and independent thinkers are criticized for having unfalsifiable theories. for continuing to believe something in the face of any proof against it.

and yet it is people like these global warming alarmists who are really guilty of this. antarctic ice is expanding? that is due to global warming. harshest winters - global warming. no warming? oh its just hiding in the oceans.

''This is all I say. In the past my main argument is that climate change wont get as bad as the climate models say they will.''

I largely agree with this, I think that the global climate system has a multitude of self-correcting (i.e., negative feedback) mechanisms and is of a very robust design indeed. I am very sceptical about the computational modelling of such a complex system. It is true that it is comparatively cheap to do, but it is only as good as the (more expensively acquired) observational/experimental data that is inputted. One thing is for sure though we are putting a lot more energy up into the atmosphere so, although unpredictable in terms of purely of temperature (both overall and as a function of geographic location) the climate in general will become more extreme as reaction activation energies are increasingly exceeded (chemical kinetics).
Something that might upset the apple cart, however, is if it becomes hotter over the Siberian permafrost. The gassing out of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas (a positive feedback loop), might be a little more demanding of those self-correcting negative feedback loops, which so far appear to be keeping a lid on things.

so now it is about methane coming out of siberian permafrost? it is funny how the arguments keep changing from month to month. and always are phrased in some pseudo-scientific sounding prose to convince those who dont understand the science but are easily impressed by technical language.

same trick they use to convince people that our fractional-reserve banking system is good for us.

actually maybe that was going a bit too far. i am still pissed at the hacking. methane supposedly being released from heat and causing more of a greenhouse effect is, at least in principle, possible. so i shouldnt have gone off and said it is pseudo science.

the pseudo science part is more just cherry picking these tiny effects that support your theory and then ignoring everything else. and fulham did you read that recent nasa paper saying that our recent coldspell in spite of high solar activity was from greenhouse gases, particularly co2 deflecting solar radiation away from earth?

Climate =/= weather. You can having a rising global temperate combined with cold spells - there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

Also, can I ask who you think "they" are, and what their motivation could possibly be. Because it seems to me that the only side with resources enough to put together any sort of campaign are the Oil companies.

Feces, I think you drew the wrong conclusion from the article. A large point of the article is that the deep sea temperatures oscillate and may translate into accelerated surface temperature warming next El Niño. (Whoa, auto corrects with the squiggly!)

@ blank. If you really want an argument against the runaway methane global warming hypothesise you should note that all those arctic soil-borne bugs up there in the permafrost will likely metabolise most of the released gas and produce CO2. OK I guess it puts more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, but all of those dudes who have been tap, tap, taping away at their computational models and come up with this super scare story have very largely not taken this into account. That is a free one for you.

''fulham did you read that recent nasa paper saying that our recent coldspell in spite of high solar activity was from greenhouse gases, particularly co2 deflecting solar radiation away from earth''

I very much doubt this, but I am open and interested to read your reference, if you could post it.

i posted it a long time ago. it came at the same time as they and the number one global warming alarmist parted ways after he worked for them for years.

here are a couple posts from my blanknews you can see the links in here.


ok did i post this story here yet? i think i only posted it on the other site and my site. new nasa research pisses off the global warming crowd because it blames cold temperatures recently on co2 saying that the suns been really active but the damn co2 is preventing the radiation from reaching the earth http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

this comes at a similar time as nasa is finally parting ways with their long term employee and notoriously the worst global warming alarmist james hansen http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/climate-scientist-james-hansen-l.html

i also linked to a report on the cold winters on that other site, but i forget the link. to be honest it doesnt matter, russia, china, the uk, and most of the rest of europe all experienced record cold winters. north america was also hit hard. im sure there are plenty of stories on the cold.

anyway with all these together i speculated that maybe the most comical thing i was joking about (that after going from global cooling to global warming they would go back again) may actually become reality.



blankflag (106 )
Fri 5 Apr



ok time to take a break. stay critical my friends. and you may someday a scientist or academic in the classical sense. that is, one who thinks critically and only believes what is proven. as opposed to the "academics" and "scientists" we have now that are actually more akin to government officials or religious leaders of yore - just parroting what they are told the truth is unquestioningly. good luck.



blankflag (106 )
Fri 5 Apr



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4eZmczK2UKM
http://www.wjbf.com/story/21800863/laney-supermarket-gets-evicted

this happened in my hometown, honest!

a grocery store faced eviction so the property became public. the police showed up to throw all the unsold food into the garbage and prevent people from taking it to feed their families.



blankflag (106 )
Sat 6 Apr



ATTN: GLOBAL WARMING ADVOCATES
notice of minor change in narrative. previously we told you that global warming will catastrophically melt ice in the arctic and antarctic. but now just make the minor adjustment that global warming will actually increase antarctic ice to fit the measurements we are getting. thank you.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709

"may translate into accelerated surface temperature warming"

**MAY** That fallback of every global warming alarmist conspiracy theory is that they never have *facts*. The only things they have are "our models predict chaos and doom" and when the predictions don't come to fruition, they change their story, come up with new unproven theories, and keep the "research" MONEY TRAIN rolling...

Krellin, wouldn't you be more skeptical if they said they had all of the answers? It's obviously a very complicated and chaotic system. This paper attempts to bridge some of the gaps (which you've out before) between predictions and observations. It is fair to expect these gaps to arise again and that not all of their hypothesis to be correct. It's how science works.

I said "may" because its a prediction. A hypothesis.

It's not that fucking complicated. You're either being deliberately dense or a dick.

Uhhh....Yonni, these are the same idiots that for *years* have been saying there is *NO* discussion to be had, that it is settled science, that we have scientific consensus and anyone who disagrees is dangerous and out to destroy the planet.

WE - the "skeptics" -- I prefer the term "REALISTS" -- have been the ones seeking real study, open debate, etc.

If humorous to watch all the alarmist suddenly deciding that maybe we need more study and, you know, FACTS to validate their theories...

The problem, Yonni, is that despite that fact that the anthropomorphic global warming theories are being decimated by reality over and over and over again, these nujobs just keep holding on to the conspiracy. The antarctic ice is growing? Huh...they say that must be from global warming. Temperatures aren't increasing like they are supposed...and might be decreasing...huh...that must be because of all the CO2 that we said caused global warming, they say.

No matter what data is released, no matter what the climate is actually doing, it is **always** because of man-made global warming. Don't you ever scratchyour head and think, "Huh...well that's just silly..." and think that maybe they're just saying whatever they have to say to keep their funding in place?

This long ago ceased to be about real science. It is all about funding.

No government on earth is doing anything *serious* to address this so-called problem. No company takes this crap seriously any more. And for that matter, there isn't a single loud-mouthed advocate of global warming who's lifestyle reflects a true belief in this "crisis" either. At what point in time does an intelligent human being such as yourself start to admit that all this shit was overblown, bad science? It's OK to admit you were wrong - you were being fed a pretty good story for a long time by a lot of people...but the facts are nothing they say is coming true, and more and more the opposite is coming to fruition...so...take a breath...and let it go. Life is actually much more pleasant when you aren't walking around quivering in fear about man "destroying" the planet (which is a truly ridiculous notion anyway).

@Yonni - if you want an unfounded hypothesis to live by, then here's one:

Based upon all of the current evidence, there is no such thing as anthropomorphic global warming, and in fact, the climate *MAY* fluctuate up and down as it has done on it's own for all of earth's existence, impacted by such things as the SUN (that big hot ball of burning gas in the sky) and volcanoes and such, and man *MAY NOT* be destroying the planet, and may not have any ability to do so - if evidence to date is taken in to account. Over the course of the coming decades, the earth's temperature *MAY* fluctuate up and down independent of man's activity.

See what I did there? I said "may"...I thought you would like that. Don't you feel better now, because I said everything is OK.

In all seriousness what I honestly don't understand is how C)2 can be transparent to solar radiation (any number of conventional references) in the lower atmosphere and opaque in the upper (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/)

Yonni help me out please.

Argh. I'm having a hard time selecting that link from my phone. We need hyperlinks!
...k typed it in like a commoner but I'm not sure where it talks about CO2 behaving differently in different atmospheres.

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about, tbh. I'm not a climate scientist or a chemist.

Ok Yonni no probs, thanks for the response. Anyone else?

CO2 is reflective, mostly. This is a problem when the heat is trying to escape from earth, and it also means that a lot of the radiation that comes towards the earth is reflected back. It's not a question or transparency or opacity at all.

Ok so if we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere we will not only reflect heat back to the Earth's surface in the lower atmosphere, but also away from the Earth in the upper. Presumably the lower and upper atmosphere are linked?

Ah, I get what you're alluding to. It's not a function of the CO's property in the upper or lower atmosphere. The radiation that comes from the sun is a different frequency than the radiation that 'reflects' back from Earth. Gases (and clouds) absorb radiation of different frequency at different rates.

Yonni yes I know that. But we have been told that CO2 in the lower atmosphere is transparent to visible and opaque to infrared radiation ( black body). So far so good, but why then does that NASA piece say that CO2 is opaque to solar radiation in the upper? In fact this is a mechanism that forestalls excessive solar global heating. I genuinely don' t understand.

Again, I readily admit my only amateurish understanding of astrophysics but the radiation from solar flares isn't in the visible range I believe which is why the article talks about it being deposited in the upper atmosphere.

There are definitely people here that can give a better and more informed answer though.

I knew krellin's head would explode. I just knew it.

jim - you are sadly mistaken. the head's you see exploding are the leftist environmental whackos, because they are constantly having to dance around trying to manufacture new explanations for why reality doesn't align proberly with their fantasies of global destruction.

My head is quite intact. In fact, each new study such as this jut reinforces my belief that there is no global warming, and that the leftist researchers have *no clue* what they are doing, and have no facts to back up any of their theories.

This is another article that says, "Shit...we were wrong again...but we will hold on fast to our belief in global warming DESPITE the facts before us, and instead we will create some new, obscure nonsensical, illogical explanation....you, like the 'global warming increases the ice in antarctica' bulshit theory."

If student in your class behaved the way these scientists do, you'd fail them all.

And this - your refusal to acknowledge the facts and adjust your personal beliefs - is another example of why the general public is losing respect for teachers. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach..." is how the saying goes...

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Those+who+can,+do%3B+those+who+can%27t,+teach

@krellin - I have listened to your ramblings for quite a while now. And until now, you have just been a pest. Everyone sees that you are one of the conspiracy theorists, but you seem a bit intelligent and post a lot, so they sort of take the good with the bad. Your insistence that global climate change doesn't exist is laughable. You poo poo every study that doesn't conform to how you think it should work. If you have a degree in climetology, please continue to let us in on your keen insights. If, however, you are just like the rest of us and just read and listen to what the experts say, then your opinion is just like an asshole. Everyone has one and they all stink. Yours stinks especially badly because of your political leanings. You are the worst kind of "Conservative." You actually think you are right and that someone gives a shit about what you have to say. And you would be wrong on both points.

Now, if you want to start name calling, I have heard PLENTY about you that I believe is true on this site and I WILL stoop to your level. But for now, I will just treat you like I do any other spoiled child. I will just smile at your ignorance and think about how bad it must be to live in your shoes.

"CO2 is reflective, mostly. This is a problem when the heat is trying to escape from earth, and it also means that a lot of the radiation that comes towards the earth is reflected back. It's not a question or transparency or opacity at all. "

Co2 and other greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight and opaque to infrared. Thus when the heat from the earth radiates outward in the form of infrared some of this is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which them heat up to a point and this energy then radiates out some of it to space and some it back to Earth.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

This property of greenhouse gases was discovered by John Tyndall in the 19th century and can be demonstrated experimentally.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

"In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque. "

"So far so good, but why then does that NASA piece say that CO2 is opaque to solar radiation in the upper?"

I have looked that article and I can't see where it says that. Could you post the that part of the article which says that?

krellin and jimgov's manufactured conflict is not helping. it is not about left and right. i really care about the environment. those nuclear power plants like in fukushima totally destroying the environment. or that oil spill in arkansas or any other oil spill. or heavy pollution in, for example, china. and i know many who call themselves 'left' who are totally against this global warming crap. because it has hijacked the environmental movement. nobody cares anymore when pharmaceutical companies are dumping all their old pharmaceuticals into our water supply or when there is nuclear and toxic waste everywhere. nobody cares anymore because the elites have hijacked the groups and put all their effort into this nonexistant problem.

take for example ethanol. it produces no pollution at all, so could clean up our environment quite a bit. yet they want to classify it the same as anything else. or funding that could have gone into preventing pollution from escaping from coal or oil power plants is not supported because those plants will always produce co2 and that is what is being blamed rather than the actual pollution.

@jimgov.....sigh....another hypocrite complaining about people throwing insults who then writes a long diatribe meant to be an insult. Honesty, Jimbo...

Here's you problem: You will *NEVER* let a fact get in the way of your opinion.

You claim I am a conspiracy theorist...and yet here you are, confronted AGAIN, for what? the 4t or 5th time recently?...confronted with *facts* that contradict global wamring...and your response? Oh...the facts must be misinterpreted....there must be some new, silly explanation for why the *facts* keep contradicting the theory. So YOU...instead of *maybe* considering that the "science" was wrong, instead think that there *must* be some way to leverage the facts in to your bogus theory.

YOU, my friend, are the true flat-earther, aren't you? You would have had a man thrown out of decent society for believing the earth revolved around the sun.

It's simply astounding that you call yourself an educator...and yet refuse to educate yourself...refuse to be open to another point of view.

I've actually looked at both sides of the data to draw my conclusion.

You? You are so closed minded that you can't even imagine that you might be wrong, and yet *I* am the conspiracy theorist?

Laughable, Jimbo...laughable.

Jimbo - I *dare* you to do what you would have your students do: Go do some real research. Start out with *no* preconceived outcome in mind, and start gathering data. And instead of finding hokey, ridiculous theories and saying they are true because a "scientist" said so...stick *only* to the facts...and then draw a conclusion on your own.

Start your study *before* civilization, before man kind was around to supposedly mess things up, and look at climate cycles that existed naturally.

Only once you have understood natural earth cycles of climate are you allowed to start looking at "modern" climate cycles...and even then, start with ancient human history, including stories and legend of dramatic climate swings -- which, yes, are not "facts", but will give you a clue as to the wild swings the climate has taken throughout history -- because it would be odd for ancient history and global cultures with no interaction to all have stories of dramatic climates if such things were not a part of their history

Then start looking at modern climate science, including methodology - and whether or not the methodology is based on fact, or theory. For example, can you prove the data that comes from an ice core sample? Can you prove that the global temperature is accurately predicted by tree ring data? and do we have tree ring data that actually demonstrates the global temperature?

And then lets look at CO2...which even in these forums by the advocates of global warming has been called both a green house gas that causes global warming, while also being called a gas that reflects heat and cools the atmosphere....but which we all know based upon a recent paper posted by Abge is actually not inolved in temperature change at all, but in fact is changed *by* global temperatures, at best, because CO2 changes LAG temperature changes...

So...try that Jimbo...that's just a rough suggestion of how your research should start...but you, of course, are free to delve in to any other area of research you want.

But most important, Jimbo, start with a clear mind, with no pre-conceived outcome...and then tell us what you find.

Stop being a mindless zombie spewing the rhetoric of the masses when the research is readily available to do on your own. Because until you do your own research, YOU are just the bandwagon conspiracy theorist...

in typical elitist style, blankflag is trying to divert our attention from the evils of big oil by manufacturing a water supply crisis by claiming that big pharmacy is dumping medicine in the water. you know, i wish they would dump medicine in the water, then we would all be healthier. but you know the elites would never do that, because then we wouldn't have to go to the doctor to get prescriptions, we could just drink the water.

it's too bad, blankflag used to be on the side of the common man but now he's just a tool for big oil. but nobody cares, and nobody on this site listens to me, blankflag has pulled the wool over your eyes because you have wool all over you because you are all sheep.

lol FlemGem. Not sure if you are satirizing more than one person there, but it's brilliant either way.

they are dumping medicine in the water you idiot. tons of it is coming out of their manufacturing facilities as waste. including powerful antipsychotics and our water treatment facilities cant take those chemicals out, so we are consuming those medicines.

big oil and global warming is like the big banks and the federal reserve. they had convinced the public when trying to change the laws that they were against the federal reserve but it later came out that they had written the federal reserve act. oil companies made the decision that they would benefit from a carbon-tax scheme. maybe because they own the politicians so any tax is good for them, but more likely because coal generates more co2 and is their main competitor. but even with all of that big oil is not as powerful as you think. the nuclear advocates or the government itself is far more powerful than one single industry.

if the global warming critics are so bought by these powerful interests then why is it that it is the critics themselves who are silenced and have their careers destroyed?

in other environmental news

obama made a good call by recently raising permissible levels of nuclear radiation people can be exposed to

"In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period"

sweet

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-approves-raising-permissible-levels-of-nuclear-radiation-in-drinking-water-civilian-cancer-deaths-expected-to-skyrocket/5331224?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-approves-raising-permissible-levels-of-nuclear-radiation-in-drinking-water-civilian-cancer-deaths-expected-to-skyrocket

"the government itself is more powerful than one single industry"

No shit?