made global warming - there is still nothing that you would be able to do about it.

"30 years of FAILED models - sorry. The science has shown that CO2 is 3.6% of the atmosphere and of that, 3.2% is contributed by the actions of man burning fossil fuels. So... That is what the science really says. " There is no correlation in observable indicators to show that there is a correlation between CO2 and warming that has anything to do with whatever it is the IPCC is basing it's alarmist claims on.

The only "fucking lol" here is you in your desperate ad hominem attacks in trying to sidetrack reality.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 30 years of FAILED models - sorry.

That is your opinion, nothing more.

As a skeptic of man's detrimental impact on
our environment, you seek out 'science' that
supports you opinion. Usually, this
amounts to crackpot 'research' and biased
'studies' design specifically to refute
what millions of legitimate scientists
have discovered over a generation of unbiased
work: The earth's temperature is rising
unnaturally due to the activities of man.

Bwahahaha!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bwahahaha!
>
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php


The OP, and most of the thread, is about the resignation of Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society over alarmist global warming claims.

The link you provide is about Richard Muller, a non-Nobel Prize winning physicist who did not resign from the APS and who is not mentioned a single time in this rather lengthy thread.

Bwahahaha fail.

WTL fail.

It is stuff like this that makes it clear that we are better adapting to a constantly changing world than trying to affect the environment in such macro ways that we don't even clearly understand.

Rapidly Inflating Volcano Creates Growing Mystery
http://www.livescience.com/16685-rapidly-inflating-volcano-creates-growing-mystery.html
...Uturuncu is a nearly 20,000-foot-high (6,000 meters) volcano in southwest Bolivia. Scientists recently discovered the volcano is inflating with astonishing speed.

"I call this 'volcano forensics,' because we're using so many different techniques to understand this phenomenon," said Oregon State University professor Shan de Silva, a volcanologist on the research team. [See images of the inflating volcano here.]

Researchers realized about five years ago that the area below and around Uturuncu is steadily rising — blowing up like a giant balloon under a wide disc of land some 43 miles (70 kilometers) across. Satellite data revealed the region was inflating by 1 to 2 centimeters (less than an inch) per year and had been doing so for at least 20 years, when satellite observations began.

"It's one of the fastest uplifting volcanic areas on Earth," de Silva told OurAmazingPlanet."What we're trying to do is understand why there is this rapid inflation, and from there we'll try to understand what it's going to lead to."

The peak is perched like a party hat at the center of the inflating area. "It's very circular. It's like a big bull's-eye," said Jonathan Perkins, a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who recently presented work on the mountain at this year's Geological Society of America meeting in Minneapolis.

Scientists figured out from the inflation rate that the pocket of magma beneath the volcano was growing by about 27 cubic feet (1 cubic meter) per second.

"That's about 10 times faster than the standard rate of magma chamber growth you see for large volcanic systems," Perkins told OurAmazingPlanet.

However, no need to flee just yet, the scientists said.

"It's not a volcano that we think is going to erupt at any moment, but it certainly is interesting, because the area was thought to be essentially dead," de Silva said...

There's some wishful thinking... They don't really know when or if this place will erupt (and it is part of the old super-volcanoes) but if does it will have a large effect everywhere. Let's say it takes 20-30 years (they only have the most recent 20 of satellite data) - it could have such a significant impact that everything folks are arguing about today would be moot.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is stuff like this that makes it clear that we
> are better adapting to a constantly changing world
> than trying to affect the environment in such
> macro ways that we don't even clearly understand.

Bullshit! The volcanic activity described in the
linked article has nothing to do with man-made climate
change.

Climate science has proven that the burning of
carbon-based, or "fossil", fuels by man has and continues
to cause a warming of the Earth's surface temperature.

Global weirding = Dune

Lyle The Science Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit! The volcanic activity described in the
> linked article has nothing to do with man-made
> climate
> change.
>
> Climate science has proven that the burning of
> carbon-based, or "fossil", fuels by man has and
> continues
> to cause a warming of the Earth's surface
> temperature.

You REALLY are an idiot, aren't you?

If a volcano of that magnitude did erupt, what do you think would happen to the supposed global warming? Barring a complete extinction event, I will give you one other guess. You really should learn to read and understand the premise before you shoot your single brain cell off.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University