Global Skies Turn A Pale Anemic Shade Of White?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The left uses pseudo-scientific drivel to push it's views in a manner no different than theology. The vast majority of "climatologists" are no more scientifically qualified to explain my horoscope than they are the weather. Fluid or atmospheric dynamics requires a high end understanding of math and physics, something almost none of these charlatans posses. And that is before factors like the Sun are factored in.

Unless a so called "climatologist"posses at least the equivalent of a PhD in math and physics, ignore them. They can not possibly understand what they are espousing.

Your phraseology exposes your own prejudices.

Your phraseology exposes your own ignorance of the definition of the word prejudices.

Your phraseology sucks donkey dicks.

[Tyrannical]

The left uses pseudo-scientific drivel to push it's views in a manner no different than theology. The vast majority of "climatologists" are no more scientifically qualified to explain my horoscope than they are the weather. Fluid or atmospheric dynamics requires a high end understanding of math and physics, something almost none of these charlatans posses. And that is before factors like the Sun are factored in.

Unless a so called "climatologist"posses at least the equivalent of a PhD in math and physics, ignore them. They can not possibly understand what they are espousing.

Your phraseology exposes your own prejudices.

Your phraseology exposes your own ignorance of the definition of the word prejudices.

Your phraseology sucks donkey dicks.

Facts will sometimes do that to he frustrated

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He frustrated a lot, donk he?

[macdoc]

To bad you don't have any facts Ty - perhaps you can explain why the fossil fuel companies scientists drew their conclusions in 1990s
the effect of GHG on climate is incontrovertible-
or is that an inconvenient fact..

as to cred

Gavin Schmidt

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.

Michael E. Mann

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. His research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system.

Dr. Mann was a Lead Author on the Observed Climate Variability and Change chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report in 2001 and was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003. He has received a number of honors and awards including NOAA’s outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union.

Dr. Mann is author of more than 150 peer-reviewed and edited publications,

including these academies...

National Academies of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Science Academies of the G8+5 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), European Academy of Sciences and Arts, Australian Institute of Physics, and International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

on the other hand you have your lead denier Anthony Watts.
...a retired weatherman.

and when the denidiots hire a scientist to examine on of their claims......

oh my.....such a betrayal....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 94966.html

denying the obvious is so old and dead....but still a few about.

[Woodbutcher]

This is so foolish. You drag this out without even trying to understand what it means. Glaciation occurs due to changing earth orbit around the sun, and warming occurs when the orbit brings us back to the increased radiation. Increased radiation releases more CO2 and other greenhouse gases trapping more heat in, even without our help. BUT when we release the fossilised carbon into the atmosphere we increase the heat trapping beyond natural levels. We should be going towards glaciation now, instead the average temp is rising. AND the CO2 level is higher than anything you see on your chart. Everybody who drags this chart out immediately labels themselves as a fool, because they never bother to read how it really is explained. Just like asking:"But where is the missing link?"

If you knew as much as you pretend, you would have understood the point I made.
I've studied the insolation curves, due to the Milankovitch cycles. They IN NO WAY explain how global temperatures climb so steeply, and then plummet into a severe glaciation.
In fact, the rate of change at the 100,000 year interval is the weakest of all effects.
I suggest you study a bit, before you start banging on as if other people know nothing.
It's you that ends up looking foolish.

My point about the dive of temperatures into glaciation every 100,000 years is a known problem for the theory that the Milankovitch cycles drive the ice-age glaciations.
Look it up in wiki, if you would like a smattering of information.

So the fact remains that temperatures lead CO2 level by 750 years, never follow. And even when CO2 is at it's historic peak, global temperatures have plummeted on a regular basis, into a severe glaciation.

In other words, the FACTS say that CO2 has NEVER driven climate, as speculated that it should.

Instead of preaching, explain that, and you might deserve some credibility.

Try to fucking think for a change, dude. And look at your own chart. During that time shown CO2 never rose above 300ppm. All the variation in temperature was mostly due to Milankovich variation in earth's orbit. There was no CO2 forcing because the level of CO2 was too low, CO2 lagged behind. Now we are seeing CO2 driven temperature changes. FACT. And should you read Wikipedia about climate change, it agrees with the scientists, not you. Or do you just pick and choose phrases that suit your viewpoint. Who do you think is the authority on climate change anyway? You have never said it. Or do you deem yourself the expert. If you have articles that prove your point, let's see them. Otherwise I'm going to treat your statements regarding climate change as your opinions. And as such they have no weight.

[macdoc]

In other words, the FACTS say that CO2 has NEVER driven climate, as speculated that it should.

repeating a falsehood does not make it true and just your statement there says you don't understand the difference between a driver ( forcing ) and a feedback.
Perhaps improve your knowledge and explain your error - they even use the same chart....

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/20 ... te-system/

C02 is a driver when released as fossil C02 as it is now and as it was in the Siberian traps.

End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 89-111 (Volume publication date May 2012)
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105329
Jonathan L. Payne and Matthew E. Clapham
1Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305; email: jlpayne@stanford.edu
2Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064; email: mclapham@es.ucsc.edu

The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth's largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... Code=earth

In the normal carbon and Milankovich cycles it's a feedback that amplifies the primary driver's effect - it can both accelerate cooling ( by being absorbed into cooling oceans ) or accelerate warming by being released by a warming ocean as we have now and as occurs at the end of a cool phase Milankovich cycle.

Reality is...

it's getting warmer
we're responsible due primarily to release of fossil carbon.

Now for the nth time .......why would the fossil fuel company's own scientists confirm in the mid 90's what you fervently and wrongly deny even now.???

MM you simply flat out do not know or do not understand what you are talking about. C02 has been a primary driver of climate on a global scale twice.
Otherwise it is a feedback as noted above.

The first time it was a global driver the result was the Permian extinction....

The second time is now and we are releasing fossil C02 at a rate faster than the lead up to the Permian event.

There ARE consequences.....they ARE occurring now.

[Atheist-Lite]

The planet just got its lungs back? A week is a long time in science.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18396655

New holey material soaks up CO2

UK researchers have developed a porous material that can preferentially soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.

NOTT-202 is a "metal-organic framework" that works like a sponge, absorbing a number of gases at high pressures.

But as the pressure is reduced, CO2 is retained as other gases are released.

The development, reported in Nature Materials, holds promise for carbon capture and storage, or even for removing CO2 from the exhaust gases of power plants and factories.

Metal-organic frameworks have been considered promising structures to trap gases for a number of years. They are so named because they comprise atoms of a metallic element at their core, surrounded by scaffolds of longer, carbon-containing chains.

These complex molecules can be made to join together in frameworks that leave gaps suitable for capturing gases.

However, until now, such frameworks have been good primarily at gathering any gas passing through them; those that were selective for CO2 have proven to have a low capacity for storing the gas.

"Increasing the selectivity for CO2 in the presence of gaseous mixtures represents a major challenge if these systems are to find practical applications under dynamic conditions," the authors wrote.

The research started at the universities of Nottingham and Newcastle, where scientists discovered a chemical system that seemed to solve this problem of selectively storing a significant amount of CO2.

But to be sure of just what they had, they collaborated with a team at the Diamond Light Source in Oxfordshire and the Science and Technology Facilities Council's Daresbury Laboratory to get a microscopic look at what they had created.

Using X-ray diffraction and detailed computer models, the researchers found that NOTT-202 is made up of two different frameworks that slot together incompletely, leaving "nanopore" gaps particularly suited to gathering up CO2.

This two-part structure, the researchers claim, is an entirely new class of porous material.

(continued)

[mistermack]

All the variation in temperature was mostly due to Milankovich variation in earth's orbit.

You find it all so simple, don't you? That tells a story.
Look up the Milankovitch cyles, and you'll find more problems with it than evidence. There's not doubt that insolation levels will vary with the cycles. That's ALL.
There is no evidence that they have dictated climate. Some ice cores match at a superficial level, but not in the way that they should. The problems with Milankovitch are big and numerous.
But it's all so simple to you, isn't it? A headline is all you need.

There was no CO2 forcing because the level of CO2 was too low, CO2 lagged behind. Now we are seeing CO2 driven temperature changes. FACT.

OK, so now you admit what I've said so many times, the CO2 has NOT been shown to force the climate. Good. At least you're not a bleeding-obvious denier.

So what you're saying is that CO2 hasn't been a climate driver in the past 400,000 years, but now it will.
That's fair enough. Your guess is as good as mine.
The IPCC say it's about 9 to 1 odds that the warming we see is related to human-released CO2. They are very vague, deliberately so. CO2 only rose significantly about sixty years ago. But they include warming from about 120 years ago.
Nice double standard.

I disagree with the 9 to 1 odds. I think it's the other way around. But just like the IPCC, agree that there is a chance either way. We don't know.

All there is, is computer models, to say that the current warming is human-caused. And you can make them say just about anything you like.

So all there is is a tiny bit of warming, and a bunch of computer models. I'm hanging on to my overcoat, thanks.

By the way, there has been no warming for the last ten years, and Arctic ice is growing, year-on-year.

[Mysturji]

You need another poll option:
"Make your fucking minds up!"
Anyone remember not so many years ago when aerosols and acid rain were the greatest environmental threats the world had ever seen?
Now they want to aerosol the skies full of sulphur to save the planet.

[Woodbutcher]

All the variation in temperature was mostly due to Milankovich variation in earth's orbit.

You find it all so simple, don't you? That tells a story.
Look up the Milankovitch cyles, and you'll find more problems with it than evidence. There's not doubt that insolation levels will vary with the cycles. That's ALL.
There is no evidence that they have dictated climate. Some ice cores match at a superficial level, but not in the way that they should. The problems with Milankovitch are big and numerous.
But it's all so simple to you, isn't it? A headline is all you need.

There was no CO2 forcing because the level of CO2 was too low, CO2 lagged behind. Now we are seeing CO2 driven temperature changes. FACT.

OK, so now you admit what I've said so many times, the CO2 has NOT been shown to force the climate. Good. At least you're not a bleeding-obvious denier.

So what you're saying is that CO2 hasn't been a climate driver in the past 400,000 years, but now it will.
That's fair enough. Your guess is as good as mine.
The IPCC say it's about 9 to 1 odds that the warming we see is related to human-released CO2. They are very vague, deliberately so. CO2 only rose significantly about sixty years ago. But they include warming from about 120 years ago.
Nice double standard.

I disagree with the 9 to 1 odds. I think it's the other way around. But just like the IPCC, agree that there is a chance either way. We don't know.

All there is, is computer models, to say that the current warming is human-caused. And you can make them say just about anything you like.

So all there is is a tiny bit of warming, and a bunch of computer models. I'm hanging on to my overcoat, thanks.

By the way, there has been no warming for the last ten years, and Arctic ice is growing, year-on-year.

The twelve hottest years on record are since 1998. The arctic sea ice is disappearing 2.3% per year. What is your source of information? Tell it or forever shut up about climate change. All you ever say is your own opinions. That has no weight, especially since they invariably are incorrect. Also, you do not know what greenhouse gas does or does not do. So, WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR INFORMATION?

[macdoc]

OK, so now you admit what I've said so many times, the CO2 has NOT been shown to force the climate. Good. At least you're not a bleeding-obvious denier.

marked as brain dead write off at this point
over dose on Repuglican anti-science and can't/won't read. What a delusional world you inhabit.

C02 is a forcing right now and was then during the Siberian traps ---
-and don't put words in my mouth and you patronizing on the science is LOL of the day. You have haven't a clue on climate science or more likely know you're wrong and too much a coward to admit it.

--- I could give a fuck what you think ......- you're wrong on the risk and the science.
Go find some flat earth society to join - at least their harmless if also wrong.

The Arctic ice is is growing year over year is it ???? Now there's a claim that certainly shows your prowess
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/





The Ministry of Truth is alive and well....

[macdoc]

move on move on - nothing to see here...



In March 2012, 15000 warm temperature records broken in US ...
earthsky.org/.../in-march-2012-15000-warm-temperature-records-br...10 Apr 2012 – Some parts of the United States saw temperatures 20 to 40 degrees above average in March 2012.

Here’s the amazing fact regarding the record warmth: According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature for the contiguous United States was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average. Since record keeping began 117 years ago, only one month, January 2006, seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012. Exactly 15,272 warm temperature records were broken.

http://earthsky.org/earth/in-march-2012 ... oken-in-us

[mistermack]

OK, so now you admit what I've said so many times, the CO2 has NOT been shown to force the climate. Good. At least you're not a bleeding-obvious denier.

marked as brain dead write off at this point
over dose on Repuglican anti-science and can't/won't read. What a delusional world you inhabit.

C02 is a forcing right now and was then during the Siberian traps ---
-and don't put words in my mouth and you patronizing on the science is LOL of the day. You have haven't a clue on climate science or more likely know you're wrong and too much a coward to admit it.

--- I could give a fuck what you think ......- you're wrong on the risk and the science.
Go find some flat earth society to join - at least their harmless if also wrong.

The Arctic ice is is growing year over year is it ???? Now there's a claim that certainly shows your prowess
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Firstly, nobody put words in your mouth. I was replying to Woodbutcher, and the post was perfectly clear on that.

Secondly, YOUR OWN GRAPH above shows that the ice-extent for 2012 is well above 2007 and not much below the 20 year average for 1979 to 2000. Don't you even look at what you post?

And Woodbutcher, there is your source for what I said about the ice extent. Macdoc posted it for me. Kind of him, don't you think?

If you don't know what global temperatures are doing now, there's no hope for you, you're just blathering on without knowing anything.
In fact, global temperature trends haven't risen over the last FIIFTEEN years.
If you don't know that, then you should check up before you preach any more.

It's warm, it's stayed warm, but it hasn't got warmer.

[Woodbutcher]

OK, so now you admit what I've said so many times, the CO2 has NOT been shown to force the climate. Good. At least you're not a bleeding-obvious denier.

marked as brain dead write off at this point
over dose on Repuglican anti-science and can't/won't read. What a delusional world you inhabit.

C02 is a forcing right now and was then during the Siberian traps ---
-and don't put words in my mouth and you patronizing on the science is LOL of the day. You have haven't a clue on climate science or more likely know you're wrong and too much a coward to admit it.

--- I could give a fuck what you think ......- you're wrong on the risk and the science.
Go find some flat earth society to join - at least their harmless if also wrong.

The Arctic ice is is growing year over year is it ???? Now there's a claim that certainly shows your prowess
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Firstly, nobody put words in your mouth. I was replying to Woodbutcher, and the post was perfectly clear on that.

Secondly, YOUR OWN GRAPH above shows that the ice-extent for 2012 is well above 2007 and not much below the 20 year average for 1979 to 2000. Don't you even look at what you post?

And Woodbutcher, there is your source for what I said about the ice extent. Macdoc posted it for me. Kind of him, don't you think?

If you don't know what global temperatures are doing now, there's no hope for you, you're just blathering on without knowing anything.
In fact, global temperature trends haven't risen over the last FIIFTEEN years.
If you don't know that, then you should check up before you preach any more.

It's warm, it's stayed warm, but it hasn't got warmer.

Sorry. You fail. Only opinions on your part, not facts. Your conclusions come from personal bias, you cannot understand so it must be false. And you have not given a source for your data. Saying that somebody else posted it for you is just stupid! It was only a graph and clearly you had not even read the material. I call bullshit on you.

[mistermack]

Sorry. You fail. Only opinions on your part, not facts. Your conclusions come from personal bias, you cannot understand so it must be false. And you have not given a source for your data. Saying that somebody else posted it for you is just stupid! It was only a graph and clearly you had not even read the material. I call bullshit on you.

It was a graph from one of the sites that I read, and I would have probably chosen it anyway. Funny that Macdoc thinks it DISPROVES what it actually proves. But never mine. You object because Macdoc posted it, not me. That's about right for your logical standards.
For your information it's from the NSIDC, which Macdoc also linked :

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"NSIDC's research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts."

If that's not good enough for you, you are straying into the AGW loony bracket.

As far as temperatures go, you seem to be admitting that you haven't got a clue, and can't be bothered to look. (or are too embarrassed) so here is the graph from wiki, taken from the University of East Anglia data, no less.
Going back as far as 1997, to the present, there is no warming trend.