Watch CFACT’s Marc Morano debate Bill Nye

  • Morano v Nye Stossel CFACT ORG

The great global warming debate resumes!

Watch Marc Morano take on Bill Nye (with no media shield to protect him).

Tonight, January 23, 2014 at 9 PM EST on Fox Business Channel.

Fox Business channel finder

Click to enter your zip code

Morano v Nye Stossel 23Share on Facebook

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Todd Clemmer

    Bill Nye the agenda 21 guy!

  • cshorey

    I just heard Stossel lie about Gore lying. Gore says if this section of Antarctica melts the seas would go up 20 ft. That’s actually true. John Stossel said it was ridiculous because “even the IPCC says only 3 feet”. That projection is for the coming century, and it never says that section of Antarctic ice will melt. Apples and oranges and Stossel can’t even tell this rudimentary and very simple difference. Stossel, you are not a skeptic on the topic, you are just illiterate on the subject. Horrible work John. This is just the tip of my iceberg of complaints with your program.

    • antoinepgrew

      “Gore says if this section of Antarctica melts the seas would go up 20 ft. That’s actually true.”

      Oh, really? Antarctica is a CONTINENT, not an ice floe like the Arctic ice. It doesn’t float. Furthermore, right now, Antarctica ice is at its second highest level ever. Sea Ice is 1.2 million sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
      http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/antarctic-sea-ice-5th-daily-record-of-2014-day-22/

      • cshorey

        Ok, here’s where you totally missed on this one. Antarctica is a continent covered by the worlds largest ice sheet (defined as a land based covering of ice over 40,000km^2). That’s a sheet load of ice buddy, and when it melts, it contributes to sea level rise. So when Gore says that if a certain section of that ice sheet should melt, it would contribute 20 ft to sea level. I don’t know how you and Stossel think you can argue that fact. As for the second highest level ever, you missed snowball earth, the Permian freeze, and previous ice ages in the Milankovitch scale forcings. So you’re wrong again. But you probably mean the most measure sea ice ever measured by humans. That data set has come into question if you keep up on this idea. Great article out in Nature this week on how warming in the tropical Atlantic can force the winds around Antarctica to produce more sea ice. Strike three for you, but I doubt your out . . . of crap.

        • John Swallow

          But, cshorey,
          Antartica ice sheet IS NOT melting.

          “The December Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 12.63 million square km (4.88
          million square miles), which was 1.36 million square km (530,000 square miles),
          or 12.1 percent, above the 1981-2010 average. This ranked as the second largest
          December Antarctic sea ice extent on record….”
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/12

          “Record Antarctica Ice Contradicts Global Warming
          Trend”
          http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Antartica-ice-global-warming/2012/09/30/id/458115

          Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation
          (1600-2009)
          Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
          doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

          ”We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.”
          http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

          Not that sea ice has anything to do with sea levels but it does indicate what is happening on Greenland

          “The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 percent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements
          show”
          http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/12/27/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-percent/

          • cshorey

            John, I really prefer to be pedantic than confrontational, but an ice sheet is on land, sea ice is on water. Right now there is tremendous evidence and physical knowledge how strengthening circumpolar winds around Antarctica are helping sea ice grow. An honest reporter should have mentioned this very important piece of the puzzle. If you got this information from someone recently who didn’t mention the winds issue, you should be pissed and being misled. What is more excusable is if your source missed the article in Nature last week explaining how Atlantic trends liked to increased heat content have a physical basis for causing some of the changing wind patterns around Antarctica. Also note that I previously mentioned Guy Calendar predicting in the 1930′s, that in a greenhouse warmed world, Antarctica would initially grow ice. If you are way below freezing, the air can’t hold much water, and it doesn’t snow much. But as you raise the temperature closer to the freezing point, the air will be able to hold more water, but still being below freezing, it will snow more. Any location in that configuration would see the same effect, it’s just really big on Antarctica.

            • John Swallow

              “John, I really prefer to be pedantic than
              confrontational, but an ice sheet is on land, sea ice is on water.” Oh really! and now I find another defect that
              you exhibit and that is a failure to be able to read something and understand
              it.

              I said “Not that sea ice has anything to do with sea levels but it does indicate what is happening on Greenland”

              I assume in your way of thinking that making a statement such as this: “I know I may be talking to a conspiracy nut who actually
              thinks the scientists and politicians have gotten together to plan the massive deception.” fits your definition of “I really prefer to be pedantic than
              confrontational” If you can not be right about that then what will you be right about?

              • cshorey

                Wow, that was a Gish gallop of logical fallacies, incorrect facts, and a little conspiracy theory nut jobism thrown in to boot. So when I said “Cold air can’t hold much water” you thought you’d correct me by pointing out that Antarctica is the world’s largest desert. Um . . . yeah. Thanks for confirming what I was saying.

                Now on to the sea ice. Your direct quote above for anyone to read is: “But, cshorey,Antartica ice sheet IS NOT melting.”

                And then you link to a piece on sea ice! You see, when you type “ice sheet” that could maybe, possibly, be interpreted as “ice sheet”, and when you link to sea ice info, you could be interpreted as talking about sea ice. See the difference? I say I prefer to be pedantic, but I have no problem being confrontational with the likes of you. You still have not gotten your head around circumpolar winds. I thought you were just a dupe who swallowed bad information. I thought you might be upset that these sources lied to you by only giving you part of the story. I guess you are actually a misinformer who refuses to take all information into account, but rather cherry picks the pieces of the story you think support your conspiracy theory and ideology. Look up the effect of winds on Antarctic sea ice so you can sound somewhat intelligent if you post on it again.

            • John Swallow

              Do you realize just how ignorant you seem to be with your little
              dissertation about Guy Calendar. Try to deal with FACTS for a change.

              “Do you know where the largest desert on Planet Earth is? You
              might answer the‘Sahara Desert’. But you are WRONG! The answer is actually the “ANTARCTIC DESERT”. But why is that? Antarctica is
              the fifth largest of the seven continents, with a total surface area of about
              14.2 million sq km (in summer). What makes it a desert, then? According to the
              geological definition: “A desert is an area that receives little precipitation,
              with 10 inches or 25cm of rain or less a year, lots of hot sand and [contains]
              very few or no plants.” Here comes the surprise! As per this definition,
              Antarctic can be classified as the largest desert in the world. So even though
              there’s ice on the ground in Antarctica, that ice has been there for a very
              long time. Isn’t it amazing?
              http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/desert/news-antarctic-desert-fascinating-facts-about-highest-driest-largest-coldest-and-windiest-con

        • John Swallow

          One can wonder if this ignorant charlatan, Chris Turney, gives any thought to what DID not happen in 1912.
          “The expedition is being led by Chris Turney, “climate scientist”, who has “set up a
          carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to
          fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping
          reduce greenhouse gas levels.” The purpose of the expedition is “to discover
          and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”
          http://www.thegwpf.org/media-glosses-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice/

          “A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people
          onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s
          Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.”

          “Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten
          icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would
          have been no rescue option and certain death.”

          cshorey: There was far less sea ice one hundred years ago than when this Russian ship
          got stuck, if not prove it.

          “One hundred years after Mawson’s journey, we still don’t know much
          about the Antarctic.” I might add that cshorey knows
          next to nothing about either the Arctic or the Antarctic other than what
          alarmist feed them as being factual information and Lord knows they, (hard to
          tell from the name just what gender they are) are having to dig deep into the
          lies that they feel validates their claim that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up
          .039% of the total atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of
          the atmosphere, responsible for what the earth’s climate does.

          This sounds like something that cshorey would say:
          “As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests,
          particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.”
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#

          Antarctic
          Sea Ice 26% Above Normal
          http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/antarctic-sea-ice-26-above-normal/

  • cshorey

    And now Stossel is on to bashing Al Gore. Gore is not a climate scientist so why even bring him up unless it is to poison the well? Bob Brown told me back in the ’90′s that Stossel had no moral compass when he was working at 20/20, and these side show antics support that. Seems Bob was pretty good at pointing out a huckster.

  • cshorey

    Wow, what a mistake to watch Stossel. I think this will be my first and last time. Such poor arguments, and poorly defined terms. He thinks our air is less polluted than “since industrialization”. You might be able to twist the data to the right time sets to argue that for NOx and SOx and some other known pollutants, but is dead wrong concerning CO2 no matter how you slice it, and that’s the whole point of the debate. How can he make these statements about a less polluted atmosphere while ignoring the one pollutant at the center of this topic and sleep at night? Oh, the paycheck.

    • cshorey

      Ok, John just said CO2 isn’t a pollutant like the other pollutants I mentioned here. How does John define a pollutant? A pollutant is technically defined as a substance that upsets the natural balance or disrupts intended use. CO2 is far out of its natural balance no matter how you look at it. It is bleeding into the oceans and causing the pH of the surface waters to fall. This is not in the natural state. Wrong again John, it really is a pollutant as we define pollutants. And it really is a greenhouse gas.

      • antoinepgrew

        The pH of the waters to fall? The pH is 8.1.

        • cshorey

          What’s the trend globally? That’s the point. Missed again.

          • antoinepgrew

            Warm ocean waters outgas CO2; cool ocean waters absorb it. The ocean is therefore buffered globally. The average pH globally is 8.1. Period. That’s alkaline. Look it up. The ocean water has salt in it. In some regional areas outside ports where there is dumping you read of pH of 7.8. But none of that is acidification. It is less alkaline, not more acidic. pH Neutral is 7.0, and pH is logarithmic. In other words, it is 10X to go one point from pH 7 to 8 or pH 7 to 6. it took almost a century for the average to go from 8.2 to 8.1. This is high school science if you remember it.

            • cshorey

              Let’s look at the pattern of antoinepgrew(Ant)’s arguments. Ant ignores the sum of evidence to pick on the one thing Ant thinks they have an angle on. What Ant really shows is they need to go take a basic chemistry class to learn that “buffered” does not mean “static” and “acidification” is a trend term and does not mean “under pH 7″. The true irony here is that Ant got ONE thing right. Cold water does dissolve more CO2 than warm with all else being held constant, but this puts a nasty positive feedback on the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over time. With the basic high school science Ant seems to rely on, one might think that carbonic acid is an impossibility, and yet it does exist. I suggest Ant go beyond basic high school chemistry and maybe take a community college level chemistry course. It may help Ant from making such errors in judgement. Strike 5 for Ant, and he’s still not out . . . of crap.

      • antoinepgrew

        “CO2 is far out of its natural balance no matter how you look at it.”

        Since when is atmospheric 399 PPM of CO2 out of its natural balance? The CO2 count under a forest canopy is 600 PPM….naturally. You breathe out 40,000 PPM every five seconds. If it’s such a pollutant then mothers have to stop kissing their babies and CPR needs to be outlawed.

        Go sell stupid someplace else. You do not know your facts.

        • cshorey

          Under a canopy there are soil microbes doing respiration and the canopy has evolved to trap that efficiently. We are talking average global CO2, and there is a good reason we don’t measure that value with stations located under a tree canopy. When I say out of natural range, I think we can agree that should be set for the time span of human civilization. If you wish, you can extend that out to human planetary occupation (100ky). In either case, the evidence strongly suggests that planetary CO2 never went over 300ppm for extended periods of time. We are approaching 400ppm. You’re not as knowledgeable as you think.

          • antoinepgrew

            You need to read more, cshorey. “planetary CO2 never went over 300ppm for extended periods of time”…completely wrong. Peter Bijl’s team found that the baseline CO2 levels in the broader Eocene period were around 1000 to 2000 parts per million (ppm). During the temperature peaks atmospheric CO2 levels reached 4000 ppm or higher, backing the theory of the greenhouse gas cause.

            “Transient Middle Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature Variations”

            Peter K. Bijl1,*,†, Alexander J. P. Houben1,*,†, Stefan Schouten2, Steven M. Bohaty3, Appy Sluijs1, Gert-Jan Reichart4, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté2,4, Henk Brinkhuis1

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/819.abstract

            • cshorey

              We don’t measure CO2 in your room to determine average global CO2. This should be obvious and I worry that you think it is important. This post proves Ant doesn’t read what he thinks he/she is refuting. I explicitly said the time period of interest for “natural condition” would be over the length of human civilization. As I know that dishonest people like to ignore that caveat, and go back into deeper geologic time, I made sure to say we can even go back to the beginning of humanity and we still don’t see over AVERAGE GLOBAL pCO2 atmV of 300ppmv. That’s 100ky, and you’re going back to the Eocene which is about 50 million years ago. You missed the relevant time span by two orders of magnitude. The Eocene follows the PETM which is a sudden jump in CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere followed by a spike in temperatures. This event shows a most likely climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 3degC. So thanks for the data that proves you wrong again Ant. Strike six. I’ll give you ten strikes and then move on. For now I’m enjoying this too much. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • badswing

            but measuring temps on airport runways was ok?

            • cshorey

              We were talking about measuring CO2, not temperature acronym badswing. But lets examine your issue: No it wasn’t ok as the clear and present standards for thermometer placement were violated. Finding these stations was the only useful thing Anthony Watts has contributed to the science. With his data, the BEST team was able to remove those biased stations and find that they had no influence on the warming trend of the 20th century. So your point is to bring up something that has be unequivocally shown to have no point.

              • badswing

                the BEST team? Isnt that the project that came out with all that fanfare BEFORE the paper was published? Isnt that the paper who’s own scientist said her conclusion was different than the other scientist (and his daughter of course). so did they just “smooth out” where there was no data? didnt they (“scientists”) just do that in another study about temps…I will have to look it up but it was more of the same….a smooth here and a dab there kind of stuff. and amazingly, whenever they get a hold of the ‘raw’ and do their transitions, all the cold goes away.

                • cshorey

                  Results paper (December 07, 2012):
                  Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:1.. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000101
                  Methods paper (March 05, 2013) and its appendix:
                  Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000103
                  Urban Heat Island paper (March 14, 2013):
                  Charlotte Wickham, Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104
                  Station Quality paper (May 20, 2013):
                  Richard A. Muller, Robert Rohde, et al. (2013) Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:3. doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000107.
                  Decadal Variations paper (June 10, 2013):
                  Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5280–5286, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50458.
                  Who cares if Judith Curry is involved. Did you see her recent congressional testimony? Truly pathetic. If that’s your measure of scientific integrity it speaks volumes to your lack of qualifications. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/one-of-the-problems-with-judith-curry/

                  • cshorey

                    And try to remember that we were discussing CO2, not temperatures. You’ve hijacked the topic like a creationist with the non-issue you think is an issue. Big bad science is a conspiracy in your mind

                    • badswing

                      did they ever allow the raw data to be seen in that study? and I need to be qualified before I comment in the comment section of an article? just dont answer if it bothers you so.

                    • cshorey

                      Yes that data was all available. This is a sideshow. You took this thread off the CO2 theme to focus on one small parameter of the climate system: average global atmospheric temperature. I hope you are a believer in conservation of mass/energy. You wouldn’t do something like look at only one measure of one aspect of the climate system and mistake that with the entire climate system would you?

                    • badswing

                      the thread was a co2 theme? the first comment was about temperature and sea level…looks like you were the original hijacker…and what difference, at this point in time, does it make now?

                    • cshorey

                      So you do think global atmospheric temperature is the be all and end all of the climate system?

                    • badswing

                      so you can focus on CO2, even tho it wasnt the original question in the thread as far as i can tell (temps and sea level i believe were the questions), tell me i have hijacked the thread, and then ask me several times if it wasnt a mistake to ” look at only one measure of one aspect of the climate system and mistake that with the entire climate system would you?”.. priceless and typical to the side that really doesnt represent science. let me ask you this: have you found anything that gives you pause in this debate and makes you at least a bit suspicious that co2 may not be the prominent driver that your side continually claims it is? anything in the “science” that makes you question methods, ethics, integrity or knowledge? anything?

                    • cshorey

                      I don’t know how you think the first post was about temp or sea level when it clearly was about the definition of “pollutants”. You are having trouble following the thread. Here is the first post in the thread: ME: “Wow, what a mistake to watch Stossel. I think this will be my first and last time. Such poor arguments, and poorly defined terms. He thinks our air is less polluted than “since industrialization”. You might be able to twist the data to the right time sets to argue that for NOx and SOx and some other known pollutants, but is dead wrong concerning CO2 no matter how you slice it, and that’s the whole point of the debate. How can he make these statements about a less polluted atmosphere while ignoring the one pollutant at the center of this topic and sleep at night? Oh, the paycheck.” This is degenerating into a nothing discussion if you can’t follow the thread. As for if there was anything to give me pause, yes, I used to be suspicious of the oceans being the cause. But now that we can see the heat content of the oceans increasing, it would be insane to consider that a cause. We can’t consider the sun a cause as it has decreased it’s emission while temps have increased. We can’t use Milankovitch because it would be driving us to cooler temperatures now in conflict with the observations and data. We can use greenhouse forcing as it is the only game in town that can explain the observed data at this time. I don’t represent the science, but I do seem to be able to correct ideologue positions that have greatly distorted the science. I am always suspicious of every study of every scientist as we are all fallible humans. I just find the fallibility of climate science deniers to be several orders of magnitude than anything I’ve seen go wrong in the science. Just look at all the points brought up here by people who oppose the science and how easily they are overturned. That should be the measure of trust here. You have all been lied to with these seemingly intelligent points that turn out to be straw men and whited sepulchers. There really is a measured energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and unless you throw out conservation of energy you have to accept that the heat content of the Earth’s exogenic climate system will have to respond to the extra energy.

              • badswing

                btw, what journal finally published the “peer reviewed” paper. I think I recall it was volume I of said journal? and was Curry in that paper? nah.

      • John Swallow

        I do believe that this thread has run its course but I feel the need to describe cshorey who appears to be a member of
        this anthropogenic global warming cult that can not prove that their demon, CO2, has anything to do with the earth’s climate, but like most religions,
        believe without being able to prove anything and the bad part of this cult is that they have lost their moral compass and believe that lying and in general
        just plane dishonesty are what is acceptable to get their way and that is control each and every one that uses energy.

        “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental
        policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

        “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides
        the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

        IS BELIEF IN AGW A CULT?

        Our Global Warming cultists deny they are well, cultists.

        Okay, let’s examine record:

        They worship a pantheon of gods, starting with Mother Gaia. They
        even opened

        their latest congregation at Canned Corn by offering a prayer to one
        of the local Deities. Remember, these are the same people who claim to have
        science on their side (H/T Andrew Bolt).

        They have a Prophet in the form of Al Gore – the Goracle, who has
        many mansions and travels the world in a big jet, spreading their Gospel
        – “Do as I say, not as I do”.

        They have a Holy Book – the IPCC Report, which is infallible, even
        when it is proved wrong. Don’t mention melting Himalayan glaciers to a Believer. It sends them into a religious frenzy.

        They have a Devil called CO2, which they hate with all the
        passionate, religious fervor they can muster. This devil, CO2, is responsible
        for all the evil in the world, and will cause the gods to rain down any manner
        of plagues – droughts, floods, locusts, acne etc. – if all of humanity
        does not rise up at once to banish it.

        They are driven by an all-consuming urge to erect tall monuments to
        their gods, in the form of windmills. These don’t actually do very much at all, except imbue the Faithful with a sense of religious righteousness
        for having been erected.

        Nonetheless, construction of these useless religious artifacts has
        meant the diversion of vast amounts of finance, materials and labor from being
        employed elsewhere – for instance to build REAL power stations.

        This means many people are now going to die from exposure to the
        elements.
        Consider them human sacrifices to the gods. Just as is practiced by
        other pagan cults.

        They have Holy Water in the form of biofuel. If only enough people
        used this sacred elixir, the devil CO2 would be cast out and the world would
        be saved. One way or another, biofuel is manufactured at the expense of food.
        This means many people will now starve. More pagan cult human sacrifices.

        They have holy places where they go to gain enlightenment from their Priests. Principal amongst these sacred sites is RealClimate, but
        there are many others.

        They believe in the dispensation of sin through monetary penance.
        One can gain forgiveness for the sin of invoking the Devil CO2 by buying a
        dispensation in the form of a carbon credit. They are incensed that
        the heathen masses are somewhat reluctant to take up this practice.

        They quest endlessly for a “sign in the heavens” – their Holy Grail
        – the mythical “hotspot” in the troposphere over the equator.

        They speak in tongues, chanting irrational religious utterings –
        such as – “global warming causes global cooling causes global warming causes
        global cooling” and still expect to be taken seriously.

        So, in summary:
        They have Gods, a Prophet, priests and sacred sites, an infallible
        Holy Book, a Devil, a Holy Grail and a Quest. They preach of impending
        doom by plagues if they are not believed and followed.

        They divert scarce resources to the construction of useless
        religious monuments and the creation of sacred Holy Water. They practice human
        sacrifice, they believe in the dispensation of sin through pecuniary
        penance, and they chant meaningless dogma.

        Sure the heck sounds like a cult to me.

        • cshorey

          Let’s run this course a little farther to examine what John Swallows. He started by claiming I was delusional for thinking CO2 can be a pollutant and the reasons he gave were natural, low concentration, colorless, odorless, and tasteless (apparently I’m crazy for thinking something with these qualities could be a pollutant). I gave him ricin as a clear example of something we can ALL agree would be considered a pollutant, and yet it had all the items John thought negated CO2 from being a pollutant; it’s natural, colorless, odorless, tasteless, and has a marked affect at low concentrations. Instead of realizing he had been corrected in the definition of and how to identify a pollutant, John boy went on a rant about comparing CO2 and ricin. In other words, he makes me argue a straw man that he can shoot down, but I’m sitting here laughing at the absurdity of his rants. Not only is he not hitting the target, he’s shooting at the wrong wall. As another peek into his logic, John has actually posted that part of sea level rise is due to ocean warming and yet posts the 17 years of the warmest years on record is an ugly fact that destroys basic physics. This is why I have classified John as someone not worthy of conversation. He can’t follow a single conversation we’ve had.

          • John Swallow

            cshorey I see now that the one that is too cowardly
            to post using their own name, for obvious reasons, now toys with my name. Aka says: “I gave him ricin as a clear
            example of something we can ALL agree would be considered a pollutant, and yet
            it had all the items John thought negated CO2 from being a pollutant; it’s
            natural, colorless, odorless, tasteless, and has a marked affect at low
            concentrations.” cshorey fails to add
            that while CO2 is natural,
            colorless, odorless & tasteless that it also vital for ALL terrestrial life
            on the planet and I do not believe that this poor brainwashed, delusional
            individual can, even in the warped state of mind that they seem to exist in, say
            the same for ricin that is part of the
            waste “mash” produced when castor oil is made. While they have been brainwashed by similarly
            delusional folks into believing that CO2 “has a marked affect at low
            concentrations.” they have NEVER been able to prove that in a repeatable
            empirical experiment but just say we should believe them because that is what
            they want to desperately believe. Well, cshorey;
            that is not the way rational, scientifically minded people operate but it is
            for sure the way you continue to try to function; give it up before you continue to hurt
            humanity with your nonsense.

            • cshorey

              Hence I spanked you with the fresh water as pollutant example. Look up ADM and their pollution case in the Everglades. You just don’t understand that natural and vital for life is still not enough to exclude a substance as a pollutant. Heat can be categorized as a pollutant too, or are you going to deny thermal pollution as well. You just don’t get the conversation we’re having.

              • John Swallow

                I am trying very hard to understand why you are so hell bent on proving yourself to be a complete and total idiot who can not even understand the definition of what this trace gas that makes up only .04% of the total of the earth’s atmosphere and is essential for all live on earth by NOT being smart enough to even understand what the definition of this gas is:

                carbon dioxide
                A colorless, odorless gas that is present in the atmosphere and is formed when any fuel containing carbon is burned. It is breathed out of an animal’s lungs during respiration, is produced by the decay
                of organic matter, and is used by plants in photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is also used in refrigeration, fire extinguishers, and carbonated drinks.Chemical formula: CO2.
                http://www.thefreedictionary.com/carbon+dioxide

                CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste
                product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant
                growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

                There, cshorey, DO YOU GET THAT? There is
                nowhere in these definitions that refer to CO2 as a pollutant. Why don’t you perform an experiment and find an old refrigerator and seal yourself in it for a couple of hours and report back to sane people about what you have discovered.

                • cshorey

                  Ah, thanks for putting a nail in the coffin for your idea that concentration is somehow important to a substance being a pollutant. You are absolutely right . . . the entire greenhouse effect caused by TRACE GASSES not main constituents. Now we can work on disabusing you of your naturalistic fallacy. Then we can get back to ocean acidification and greenhouse induced climate change. You’re a slow learner apparently so this may take some time.

          • John Swallow

            THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.
            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134#

            ”Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met
            Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
            The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

            This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996”
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

            In the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century.
            http://www.climatedepot.com/?s=medieval+warm+period

            Wed, 20 May 2009 19:34:30 -0400
            from: Bob Webster
            subject:Re: Greenhouse gas warming question to: Phil
            Jones
            “Atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been correlated with temperature on the scale that is strongest for the argument of causation (units of tens or hundreds of millions of years).
            The only scale showing a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is the scale of hundreds of thousands of years and that data clearly show that CO2 responds to temperature changes, it does not lead or cause them (due to ocean outgassing/absorption of CO2 with temperature change).”
            http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=67

            “A rational look at an irrational theory” By Bob Webster (Editor, Publisher, WEBCommentary)

            “This claim gets major traction with the “green” movement who constantly hear assertions that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric “pollutant” with the capacity to destroy the planet. Ironically, the reality is just the opposite with carbon-based fuels being the most “green” of any energy source known to man! Why? Because the by-product of using carbon-based fuels is carbon dioxide, an essential ingredient for plant growth! […] The problem with this theory is it cannot be sustained in the real world. This can be seen more easily if we translate this statement into symbols from which a formulation can be expressed.”
            http://www.principia-scientific.org/self-contradictory-greenhouse-warming-theory.html

            Even this publication that WANTS desperately to believe that there is anthropogenic global warming has this to say:

            “A sensitive matter”
            The climate may be heating up less in
            response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away”
            Mar 30th
            2013
            “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and
            2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

            Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this
            lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”
            http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

            “…..but I’m sitting here laughing at the
            absurdity of his rants.” One must observe that is normal behavior for people in mental institutions to do, sit a
            laugh at nothing that is humorous.

          • John Swallow

            It appears that cshorey can’t get anything correct or understand anything to write this: “As another peek into his logic, John has actually posted that part of sea level rise is due to ocean warming and yet posts the 17 years of the warmest years on record is an ugly fact that destroys basic physics. This is why I have classified John as someone not worthy of conversation. He can’t follow a single conversation we’ve had.” No one cares what you classify anything to be, cshorey, because you are incorrect about everything that you post about.

            Here is part of a post that I had submitted: “In the last 50 years sea level has risen at an estimated rate of .18 centimeters (.07 inches) per year, but in the last 12 years that rate appears to be .3 centimeters (.12 inches) per year. Roughly half of that is attributed to the expansion of ocean water as it has increased in temperature, with the rest coming from other sources…….” according to Dr. Steve Nerem. This very small increase in sea level is consistent with what would occur on a planet coming out of a Little Ice Age or, guess what cshorey, the planet would still be in the Little Ice Age that some fools do not want to admit even occurred, as well as the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period because to admit what there is documented evidence for these world wide events taking place is to not be able to explain how these events occurred with the absence of the CO2 ‘devil’ of their nightmares.

            “Modeling of severe persistent droughts over eastern China during the last millennium
            Abstract. We use proxy data and modeled data from 1000 yr model simulations with a variety of climate forcings to examine the occurrence of severe events of persistent drought over eastern China during the last millennium and to diagnose the mechanisms.”
            http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/6345/2013/cpd-9-6345-2013.html

            The essence on this study is that sever climatic conditions have more to do with the sun that the claim that CO2 drives the climate. “A modeled data intercomparison suggests that solar activity is the primary driver in the occurrence of the 1130s, 1350s, 1480s, and late 1630s–mid-1640s droughts.”

            “The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years. […]“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
            http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html

            “Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30′S)
            The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean.”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006517

            • cshorey

              John has admitted that the atmosphere, cryosphere, and oceans have all gained heat energy. Well done. I don’t know what your magic source of additional energy is, but mainstream science has a good answer: greenhouse gas accumulation causing radiative forcing. I can’t wait to hear what your magical source is. Give us the heat if you can’t give any light.

    • John Swallow

      cshorey; How can you be so delusional as to think that the trace gas, CO2, that is
      colorless, odorless and is 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere is
      a pollutant? Isn’t this the gas you exhale with each breath after you have utilized the O2 that you were fortunate
      enough to breath in. Carbon dioxide is the bases for all terrestrial life on earth, or haven’t you ever heard that?

      “It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon
      dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape. A plant that could get
      enough carbon dioxide with fewer stomata would have an advantage since it would
      be better able to conserve its water. Levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s
      atmosphere change over time — so at times when the atmosphere is
      carbon-dioxide-rich, plants can get away with having fewer stomata since each
      individual stoma will be able to bring in more carbon dioxide. During those
      high-carbon-dioxide times, plants with fewer stomata will have an advantage and
      will be common. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels are low, plants
      need many stomata in order to scrape together enough carbon dioxide to survive.
      During low-carbon-dioxide times, plants with more stomata will have an
      advantage and will be common.”
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mcelwain_03

      • cshorey

        A pollutant is defined as as any substance that causes negative perturbation to a natural system or disrupts its intended use. CO2 has gone from 280 ppmv in 1800 to 400ppm this year. There is strong evidence, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that scatters thermal infrared radiation, which means the climate is being perturbed by it, thus it is a pollutant. But you don’t believe the copious evidence that has been gathered because you like a conspiracy theory and your ideology over facts as far as I can tell. Ok, CO2 is also diffusing into the surface waters of the oceans which means the pH of oceans is decreasing. Again that is a perturbation, so CO2 would count as a pollutant. If you think diffuse, tasteless and odorless are somehow part of the definition of a pollutant, I guess you won’t mind trying a little ricin on your food tonight. Do yourself a favor and compute the total greenhouse effect for our planet, and then note which gasses are causing, and then look at their concentration and existence as a natural occurring gas. Hopefully you’ll figure out why. As for the plants, have you seen the insect damage from plants at times of high CO2? Get your plant crops ready! Have you looked into the data that says invasive species and weedy plants have an advantage in a high CO2 world? Or did you just learn about stomata and their relationship to CO2 concentration? Pretty basic stuff which, despite what you think you know, does not contradict the best science on human caused climate change.

        • John Swallow

          cshorey: Of all of the delusional
          comments that cshorey has made this
          one has to be one of the most ridiculous, “If you think diffuse, tasteless
          and odorless are somehow part of the definition of a pollutant, I guess you
          won’t mind trying a little ricin on your food tonight.” What does ricin have to do with this
          discussion of the trace gas,CO2, that makes up only.038-9% of the total
          atmosphere and is in fact tasteless, odorless and colorless and is necessary
          for ALL life on the planet? That sure
          isn’t a definition for your ricin that comes about when castor beans are processed throughout the
          world to make castor oil. Ricin is part of the waste “mash” produced
          when castor oil is made. CO2 is expelled each time you breath and I doubt
          that you are exhaling ricin.

          • cshorey

            Giggle. Wrong target again. Remember when ADM got in trouble for polluting the Everglades . . . with fresh water. You really are clueless. Giggle.

      • cshorey

        A pollutant is defined as as any substance that causes negative perturbation to a natural system or disrupts its intended use. CO2 has gone from 280 ppmv in 1800 to 400ppm this year. There is strong evidence, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that scatters thermal infrared radiation, which means the climate is being perturbed by it, thus it is a pollutant. But you don’t believe the copious evidence that has been gathered because you like a conspiracy theory and your ideology over facts as far as I can tell. Ok, CO2 is also diffusing into the surface waters of the oceans which means the pH of oceans is decreasing. Again that is a perturbation, so CO2 would count as a pollutant. If you think diffuse, tasteless and odorless are somehow part of the definition of a pollutant, I guess you won’t mind trying a little ricin on your food tonight. Do yourself a favor and compute the total greenhouse effect for our planet, and then note which gasses are causing, and then look at their concentration and existence as a natural occurring gas. Hopefully you’ll figure out why. As for the plants, have you seen the insect damage from plants at times of high CO2? Get your plant crops ready! Have you looked into the data that says invasive species and weedy plants have an advantage in a high CO2 world? Or did you just learn about stomata and their relationship to CO2 concentration? Pretty basic stuff which, despite what you think you know, does not contradict the best science on human caused climate change.

  • cshorey

    No crisis shown? The Arctic sea ice crash could definitely count. The acidification of the seas could count, More destruction from rising seas already seen could count. Unless you’re John Stossel and have a cranial rectal inversion. Look John, the Earth doesn’t care about anything. It’s a planet. People, and especially future generations care.

    • John Swallow

      cshorey: In thisw post that shows more of your delusional view of the climate and now you say “The acidification of the seas could count” This is all idle conjecture with no scientific bases, what so ever. I know that you have never considered the pH scale did not exist until 1909; so, just how much of a base line do you have for this claim? It can’t be before the date when the scale was invented, can it?

      “The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909[3] and revised to the modern pH in 1924 to accommodate definitions
      and measurements in terms of electrochemical cells. In the first papers, the
      notation had the “H” as a subscript to the lowercase “p”,
      as so: pH.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#History

      ‘Ocean Acidification’ can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate. Our oceans are solidly basic with a pH of about 8.0 that varies a little depending mostly on ocean temperature. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will only decrease alkalinity (pH) a tiny
      amount, far less than natural variations.

      • cshorey

        John thinks ocean acidification means “below pH 7″ apparently. What nonsense. It means a lowering of pH. Do we have evidence the global oceans have changed pH? I’ll wait for a good insanity rant on that one.

        • John Swallow

          cshorey: You are not even clear on what you believe that you “think” so how do
          you believe that you know what I think? I present this to you of what I do
          believe and if you have a problem with it take it up with the source, or is
          that something you have never thought of doing because you never present any
          sources for your delusional views that I assume are only products of your
          ignorance regarding this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming that has
          to rely on a single factor, CO2 to try to survive and it is failing daily, or
          haven’t you noticed, cshorey?

          “It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of
          exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for
          that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium
          with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all
          CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l.
          Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to
          accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the
          contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2,
          the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements
          (Budyko 1977).” [maybe, just maybe as with so many things in nature, this is a
          self-regulating factor that has been taking care of the ocean's pH without
          humans having one thing to do with it]

          http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

          For something to be acidic one would think that it must be “below pH 7″. The ocean must first become neutral before it can become acidic, or haven’t you thought that one through
          yet? Historical global mean seawater values are approximately 8.16, making them slightly basic & guess what,cshorey, basic is NOT acidic.

          “Full Definition of PH: a measure of acidity and alkalinity
          of a solution that is a number on a scale on which a value of 7 represents
          neutrality and lower numbers indicate increasing acidity and higher numbers
          increasing alkalinity and on which each unit of change represents a tenfold
          change in acidity or alkalinity and that is the negative logarithm of the
          effective hydrogen-ion concentration or hydrogen-ion activity in gram
          equivalents per liter of the solution; also : the
          condition represented by a pH number”

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ph

    • John Swallow

      cshorey: These links explain your sea level rise, or lack thereof.

      Dr. Steve
      Nerem said this:
      “In the last 50 years sea level has risen at an estimated rate of .18 centimeters (.07 inches) per year, but in the last 12 years that rate appears to be .3 centimeters (.12 inches) per year. Roughly half of that is attributed to the expansion of ocean water as it has increased in temperature, with the rest coming from other sources, “said Dr. Steve Nerem, associate professor, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado, Boulder.
      http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=118

      The chart doesn’t show in the link above but it is in this one:
      NASA satellites detect pothole on road to higher seas
      Aug 24, 2011 By Alan Buis
      The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3
      millimeters …more

      Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm.
      This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming.
      http://phys.org/news/2011-08-nasa-satellites-pothole-road-higher.html

  • http://www.cfact.org/ CFACT Ed

    Well, cshorey, apparently this segment got to you. Ever consider, that neither world temperatures, nor sea levels have risen as computer models predicted?

    • cshorey

      Of course it got to me, as it should any thinking person. It’s a pack of lies. I’m sorry CFACT Ed, if that is your real name, have you ever considered all models are wrong, but some models are useful. Have you ever considered that just because a map (a model of the terrain) doesn’t have every woodchuck and gopher it is still useful for predicting where you’re going on the terrain. In the 30′s Guy Callendar’s models said this kind of greenhouse warming should see the Arctic warm fastest, the nights to warm more than day and winter more than summer, Antarctic ice should initially grow, and air over land should warm faster than over sea. All that has been observed and have been robust features in later modeling attempts. In the 70′s, Smagorinsky and Manabee had a very robust feature seen repeatedly since then, of warming of the troposphere, and cooling of the Stratosphere. Another confirmed observation. This is just immoral reporting.

      • badswing

        there are many models. now we have to go to the 30′s to find one that was correct? is that what you are saying?

        • cshorey

          Nope, the 30′s model by Guy Callendar, as I mentioned above but you didn’t catch, is a robust feature of later models as well. Then i showed more robust features of modern models like warming Troposphere and cooling Stratosphere. Now do you see what I’m saying? All models are wrong, some models are useful. With your logic we should throw all our maps out.

          • badswing

            i think i get it now. search the models and sometimes the search can say things that match up as way back as the thirty’s. going forward there are searches that find other matches of robustness. do i get it now?

            • cshorey

              No, not quite. You don’t seem to understand that robust features are those that reappear in separate analyses and when you find the observable data matches the robust features, you have a lot more scientific weight behind those modeled features. So my map doesn’t have every woodchuck and gopher, and you can fault every map for what it doesn’t have or doesn’t help you predict, but at least appreciate what these maps do have and can help you predict. That would be a more level headed approach.

  • alpha2actual

    It irks me when people conflate Anthropogenic Climate Change with Climate Change and Anthropogenic Global Warming with Global Warming. Climate Change is studied by Paleoclimatologists who work with ice and ocean sediment cores. They are interested in time frames of tens and hundreds of thousands of years and geological epochs. For instance, the climate record shows that there have been 5 interglacial (warm) and 4 glacial (cold) episodes during the current 400,000 record. We are obviously enjoying an interglacial event but 12,000 years from now all of Canada and 40% of the United States including Manhattan, thankfully, will be under 5,000 feet of ice. It is undoubtedly true that 99% of scientists believe in Climate Change however to state as fact that 97% believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change is both absurd and a statistical improbability. The climate record also shows that global temperature increases precede attending increases in atmospheric CO2 by periods ranging from 400 to 1400 years.

    The fossil record and ocean sediment indicates that six thousand years ago Northern Africa rapidly devolved from a verdant South America Savannah into what is now the Sahara Desert. This event caused catastrophic upheavals to populations bordering the Mediterranean Sea. This begs the question, what anthropogenic vector caused this to happen? I’m quite sure that the heavy industry of the period didn’t play a role in this event. I’m with the Axial Precession hypothesis on this one. Anyone who believes that global climate supercomputer models are useful is, of course, living in a state of sin. Apologies to John von Neumann’s famous quote on mathematical algorithms that generate random numbers.

    • cshorey

      This argument is like saying guns can’t cause the death of people because people died before there were guns. Yes climate changed in the past, we paleoclimatologists have worked out the major forcers in the past, look at their influence today, and see that none of them explain the warming, and yet greenhouse gasses do explain it. Pretty straightforward.

      • John Swallow

        cshorey needs to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the
        real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that affect the earth’s climate. If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it affects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.
        It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more “research” money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.

        Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
        Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds.
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
        Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein.

        Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit.
        “The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action.
        “The neutrinos were timed on the journey from CERN’s giant underground lab near Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, after travelling 732 kilometres (454 miles) through the Earth’s crust.”
        http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.html#jCp
        If these experiment could be carried out, why has an experiment regarding CO2 and the climate never occurred?

        • cshorey

          The experiment is heat seeking missiles, or take band 6 on LandSat. Done. Oh if you don’t like Tyndall’s experiments, recall what Samuel Pierpont Langley did right after that with his bolometer. What you’re asking for was done a long time ago, but my more modern examples I started with go even deeper into the issue. Explore. Learn.

          • John Swallow

            cshorey: Now you tell me that heat seeking missiles prove that CO2 at .039% of the
            atmosphere or 400ppm causes the earth’s climate to act as it does. Give me a repeatable experiment that proves
            this and I said nothing about not liking Tyndall’s ingenious experiment that
            does not prove anything about CO2 and the climate but only that the trace gas
            is a “green house gas”.

            If you were going to bring up Svante Arrhenius , then you need to look into what this
            Swede said, and note that he did no experiments regarding CO2 and how it can
            change the earth’s climate.

            “Linking the calculations of his abstract model to natural processes, Arrhenius
            estimated the effect of the burning of fossil
            fuels as a source of atmospheric CO2. He predicted that a doubling of
            CO2 due to fossil fuel burning alone would take 500 years and lead to
            temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F). This is probably what has
            earned Arrhenius his present reputation as the first to have provided a model
            for the effect of industrial activity on global
            warming.”
            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36084/Svante-August-Arrhenius

            You can issue up more of your prevarications regarding just how insignificant 400 ppm
            of CO2 in the atmosphere is and then pettifog the issue some more with your
            explanation of something that you have no knowledge is and that is what one ppm
            is.

            There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm
            to 400ppm of CO2 and I hope that this
            information will help you to sleep better at nights.

            This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that
            makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is but with you I
            know there is no chance of that ever happening.

            A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.

            A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons

            per gallon.

            Some other things that are one part per million are…

            One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car

            One inch in 16 miles

            About one minute in two years

            One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from

            Cleveland to San Francisco.

            One penny in $10,000.

            Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower
            in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the hight of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2
            would be 8.75 centimetres of that hight (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)
            http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

            Now cshorey ,explain to me how this trace gas is controlling the climate.

            • cshorey

              N2, O2, Ar, and H2 are all transparent to outgoing thermal IR. Those gases collectively make up 99.9% of the volume of the atmosphere. That means the entire greenhouse effect we have is due to a fraction of the remaining 0.1% of the volume of the atmosphere. Now what were you babbling about?

              • John Swallow

                Not so fast there scientifically illiterate one. One would have though that cshorey could realize the atmosphere is made up of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, ( 99.03% of the atmosphere is made up of these two gases) .93% argon and .0001% neon, helium and krypton for constant components and .4% water vapor that constitutes 95% of what cause the green house affect and we had best not forget CO2 at .04% and the rest is made up of trace gases such as CH4,SO2,03 and NO, and NO2. These trace gases are very important, H2O being the most important because it contributes up to 98% of the green house effect, and with out these gases the surface of the earth would too cool/cold to support life on earth that DEPENDS on warmth.

                Carbon Dioxide
                Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, carbon dioxide released by man near ground level sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere.
                http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxide.htm

                “It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
                http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

                BTW cshorey, DR. Spencer’s knows a multiple of time more about this subject that you will ever come to understand since you do not even know what the definition of CO2 is.

                “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley

                • cshorey

                  Residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 100 years. It is getting longer as the oceans buffer. You’re just wrong.

                  • John Swallow

                    Very interesting conjecture cshore and that is all it is because you have no proof for the nonsense you just
                    posted, but why would I believe that you would ever grow up and change? I assume that you are unaware that CO2 is 1
                    &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere and you never wondered
                    at why CO2 has been used in fire extinguishers for many years.

                    It is a fact that water in its various forms in the atmosphere is
                    responsible for from 95 to 99% of the greenhouse effect and it makes up to .4%
                    of the atmosphere while CO2 constitutes, at the most, .04% of the atmosphere
                    and that amount is debatable as this information shows and I’m sure you know
                    that CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.

                    “ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520
                    metres beyond which there is practically no CO2″
                    http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
                    (It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of
                    Canada’s site)

                    This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the
                    above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than
                    “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in
                    Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of
                    the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the
                    lake.
                    http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-century/

                    One does not need elaborate scientific experiments to assess the
                    influence of atmospheric H2O on the earth’s climate. First off, one can not
                    only see it but one can also feel it in the atmosphere. If someone has ever
                    spent any time in the upper latitudes, or lower, where there are distinct
                    seasons that are caused by the sun’s 22.4⁰ tilt on its axes, the coldest nights of the winter always occur
                    when there is no cloud cover and it is also the reason why the deserts can be
                    120⁰ F. during the day and freezing at night.

                    • cshorey

                      “seasons that are caused by the sun’s 22.4⁰ tilt on its axes”
                      Don’t tell me you also think the sun goes around the earth. You’re discussing the latent heat of vaporization and specific heat of water, not it’s greenhouse properties. And seasons are caused by the 23.5 deg obliquity of the earth with respect to the plane of the ecliptic.

              • John Swallow

                cshorey: As usual with those afflicted with your kind of dementia, you leave out some very important ingredients for your “burning up planet” that is not doing so because CO2 has nothing to do with the climate. The Sun is by far the largest object in the solar system. It contains more than 99.8% of the total mass of the Solar System (Jupiter contains most of the rest).

                “The seasons have nothing to do with how far the Earth is from the Sun…. the seasons are caused by the Earth being tilted on its axis by an average of 23.5 degrees (Earth’s tilt on its axis actually varies from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees). Here’s how it works: The Earth has an elliptical orbit around our Sun. This being said, the Earth is at its closest point distance wise to the Sun in January and the furthest in July. But this distance change is not great enough to cause any substantial difference in our climate. This is why the Earth’s 23.5 degree tilt is all important in changing our seasons. Near June 21st, the summer solstice, the Earth is tilted such that the Sun is positioned directly over the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 degrees north latitude. This situates the northern hemisphere in a more direct path of the Sun’s energy. What this means is less sunlight gets scattered before reaching the ground because it has less distance to travel through the atmosphere. In addition, the high sun angle produces long days. The opposite is true in the southern hemisphere, where the low sun angle produces short days. Furthermore, a large amount of the Sun’s energy is scattered before reaching the ground because the energy has to travel through more of the atmosphere. Therefore near June 21st, the southern hemisphere is having its winter solstice because it “leans” away from the Sun.”
                http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=season

                Please try to understand what I have just presented to you,cshorey.

                • John Swallow

                  The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do.
                  Galileo Galilei

                  This for the people that think that, as John Cook falsely tried to prove, that 97% of climate scientist believe in agw.

                  In questions of science, the authority of a thousand
                  is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
                  Galileo Galile

              • John Swallow

                Something else for you to not understand cshorey. Water in its various forms in the atmosphere is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse affect. This has been studied by some very intelligent people regarding clouds:

                Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.
                “There are a lot of observations suggesting that particles hitting the atmosphere might affect the production of clouds and, in turn, the planet’s climate”, continues Kirkby. “However, given the complexity of the climate and the many parameters involved, a clear answer doesn’t exist yet”. (Get that about the complexity of the climate? I guess not if you want to attribute every aspect of what the climate does on a trace gas that makes up .038% of the atmosphere)

                “For the first time, we want to do definitive, quantitative measurements of the underlying microphysics”, states Kirkby. “CLOUD has been designed to follow all the processes involved from the birth of the embryonic aerosols, which then grow to a big enough size to become the seeds for cloud droplets. CLOUD will also study the effect of cosmic rays on the cloud droplets and ice particles themselves”.
                http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=de

                Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over” when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth’s climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
                “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxstzCXSMH0&feature=player_embedded

                This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.

                “One Year
                of Clouds Covering the Earth
                At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud
                patterns.”
                http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html

                • cshorey

                  And when Kirby said his experiment showed nothing about the climate system you decided to ignore that why? Oh, because you have ideology as your drive and bent, not the truth. The aerosols being made in that experiment were too small to affect cloud formation . . . let me borrow your term . . . . idiot. Can’t go lying to me and expect to get away with it.

                  • John Swallow

                    cshorey: Now we have “stupid” in conjunction with “idiot” & that is a BAD combination.
                    “There are a lot of observations suggesting that particles hitting the atmosphere might affect the production of clouds and, in turn, the planet’s climate”, continues Kirkby. “However, given the complexity of the climate and the many parameters involved, a clear answer doesn’t exist yet”.
                    http://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News%20Articles/1221077?ln=de

                    So, who is the unconscionable liar now, cshorey?

                    At least Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark are doing something that people that wear your soiled, stinking, full of holes cloth never seem to do and that is carry out experiments to either prove or disprove their hypothesis.

                    “Early results confirmed that the experimental “cosmic rays” could increase the formation of particles, although the ones that formed must subsequently grow much, much larger before they can act as condensation nuclei
                    […]
                    In a new paper in Nature, the CLOUD team explores those puzzles. They intentionally added the simple nitrogen-containing organic compounds (called amines) to the chamber to see what would happen when more than just a few uninvited molecules were present.

                    It was thought that amines might have a role in the
                    formation of these particles, but their importance wasn’t well understood. That sulfuric acid in the particles comes from the reaction of sulfur dioxide, hydroxide, and water in the atmosphere. In order for these clumps of sulfuric acid to grow, a helper needs to keep the molecules in the clump from popping back into the gas phase. Ammonia is known to be an important one and had previously been included in the CLOUD experiment. But amines can perform this job as well.

                    Adding just a few parts per trillion of an amine
                    (roughly the concentration you can find in the atmosphere) raised the rate of particle formation in the CLOUD chamber to 1,000 times that seen in earlier experiments. That brought the rate up to what we observe in the atmosphere. This implies that amines are much more important than previously recognized.”
                    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/cern-experiment-finds-key-ingredient-for-cloud-droplets/

                    • cshorey

                      And yet there has been no observational evidence that aerosols produced by cosmic rays have any effect on clouds, let alone the climate. Sounds like you’re reaching for an explanation for your warming oceans, cryosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere through these cosmic rays. There is so much more evidence for greenhouse gasses than cosmic rays that relying on cosmic rays as your argument is nuts.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey babels: “There is so much more evidence for greenhouse gasses than cosmic rays that relying on cosmic rays as your argument is nuts.” Please, oh delusion one, provide this evidence that you claim for what you stated and make sure it has a verifiable link that one can visit to see what the information is about this repeatable experiment you are trying to claim exist and not just some more of your meaningless conjecture.

                      And yet there has been no observational evidence that CO2 produced by anthropogenic factors have any affect on the weather, let alone the climate. I have shown you that there are respected scientist such as Jasper Kirkby & Henrik Svensmark, who do something your kind of charlatans do not do, and that is experiments and research.

                      “Aerosol Indirect Effect Large aerosols (> 100 nm) can act as seeds on which cloud droplets form. Liquid water clouds have a strong cooling effect on the Earth’s climate. When more
                      aerosol are present in a cloud with a given amount of water, more cloud
                      droplets will form. These droplets will be smaller. The result is an increase in the cloud’s albedo; polluted clouds reflect more light into space, and cool the climate more effectively. The cloud will also have a longer lifetime, because smaller droplets are less likely to rain out. The aerosol indirect effect is larger than the direct effect, and more difficult to quantify.
                      […]
                      From time to time the sun’s magnetic field experiences brief periods of intense activity, when large quantities of highly charged plasma are thrown out into the solar system. This plasma blocks cosmic rays from reaching the Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in a temporary reduction in the ionisation rate. These events are known as Forbush decreases. Several recent papers have linked observations of changes in cloud characteristics with Forbush decreases.”
                      http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/Physics/modulation.html

                    • cshorey

                      And what did Jack Kirby say about his experiment that you are so heavily relying on? In the Nature Podcast right after he announced his results Jack Kirby said, “at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and thus climate”, That’s the experiment you are relying so heavily upon? What was that you said about ugly little facts destroying your beautiful . . . oh your ideas aren’t beautiful at all. Have you figured out the chess game we’re playing yet? Time’s a wasting!

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey:
                      I am assuming that you are talking about Jasper Kirkby because I have never heard of a Jack Kirby.

                      Jasper Kirkby is an experimental particle physicist at CERN, Switzerland. After
                      completing his degrees at Oxford and London, he spent 12 years at Stanford
                      before joining CERN in 1984. He has built detectors and carried out experiments
                      at accelerators in the United States (BNL AGS, SLAC Linac, SPEAR, and PEP) and
                      Europe (CERN PS, LEP, PSI and RAL). He originated the idea for a new
                      accelerator known as the Tau-Charm Factory, which eventually led to BEPCII in
                      Beijing. He has conceived of and led several large experiments at accelerators:
                      the DELCO detector at SPEAR; the DELCO detector at PEP; the FAST experiment at
                      PSI; and the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

                      http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/People/Jasper.html

                      Tell me, cshorey, which foaming at the mouth, spouting unproven garbage anthropogenic global
                      warming alarmist is doing any research of this caliber. As far as your chess game goes, you have
                      lost this one in the second move that I made I took your queen and the rook and two knights were the next to fall while I retain All of
                      my pieces to include the pawns. To play chess with some one like you would be like doing so with a pigeon, after
                      knocking over all of the pieces it would defecate on the board before flying off and that is what you should do.

                      cshorey • 10 days ago
                      “Since you have proven that you can not read and understand what you have read, I will give you the no more of my time.
                      Bye bye crazy person.” Another lie that you think nothing of spouting, just a way of life for you alarmist, know
                      nothing, fools that have no facts to use to make a point, only poorly
                      conceived, easy to see through lies to try to get more public money for useless
                      research that is also based on conjecture and more lies.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: As limited as your knowledge about anything is, I know that you would never have
                      heard of this since it is beyond your limited capabilities to understand that
                      the sun, which makes up 99.8% of the solar system, controls the earth’s climate
                      and not a trace gas, CO2. How else do you explain the coming and going of ice ages and the Roman Warm Period, the MWP
                      and the LIA?

                      Press Release 09-139
                      Solar Cycle Linked to Global Climate Drives events similar to El Niño, La Niña
                      July 16,
                      2009
                      Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by
                      scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for
                      Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar
                      activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El
                      Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

                      The research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation
                      patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.
                      http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207&org=OLPA&from=news

                    • John Swallow

                      Cshorey: “And what did Jack Kirby say about his experiment that you are so heavily relying on?”
                      “However, new research published in Nature vol.
                      476, p429, 25 August 2011 and ABC News in Science 29 August 2011 shows that cosmic rays have more effect than climate models predict. An international team of scientists has now carried out simulated cosmic ray effects on the atmosphere using the particle accelerator at CERN and found trace vapours in the atmosphere only account for a tiny proportion of atmospheric aerosol production and ionisation from cosmic rays is more important. Jasper Kirkby, who led the research, explained: “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into seeds for clouds”. Although vapours such as ammonia, sulphuric acid, water vapour are part of the process in the lower atmosphere, Kirby commented: “It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone”. The initial CERN results do not explain all aerosol formation and the research team suggest there are other factors involved. They are also planning more research on the extent to which cosmic rays affect cloud cover; and how solar activity may affect climate change.”

                      One might wonder if they were dealing with a logical person just why what Jasper Kirkby discovers using CERN would develop into such an issue for a poor, in the dark, totally uninformed person? I believe I just answered the question.

                      “CERN scientists announced Wednesday that they may have finally discovered glimpses of the elusive Higgs boson, called the God particle for its profound importance to our current model of physics. […]According to Forbes,
                      finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion.”
                      […]“The discovery came thanks to the work of the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s
                      largest particle accelerator, buried under the Swiss-French border. The facility took 10 years and around $4.75 billion to construct. Since it was declared operational in 2008, the LHC’s operating costs have been about $1 billion each year.
                      http://www.ibtimes.com/forbes-finding-higgs-boson-cost-1325-billion-721503

                      I assume that this self same ignorant individual would believe that CERN is just going to open their doors to any unqualified anthropogenic global warming freak to come along and turn things over to them. I assume that is why an experiment to prove that CO2 does what like minded folks believe has never occurred.

                      “The CLOUD collaboration has published results in Nature that show that amines – atmospheric vapours closely related to ammonia – combine with sulphuric acid to form highly stable aerosol particles at rates similar to those observed in the atmosphere. The collaboration has found that typical atmospheric concentrations of only a few amine molecules per trillion air molecules are sufficient for rapid particle production.”
                      http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/10/cows-clouds-and-climate

                    • cshorey

                      Yep, it was definitely Jack Kirby who said his experiment had no direct connection to clouds and thus to climate. The cosmic ray idea is not implausible, but the data does not support it as John seems to think.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: One can only wonder what Joe Blow, or Jack
                      Smith or Kim Jones may have had to say about this issue and I’m sure that
                      millions of folks were doing the same research using CERN’s multibillion dollar laboratory
                      to do so. Jasper Kirkby is definitely the one I am referencing and who
                      knows what in the world you are talking about or what your point is other than
                      you have none and how you saying that “cosmic ray idea is not
                      implausible” when you have no knowledge of the experiment being done on
                      cosmic rays & you think that what Jack Kirby, Joe Blow, Jack Smith or Jim Jones may have had to say
                      is creatable.

                    • cshorey

                      Fine, then Jasper Kirkby’s experiments don’t directly connect to clouds either. The particles are too small. That’s why you can’t even quote the connection. You have to give quote of “maybe”. Here’s what other’s say about this relevant, but in your case overplayed, experiment:

                      The CLOUD experiment is “not firming up the connection”, counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

                      “I think it’s an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment,” says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment “probably raises more questions than it answers”.

                      Well John, you think it supplies more answers but that’s because you still haven’t acknowledged the nanoscale size particles, and how the curvature problem of condensation makes that a bit of a problem.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: Like all of your post, other than one, this one shows no links to verify what you say & if, in light of the nonsense that you have tried to put forth as being true, you expect me to believe you then you are truly insane. There needs to be NO prove of cosmic rays to understand that H2O in the atmosphere is responsible for over 98% of the greenhouse affect on earth.

                      One does not need elaborate scientific experiments to assess the influence of atmospheric H2O on the earth’s climate. First off, one can not only see it but one can also feel it in the atmosphere. If someone has ever spent any time in the upper latitudes, or lower, where there are distinct seasons that are caused by the sun’s 22.4⁰ tilt on its axes, the coldest nights of the winter always occur when there is no cloud cover and it is also the reason why the deserts can be 120⁰ F. during the day and freezing at night.

                      This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
                      “One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
                      At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page, 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
                      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html

                      This is the absorption spectrum for liquid water in the atmosphere:
                      http://i42.tinypic.com/54aes8.jpg

                      Note the location of the strongest absorption peak of liquid water and it’s unfortunate coincidence with the absorption peak for CO2, where liquid water absorbs 300+ times more intensely than CO2, not to mention water’s much greater abundance in the troposphere:
                      http://i44.tinypic.com/24zayi1.jpg

                      On the three different occasions when I have; at different
                      locations, two of which were in Nepal and the other on Kilimanjaro in 2011,been at or above 18,000 feet, it took no experiment to show one that there is only about 1/2 as much atmosphere at these altitudes as at sea level by just trying to get enough O2 to exist; but, there were always clouds over head and snow on
                      the ground.

                      The fact that ALL of the river systems in the world that life
                      depends on are kept flowing because of the continual evaporation and
                      precipitation cycle that takes place and at one time or the other ALL of this
                      H2O is in the atmosphere.

                      “The Amazon River carries more water than any other river in the world. In fact, the Amazon River is responsible for about one-fifth (twenty percent) of the fresh water that flows into the world’s oceans.”
                      http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/amazonriver8.htm

                      See if you can figure out what the trend is doing with this chart.
                      Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world.
                      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

                      You will notice when you open this link below that atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing since 1960 and, if this is true and you maintain that it is the driver of the earth’s temperature, then why have these temperature now dropped and why was the Medieval Warm Period warmer than the temperatures of today?

                      Full Mauna Loa CO2 record
                      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

                      Why don’t you present some facts, cshorey? Is it because you have none and want to try to use this cosmic ray deal that anyone can understand but you as a way to “cloud the waters”?

                    • John Swallow

                      “Solar activity heads for lowest
                      low in four centuries”

                      […]

                      “But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to
                      bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is
                      already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar
                      cycles. Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected,
                      according to the most recent
                      assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

                      Folks
                      need to keep this in mind regarding the IPCC & anything that Mike Lockwood,
                      who has his hand so deeply into the pockets of the governments that are pushing
                      this hoax of agw, climate change or what ever else these unsavory, unethical
                      charlatans are pushing to keep the money coming, that the just like with cshorey,
                      the truth matters not.

                      1. Scope
                      and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

                      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established
                      by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme
                      (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information
                      that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential
                      impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. (Could this be the same
                      World Meteorological Organization that now claims that Death Valley holds the
                      world record high temperature that was set, get this, in 1913?)

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22

                    • cshorey

                      You seem to have forgotten to mention the peer reviewed findings of Rahmsdorf et al. It’s pretty important context for your rant.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: Why would I mention the pal reviewed finding of this charlatan, Ramstorf et al. when there are actual unbiased researchers on this subject who have done valid research regarding sea levels and do not rely on models that have been wrong in almost everything that they have predicted? They say this: “The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.” and have NO FACTS, what so ever to back up this absurd claim.

                      Here is what some actual scientist say about this issue.
                      RECONCILING HOLOCENE SEA-LEVEL
                      HISTORY ON THE US GULF COAST: IS THE MISSISSIPPI DELTA THE ROSETTA STONE?
                      https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_53217.htm

                      PEAT RECORDS OF LATE HOLOCENE CLIMATE
                      AND SEA-LEVEL CHANGE IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA
                      https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_55802.htm

                      SEA LEVEL CHANGES: OBSERVATIONS
                      VERSUS MODELS
                      MÖRNER, Nils-Axel, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm Univ, Stockholm S-10691 Sweden, morner@pog.su.se.

                      In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Sea level fell between 1930 and 1950. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10 +10 cm (or +5 +15 cm), by this discarding model out-puts by IPCC as well as global loading models. In conclusions, there are firm observationally based reasons to free the world from the condemnation to become extensively flooded in the 21st century AD. https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm

                    • cshorey

                      I wouldn’t really expect you to cite it as it goes against your science denial. That’s how you cherry pick findings. Throw some ad hominem attacks in on the principal investigator, and then get totally confused and post on Sea Level rise, when the study I referred to didn’t directly address SLR. You still haven’t figured out the game we’re playing here. tic tic tic

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: In order to have the catastrophic sea level raise that you are wanting to claim will happen if one more lump of coal is burned, there would have to be melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

                      Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
                      ”We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice
                      sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.”
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

                      Dr. Steve Nerem is with NASA but
                      obviously not with the GISS branch of it that Hansen ran.

                      “Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
                      Key Points, Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years

                      Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
                      GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
                      Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA).”
                      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

                      I know you are probably imagining that the sea level is also raising.
                      Dr. Steve Nerem said this:
                      “In the last 50 years sea level has risen at an estimated rate of .18 centimeters (.07 inches) per year, but in the last 12 years that rate appears to be .3 centimeters (.12 inches) per year. Roughly half of that is attributed to the expansion of ocean water as it has increased in temperature, with the rest coming from other sources, “said Dr. Steve Nerem, associate professor, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado, Boulder.

                      http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=118

                      This makes your hero, Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , (who, incidentally you do not know enough about to even spell his name correct) and his similar minded cronies out to be unscrupulous liars.

                      NASA Satellites Detect
                      Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
                      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: It seems that your kind has trouble keeping
                      up with the latest lies put forth by the likes of Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , or I assume that he is the one you were referring to. “Yes indeed it has. Germany’s prestigious research institutes and leading climatologists, such as “internationally recognized” Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, Head of both the Research Division Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics and the Research Unit Marine Meteorology of the IFM-GEOMAR of Kiel, Germany, and “renowned” Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf of the influential Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), or Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg are now stumped, baffled and confused by this unexpected development, which completely contradicts their earlier super-computer models. Indeed, most of the German warmist modellers have since gone back and revamped their models, and are now suddenly claiming that the colder winters are actually a sign of global warming! But for much of the remaining German science community, these once prestigious scientists are beginning to increasingly look like laughing stocks of the new century.”

                      http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/17/meteorologist-dominik-jung-turns-skeptical-after-germany-sets-record-5-consecutive-colder-than-normal-winters/

                    • cshorey

                      Words words words

                    • John Swallow

                      Cshorey: This is just another one of many things that I am positive from the contents of your post that you have never heard of, the 1859 Carrington Event.

                      “What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?
                      Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.”
                      […]
                      In 1859, such reports were mostly curiosities. But if something similar happened today, the world’s high-tech infrastructure could grind to a halt.
                      […]
                      “What’s at stake,” the Space Weather Prediction Center’s Bogdan said, “are the advanced technologies that underlie virtually every aspect of our lives.”
                      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/

                      “Influence of a Carrington-like event on the atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics”
                      […]
                      Effects on atmospheric chemistry, temperature and dynamics were investigated using the 3-D Chemistry Climate Model SOCOL v2.0. We find significant responses of NOx, HOx, ozone, temperature and zonal wind. 
                      […]
                      In conclusion, a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to of the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone.
                      […]
                      Comparing the outcome for temperature and dynamics modeled with SOCOL with results of Jackman et al. (2007), who investigated the SPE of October/November 2003 using their 3-D TIME-GCM, we see that these results are in good qualitative agreement. They show that shortly after the event happened, the southern hemispheric polar region has a decrease in temperature throughout the entire mesosphere, similar to our results for the northern hemispheric polar region.[…]
                      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/8679/2012/acp-12-8679-2012.html

                      What would people like you, Al Gore and James Hansen have to say then about your “anthropogenic global warming”? I’m sure that some lie would surface to try to further your cause but people are not believing your brand of nonsense any more.

                    • cshorey

                      Quick John, write a paper and submit it for publication. I’m sure the scientific community will embrace your one time one thing happened and then weather happened as proof of the cosmic rays being a primary controller of the climate. Or maybe they’ll laugh you out of town.

                    • John Swallow

                      It is too
                      bad that someone that is not confident enough in their supposed believes that
                      they will not use their real name when exposing such nonsense would think that
                      someone that supplies links to the information presented would be laughed out
                      of town. You are nothing but a mindless
                      troll and you have no interest in science or knowledge of anything that has to
                      do with science regarding this issue of anthropogenic global warming and that
                      is exemplified by your inane post. An
                      intelligent, honest person would take this matter up with the party that
                      presented that information and I presented the link for you to do so; but, you
                      appear to not be bright enough to do that.

      • John Swallow

        cshorey: You had better straighten these people out at NASA AND NOAA because they must
        not have the same connection with the divinity you seem to worship and fear,
        and is like all spiritual matters, unproven.
        Where is the proof that CO2, in its current amount in the
        atmosphere, has anything to do with the earth’s climate? Remember that CO2 has increased but yet the
        temperatures on earth have not.

        “NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES
        Date: 21/01/14

        Dr David Whitehouse
        In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released
        data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show
        that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to
        some estimates, continues.”

        Statistically
        speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. All
        these years fall within each other’s error bars. The graphs presented at the
        press conference omitted those error bars.

        When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters Dr
        Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from
        volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they
        don’t know. http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/

      • Guest

        That argument was nothing like the gun “logical fallacy” comparison you made. It was based upon common sense whereas you’re trying to prove a negative with a negative and are falling prey to your own oft repeated “straw man” hyperbole to defend the convoluted irrationality of your statements. And your grossest hypocrisy and contradiction you sum up and indict yourself with by the absurdity of your concluding statement. Alpha2actual just gave you a brilliant analysis of how many factors of “major forces” of the past show a distinct correlation to today’s climate, which you dismiss out of hand. Then you offer the singularly “sliver” of a component of climate in which you argued in the past was not enough to base any hypothesis on, then turn around and contradict yourself with the absurd statement insinuating “greenhouse gases” are the straightforward explanation. Ignoring the thousands of other forces that make up the complex creation, maintenance and sustainability of climate. Sorry Mr C., you may have done some serious research and have a modicum of knowledge of math and climate but you’re a complete failure as a Theoretician. You are continually mixing rational and irrational metaphors.

        Michael Lawrence
        ISGI

        • cshorey

          An class of phenomenon can have multiple causal agents. Death is one example. Climate change is another. I can see why you missed that easy correspondence in the analogy. You don’t seem to even know what “straw man” is, but even if you got that, it would only start revealing to you the error of your ways. Both you and A2A are using the argument from incredulity, which is also known as having a lack of imagination. You can’t understand how humans can influence something that has been solely under natural controls before we arrived. Ok, because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean others don’t. Still holds that our heat seeking missiles wouldn’t work without knowledge of thermal IR absorption. You fail again.

  • alpha2actual

    Bill Nye, the Science Guy, was on the first segment of Stossel. Caught like a deer in the headlights he froze. The Science Guy, after watching the show real time had absolutely nothing to add to the conversation other than “the earth’s population exceeds 7 billion people” Wow, shocking incredibly erudite. Typical of an agenda driven rent seeking quasi “Expert” of no importance

  • alpha2actual

    We live in a republic that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with thermometers. Who’s gonna do it? You, AL ManBearPig Gore? You, Dr Hockey Stick, Hide the Decline Mann? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for those Polar Bears and you curse the temperature takers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves useless expenditure of national treasure and retards the genocidal effects of the policies you want to implement.

    You don’t want the truth. Deep down, in places you don’t talk about when your are sleeping alone late at night after those Georgetown cocktail parties after chowing down on limp quiche and swilling a third rate California Chardonnay devoid of pretension, you want me on that wall you need me on that wall. We use words like Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, and Toga Parties …we use these words as the backbone to a life devoted to taking temperature. We don’t use terms like grant chasing, rent seeking, transnational progressivism, or Crony Socialism. You use them as a punch lines. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the electric blanket powered by the very electricity I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a thermometer and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to.

    • badswing

      “pleased to meet you”

    • cshorey

      The BEST study kind of pulls the teeth out of your argument here. Even the “skeptics” find the same thing as those you distrust. Funny.

      • John Swallow

        This study took place before the BEST study.
        Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990,
        NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

        Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly
        considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile
        both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States
        Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.
        Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

        It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

        For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
        http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

        • cshorey

          The article to which you link and the arguments you make are hardly something to take seriously when seven international committees looked into this and found no scientific misconduct. I know I may be talking to a conspiracy nut who actually thinks the scientists and politicians have gotten together to plan the massive deception. NEVER ASSUME MALICIOUSNESS WHERE PLAIN INCOMPETENCE CAN EXPLAIN. Have fun going down that rabbit hole but have you taken the time to talk to someone in temperature reconstructions and find out what it takes. Even John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen all agree the average global temps have risen over the past century consistent with all these other reconstructions you bring into question. Is it really possible you’ve found the weak link in all this where everyone else has already accepted the repeatedly examined data?

          • John Swallow

            cshorey: What you post here is your opinion and being that is the case; when taken in light of the other post that
            you have made here, your opinion is worthless. “Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared
            together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic
            and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).” I know that you
            are not a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, or any other kind of Meteorologist: therefore, what you say about this revelation is meaningless.

            Since you have proven that you can not read and understand what you have read, I will give you a few high lights from this report.

            “Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.”
            I imagine that you do not think that this number of deleted data-sets would make a difference and show me where this did not occur.

            “For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989
            to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling
            while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s
            right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north
            of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been
            described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate
            summers.”

            “Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the
            beach – and he rightly observed that “It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers
            in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or
            cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.”

            “Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007.
            http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

            • cshorey

              Meteorology deals with short term physical states of the atmosphere, whereas Climatology deals with long term trends in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. Thanks for bringing a meteorologist in on a climate discussion. I guess if they have been a climatologist, they might have realized what can be done with systematic error in data. Let me post this question to you John; what would systematic error do to hide a trend line? Since you have proven that you can not read and understand what you have read, I will give you the no more of my time. Bye bye crazy person.

              • John Swallow

                cshorey: Has systematic error hid this trend
                line?

                Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset

                “The monthly series, which begins in 1659, is the longest
                available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily series begins in 1772. Manley (1953,1974) compiled most of the monthly series, covering 1659 to 1973. These data were updated to 1991 by Parker et al (1992),
                when they calculated the daily series. Both series are now kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, Met Office. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming.”
                http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

                See how the trend line from the (HadCET) dataset does NOT follow the trend line of CO2 from the
                Mauna Loa observatory.

                Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
                August 2013: 395.15 ppm
                August 2012: 392.41 ppm
                http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

                I realize that you are not bright enough to wonder why the increase in CO2 is not causing the temperature rise that fools like you have predicted. The reason is that CO2 has
                little to no bearing on the earth’s climate as is being proven now on an almost daily bases.

                It is not strange that with all of your pointless and irrational
                post you never once provided any links so that anyone that doubted what you were carrying on about could look up and then decide if there was any truth in what you were putting forth. I assume you thought that everyone should just believe your nonsense and that is what no
                one did. Why don’t you just go and post with Climate Crock or Skeptical Science and be among your brethren who can lie every bit as well as you can.

              • John Swallow

                Itappears that you, cshorey,
                or whatever your real name is that you will not use because your are afraid that someone that has the misfortune to know you will understand just how
                distorted and delusional your views on CO@2 and the climate/weather are. To your kind if it is a warm event then it is termed by you to be a sure sign of global warming; if it is a cold winter such as now grips the US and much of the
                northern hemisphere then it is termed “weather”. What I report below also totally contradicts another claim that you make by saying that the medieval warm period was
                confined to Europe for 400 years, preposterous; but, for you any kind of lie is the norm.
                Lets look at the winter of 2013-2014 so far.

                “2013:
                Middle East experiences worst snow storm since 1953.
                13 Dec
                2013
                ‘Historic’
                snow storms spread havoc and misery across the Middle East

                The worst snow storms since 1953 have caused chaos in Israel and the Palestinian territories and exacerbated an already severe crisis among Syrian
                refugees”
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10516498/Historic-snow-storms-spread-havoc-and-misery-across-the-Middle-East.html

                “Snow closes roads in Israel, is a source of wonder in Egypt”
                December 13, 2013
                http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#ixzz2nXhTlPFS

                “Snow falls in Vietnam
                Unusual weather strikes east Asia.
                Last
                updated: 16 Dec 2013 09:39
                Snow has fallen in Northern Vietnam for the first time in many years.
                The snow caused a five-hour traffic jam as people drove into the mountainous provinces of Lao Cai and Ha Giang to see the wintry flurries.”
                http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/12/snow-falls-vietnam-20131216924218746.html

                Press Room 9 December 2013 Press Release: Landsat 8 helps unveil the coldest place on Earth (Is this the satellite that you say proves that CO2 is warming the planet?)

                Scientists recently recorded the lowest temperatures on Earth at a desolate and remote ice plateau in East Antarctica, trumping a record set in 1983 and uncovering a new puzzle about the ice-covered continent.

                “Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and his team found temperatures from −92 to −94 degrees Celsius (−134 to −137 degrees Fahrenheit) in a 1,000-kilometer long swath on the highest section of the East Antarctic ice divide.

                “I’ve never been in conditions that cold and I hope I never am,” Scambos said. “I am told that every breath is painful and you have to be extremely careful not to freeze part of your throat or lungs when inhaling.”
                http://nsidc.org/news/press/2013_ColdestPlace_PR.html

                “It is really a rare occasion for Fort Peck to freeze completely over prior to Christmas at lake elevations at or above its current level,” Daggett wrote in an email. “The last time it did was Dec. 21, 2000.”
                http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/fort-peck-reservoir-completely-frozen/article_5b2cf8f7-5359-5e31-836d-154002d25156.html

                Thai government declares disaster zones as people are caught up in plummeting winter temperatures… of 15C
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525366/Thai-government-declares-disaster-zones-people-caught-low-winter-temperatures.html

                According to the Changrai Times the frost temperature was recorded at -1.4 degrees Celsius, while the overall temperature has dropped sharply by 6-8C, with temperature in downtown Chiang Mai province recorded at 14.3C.

                During a weekly cabinet meeting today, members were briefed on plummeting temperatures in Thailand’s upper parts and the villagers’ lack of warm clothes and blankets.
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525366/Thai-government-declares-disaster-zones-people-caught-low-winter-temperatures.html

                The cold season in the North will stretch into mid-February.
                Ms Pornnapha said the weather this year was colder than last year.
                http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/385486/cold-spell-ahead-for-northern-region

                Tropics Go Wintery! … Northern Thailand Declared Cold Disaster Zone … Snow In Vietnam … In Turkey “Animals Literally Freeze Where They Stand”!
                http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/19/tropics-go-wintery-northern-thailand-declared-cold-disaster-zone-in-turkey-animals-literally-freeze-where-they-stand-middle-east-shivers/

                The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 percent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements
                show
                http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/12/27/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-percent/

                PUBLISHED
                DECEMBER 26, 2013
                A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off
                the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.

                […]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912,
                the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
                http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#

                One can wonder if this ignorant charlatan, Chris Turney, gives any thought to what DID not happen in 1912.
                “2013:

                Sub-zero arctic blast strikes US
                January 6, 2014 2:01 AM
                http://news.yahoo.com/snowstorm-bears-down-northeastern-united-states-182459259.html

                REPORTS: Rare Ice, Snow Storm Halts Atlanta Traffic Through the Night
                January 29, 2014; 9:01 PM
                http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/live-southern-snow-ice-force-t/22639719

                • cshorey

                  Crazy man, meet Straw man.

                  • John Swallow

                    cshorey lets everyone in on his knowledge of this subject
                    whit the post “Crazy man, meet Straw man.” And I have found during this discussion with them that I have seen both the Crazy Straw man plus the totally out of touch with reality desperate dunce who said “A pollutant is defined as as any substance that causes negative perturbation to a natural system or disrupts its intended use. CO2 has gone from 280 ppmv in 1800 to 400ppm this year.” to which I reply so what & who gives a damn? I gave cshorey examples of ppm, such as one inch in 16 miles and one minute in two years worth of minutes but they do not have the ability of understanding this simplified example of ppm.

                    “At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
                    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.”

                    I happened on this site/link at Green Party of
                    Canada’s site, of all things.
                    ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere
                    to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2

                    https://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic

                    Some where in cshorey’s inane succession of post I think he said that he was a paleoclimatologist and I find it hard to believe that they have had any kind of training in any scientific field.

                    The first thing one notices is how little correlation CO2 has with temperature –

                    ………………Mean
                    Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm

                    Cretaceous…………….18………………………1700

                    Paleogene………………18……………………….500

                    ………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm

                    Permian…………………16………………………..900

                    Jurassic…………………16.5…………………….1950

                    This applies to the 97% nonsense that these kind of charlatans like to spout:

                    As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

                    I ask cshorey for the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.

                    The temperature stand still of the last 17 years brings this quote to mind for cshorey’s consideration:

                    As Thomas Huxley famously stated: “The great tragedy in science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

            • Guest

              Hey John, got into it with cshorey and having fun with research and dismantling his last response to me:
              cshorey:
              Now go and calculate the heat capacity of the hydrosphere vs that of the atmosphere and then come back and see if you can make that a more intelligent statement. Then start looking into the heat capacity of the cryosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere too. Good luck.

              My response:
              The suppositions about the influence of man on the biosphere are still just that. Suppositions. And the contributing factors (hydro, cryo, and lithosphere) function as systems of asymmetric temperatures to the point you have to look outside to the truly cosmic influences of the major “spheres” of particle interaction with the atmosphere, ie the stratosphere, magnestosphere and the plasmashpere to try to determine the true influences to climate. Not to mention the Mesosphere, Thermosphere, Exosphere and Ionosphere. The biosphere is the Yin to the outer atmospheres Yang. And it would take greater minds than yours or mine to fathom the complexity of that relationship. We can analyze it, qualify it, quantify it and theorize how this multidimensional system works, but nobody has yet provided and empirical experiment or completed formula of how all of these phenomena interact to produce and control the weather.

              Like you said, the elements being discussed on this thread are only a “sliver” of the puzzle, including your own, and fail to take into account the phenomenal presence, structures and power of these forces of atmosphere and space (see below) that make any assessment of what controls climate purely speculative and beyond the ultimate influence of man. ACC cannot be proven when all of the forces of nature are taken into account particularly the Magnetosphere and the Plasmasphere. That’s not to say that a catastrophic use of nuclear weapons wouldn’t have an immediate impact upon the ‘biosphere,” but to what extent we can only speculate.

              You and the majority of climate change fanatics leave out a multitude of atmospheric influences because the conditions that control climate are just too complex for even the most ardent meteorologist too fully comprehend. When was the last time any weatherman got it consistently right. As noted below the ozone layer is a far more crucial element to the stability of plant and human life, but that has been pretty well addressed by the international community over the last 4 decades since it was discovered that CFC’s were the main contributing factor. Severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer was first observed in the early 1980s. The international response was embodied in the Montreal Protocol. Today 191 countries worldwide have signed the Montreal Protocol which is widely regarded as the most successful Multinational Environmental Agreement ever reached to date.

              Furthermore the phasing out of ozone depleting substances (ODS) has helped to fight climate change since many ODS are also powerful greenhouse gases. The use of all CFC’s has ceased since 2010 and the ozone hole is shrinking.

              Since that villain has been vanquished the “green’ extreme, now the new “Red” George Orwell movement needed a new revenue stream, and what better way then to demonize the source of all modern society including what we exhale, and try to turn us back to the stone age. Petroleum, gas and coal are what the fanatics really want to end the use of. If that’s your goal, then you had better throw away your computer, your phone, your car, your house, the roads the buildings, and nearly every modern convenience that makes you comfortable. Just trek off into the wilderness, with your knife and canteen and build yourself a log cabin. But you can’t burn wood for fuel because you’ll be putting carbon intro the atmosphere. And the moron green movement forcing the end to fire lanes in wilderness areas have contributed to some of the greatest releases of carbon from out of control wildfires in the last 30 years. Oh, well, you might as well put a gun to your head since by your calculations we’re all doomed anyway.

              But If you were really up on your research you’d know that recent discoveries have led a number of respected geologist to announce that fossil fuels are not “nonrenewable” and as I explained in a previous post the earth is one large oil producing mechanism and producing it at a much faster rate than previously thought.. Surely you’ve seen the videos, if you watch science documentaries, of oil bubbling up out of the deep ocean floor fissures near volcanic activity. We are going to have to use it or let it pollute us. Its simple as that. The only real issue: is the technology to capture and make inert the pollutions form using renewable petroleum fuels moving at a pace consistent with protecting the environment? If you lived in Los Angeles in the 60′s and 70′s and saw the smog there, and you see it’s not there today you realize we’ve come a long way toward achieving that goal. And I’m confident we will continue to perfect our use of petroleum and provide the economic freedom and opportunities it generates as long as the idiots in government get out of the way. And long before any appreciable amount of CO2′s do any damage. We are carbon life forms and symbiotic with CO2. I have faith that man will be guided by the intelligence, morals and ethics to achieve this success. I included for fun the exciting definitions of these “powerful forces” that are also part of the phenomenally complex systems that influence and control our climate. Notice the use of the expression “all weather phenomena” in the definition of Troposphere. Phenomena: “that which can be observed but not fully understood.

              Troposphere The troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the planet and contains the largest percentage (around 80%) of the mass of the total atmosphere. Temperature and water vapor content in the troposphere decrease rapidly with altitude. Water vapor plays a major role in regulating air temperature because it absorbs solar energy and thermal radiation from the planet’s surface. The troposphere contains 99 % of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations vary with latitude. They are greatest above the tropics, where they may be as high as 3 %, and decrease toward the polar regions.

              All weather phenomena occur within the troposphere, although turbulence may extend into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Troposphere means “region of mixing” and is so named because of vigorous convective air currents within the layer.

              The upper boundary of the layer, known as the tropopause, ranges in height from 5 miles (8 km) near the poles up to 11 miles (18 km) above the equator. Its height also varies with the seasons; highest in the summer and lowest in the winter.

              Stratosphere

              The stratosphere is the second major strata of air in the atmosphere. It extends above the tropopause to an altitude of about 30 miles (50 km) above the planet’s surface. The air temperature in the stratosphere remains relatively constant up to an altitude of 15 miles (25 km). Then it increases gradually to up to the stratopause. Because the air temperature in the stratosphere increases with altitude, it does not cause convection and has a stabilizing effect on atmospheric conditions in the region. Ozone plays the major role in regulating the thermal regime of the stratosphere, as water vapor content within the layer is very low. Temperature increases with ozone concentration. Solar energy is converted to kinetic energy when ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet radiation, resulting in heating of the stratosphere.

              The ozone layer is centered at an altitude between 10-15 miles (15-25 km). Approximately 90 % of the ozone in the atmosphere resides in the stratosphere. Ozone concentration in the this region is about 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as compared to approximately 0.04 ppmv in the troposphere. Ozone absorbs the bulk of solar ultraviolet radiation in wavelengths from 290 nm – 320 nm (UV-B radiation). These wavelengths are harmful to life because they can be absorbed by the nucleic acid in cells. Increased penetration of ultraviolet radiation to the planet’s surface would damage plant life and have harmful environmental consequences. Appreciably large amounts of solar ultraviolet radiation would result in a host of biological effects, such as a dramatic increase in cancers.

              Mesosphere

              The mesosphere a layer extending from approximately 30 to 50 miles (50 to 85 km) above the surface, is characterized by decreasing temperatures. The coldest temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere occur at the top of this layer, the mesopause, especially in the summer near the pole. The mesosphere has sometimes jocularly been referred to as the “ignorosphere” because it had been probably the least studied of the atmospheric layers. The stratosphere and mesosphere together are sometimes referred to as the middle atmosphere.

              Thermosphere

              The thermosphere is located above the mesosphere. The temperature in the thermosphere generally increases with altitude reaching 600 to 3000 F (600-2000 K) depending on solar activity. This increase in temperature is due to the absorption of intense solar radiation by the limited amount of remaining molecular oxygen. At this extreme altitude gas molecules are widely separated. Above 60 miles (100 km) from Earth’s surface the chemical composition of air becomes strongly dependent on altitude and the atmosphere becomes enriched with lighter gases (atomic oxygen, helium and hydrogen). Also at 60 miles (100 km) altitude, Earth’s atmosphere becomes too thin to support aircraft and vehicles need to travel at orbital velocities to stay aloft. This demarcation between aeronautics and astronautics is known as the Karman Line. Above about 100 miles (160 km) altitude the major atmospheric component becomes atomic oxygen. At very high altitudes, the residual gases begin to stratify according to molecular mass, because of gravitational separation.

              Exosphere

              The exosphere is the most distant atmospheric region from Earth’s surface. In the exosphere, an upward travelling molecule can escape to space (if it is moving fast enough) or be pulled back to Earth by gravity (if it isn’t) with little probability of colliding with another molecule. The altitude of its lower boundary, known as the thermopause or exobase, ranges from about 150 to 300 miles (250-500 km) depending on solar activity. The upper boundary can be defined theoretically by the altitude (about 120,000 miles, half the distance to the Moon) at which the influence of solar radiation pressure on atomic hydrogen velocities exceeds that of the Earth’s gravitational pull. The exosphere observable from space as the geocorona is seen to extend to at least 60,000 miles from the surface of the Earth. The exosphere is a transitional zone between Earth’s atmosphere and interplanetary space.

              MAGNETO-ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE

              The upper atmosphere is also divided into regions based on the behavior and number of free electrons and other charged particles.

              Ionosphere

              The ionosphere is defined by atmospheric effects on radiowave propagation as a result of the presence and variation in concentration of free electrons in the atmosphere.

              D-region is about 35 to 55 miles (60 – 90 km) in altitude but disappears at night.
              E-region is about 55 to 90 miles (90 – 140 km) in altitude.
              F-region is above 90 miles (140 km) in atitude. During the day it has two regions known as the F1-region from about 90 to 115 miles (140 to 180 km) altitude and the F2-region in which the concentration of electrons peaks in the altitude range of 150 to 300 miles (around 250 to 500 km). Most recent map of the Height of Maximum (hmF2). The ionosphere above the peak electron concentration is usually referred to as the Topside Ionosphere.

              Plasmasphere

              The plasmasphere is not really spherical but a doughnut-shaped region (a torus) with the hole aligned with Earth’s magnetic axis. [In this case the use of the suffix -sphere is more in the figurative sense of a "sphere of influence".] The Earth’s plasmasphere is made of just that, a plasma, the fourth state of matter. (Test your skills on sorting the states of matter with the Matter Sorter.) This plasma is composed mostly of hydrogen ions (protons) and electrons. It has a very sharp edge called the plasmapause. The outer edge of this doughnut over the equator is usually some 4 to 6 Earth radii from the center of the Earth or 12,000-20,000 miles (19,000-32,000 km) above the surface. The plasmasphere is essentially an extension of the ionosphere. Inside of the plasmapause, geomagnetic field lines rotate with the Earth. The inner edge of the plasmasphere is taken as the altitude at which protons replace oxygen as the dominant species in the ionospheric plasma which usually occurs at about 600 miles (1000 km) altitude. The plasmasphere can also be considered to be a structure within the magnetosphere.

              Magnetosphere

              Outside the plasmapause, magnetic field lines are unable to corotate because they are influenced strongly by electric fields of solar wind origin. The magnetosphere is a cavity (also not spherical) in which the Earth’s magnetic field is constrained by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). The outer boundary of the magnetosphere is called the magnetopause. The magnetosphere is shaped like an elongated teardrop (like a Christmas Tree ornament) with the tail pointing away from the Sun. The magnetopause is typically located at about 10 Earth radii or some 35,000 miles (about 56,000 km) above the Earth’s surface on the day side and stretches into a long tail, the magnetotail, a few million miles long (about 1000 Earth radii), well past the orbit of the Moon (at around 60 Earth radii), on the night side of the Earth. However, the Moon itself is usually not within the magnetosphere except for a couple of days around the Full Moon.

              Beyond the magnetopause are the magnetosheath and bow shock which are regions in the solar wind disturbed by the presence of Earth and its magnetic field.

              • John Swallow

                It is
                fitting that someone with such a limited knowledge of this topic would ask such
                a question of you. We know that

                Cshorey
                will not and can not answer my challenge to him/her/ whatever the in between
                may b e, to submit the results of the empirical experiment that has been done
                that shows that CO2 influences the
                climate like he and other fools want us to believe that it does. That should not be that difficult for these
                people to present how this can be, other than it will not make their point for
                them. I have seen phony experiments
                presented that are nothing more than the reenactment of the ingenious
                experiment that Tyndall did in 1859.

                “The greenhouse effect works as follows.”

                “In 1859 Tyndall began to study the capacities of various
                gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He showed that the main atmospheric
                gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are almost transparent to radiant heat, whereas
                water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are such good absorbers that, even in
                small quantities, these gases absorb heat radiation much more strongly than
                the rest of the atmosphere.

                Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of
                heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air
                temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He
                declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in
                the iron grip of frost’ – the
                greenhouse effect.

                Isn’t it a shame that 155 years after Tyndall did his experiments
                that we have idiots that still can not under stand that H2O is responsible for
                from 95-99% of the greenhouse effect
                & instead; for a variety of reasons, control being the main one, that
                somehow the trace gas, CO2, that makes up a paltry .038% of the atmosphere is
                responsible for the climate of earth?

                I will present some ludicrous “experiments” that only
                approximate Tyndall’s experiment at the
                end of this. It would be easy to do a real, empirical experiment
                instead of the farces that the fools present in these example but the results
                would not be what they would want the unwashed masses that they are trying to
                gain control over by limiting their supplies of energy by raising the prices to
                a degree that they will not be able to afford to buy fossil fuel produced
                energy and also eat. The two are tied together in a modern society since food
                production is with out a doubt tied to fossil fuels in the growing of, the
                processing of, the transport and the marketing of. The experiment could be done in any
                laboratory using basic equipment and
                start out using the ambient air in the lab and, as these phony experiment s
                show, there is no evidence of any heat absorption taking place. One must be aware that in the confines of a
                building, the percent of CO2 in the air will be higher than in the outside
                ambient air because of animals expelling this harmless gas with each
                breath. All that now needs to be done is
                to increase the CO2 in the enclosed apparatus that the experiment is conducted
                in and have a reliable measurement of the amount of CO2 that has to be added in
                ppm or percentage of the atmosphere in the test unit to get the heat source to
                be absorbed by the CO2. Honest and
                scientific people I do believe would report that it takes at least 4,000 to
                5,000 ppm before this happens and this is not what charlatans such as James
                Hansen and others who call them selves “scientist” want people to
                know because that would prove that CO2 has not one thing to do with the earth’s
                climate.

                Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by
                CO2

                Carbon Dioxide Trapping of Earth’s Heat – A Laboratory
                Experiment

                This is Cshorey kind of “science”

                The Greenhouse Gas Demo

                Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

                This one with the less than convincing Richard Alley also tries to make
                the weak minded folks believe that there is some kind of “canopy”
                that traps the escaping heat and sends it back to the planet, At what altitude and just where is this
                “canopy” is something that the person fails to explain, as do the
                other fools who show this kind of nonsense.
                We know that at 18,000 feet there is only 1/2 of the atmosphere that is
                present at sea level, but to this person representing the National Science Foundation that is meaningless.

                How Do We Know? Carbon Dioxide And Global
                Warming

                National Science
                Foundation

                Here are some more examples of
                Cshorey kind of “science”.

                A science experiment to get you all
                fired up.

                Join Dr Yan for some fire-fighting fun.

                http://www.bbc.co.uk/bang/handson/fizzy_extinguisher.shtml

                This is
                an interesting site to look into and it
                coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times
                heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake
                Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the
                lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles
                of the lake

                http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-century/

                Putting the science of global warming
                to the test

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm

                “They heat two bottles – one containing “air” (last time I looked,
                that included carbon dioxide anyway) and one containing “atmospheric air with a greater concentration of carbon dioxide” (they didn’t’t say how much they were adding, of course,
                but I’d bet it was substantially more than
                0.000388%!). Surprise, surprise — the latter bottle grew hotter… Of course it did.”

                I enjoyed
                reading your dissertation in response to the challenge that cshorey offered up
                to you with out having any idea whatsoever what he was asking, just something
                that he saw on Skeptical Science, I assume.

                • Guest

                  Hi John,
                  M Lawrence here. Interesting Post. Clear proof of the superficiality of terra firma experiments to prove AGW . I have one more, and the last post I will convey to cshorey that I think you’ll find very entertaining and humorous. I make reference to Holmes (Sherlock) and Moriarity. First, cshoreys response:

                  cshorey Guest • 18 hours ago
                  Very good copy and paste Guest. Why not just say “go to the Albany edu website to look up what they say about atmospheric structure.”? As far as simply figuring out the heat capacity of the hydrosphere vs. the atmosphere, I give you a solid F. Plagiarism and can’t stay on target.

                  My response:
                  My dear Mr C. You really are a big disappointment. Obviously you didn’t engage in an in depth read of my essay. The entire first half is totally original analysis, hypothesis and theory with a little anecdotal humor and maybe a bit of sarcasm for which I humbly apologize. You’re just not making this as much fun as it could be. Your not living up to my expectation of being the Moriarity to my Holmes. Such a dreary and abbreviated response, when I presented you with so much material to mull over.

                  Of course I pasted the Albany data on purpose, for reasons I explained that you missed, going right over your head I suppose. And I added the addendum to clarify why I wouldn’t waste any time researching the heat capacity issue, which was really just an obfuscation and red herring you threw out to hide the fact that your research is truncated, incomplete and improbable speculation, (read again, I added more clarification) ie:

                  “The suppositions about the influence of man on the biosphere are still just that: Suppositions. And the contributing factors (hydro, cryo, and lithosphere) function as systems of asymmetric temperature “fluctuations” to the point where you must also look outside to the truly cosmic influences of the major “spheres” of particle interaction with the atmosphere, ie the stratosphere, magnetosphere and the plasmashpere to try to determine the true influences to climate. Those are also part of the critical factors affecting the “heat capacity” of the systems you reference, in addition to the earths internal heating mechanism and oceanic gravitational inertia. And any measurement as to their “heat capacity,” which I’m sure is the subject of several scientific suppositions and calculations, serves only to further redundant speculations about catastrophic potentials over which we have no control. I’m sure you can reference me to some obscure scientific study that will provide an apocalyptic picture should the ocean temperatures and the air temperatures exceed certain capacities. In the meantime the focus on the “mean” temperature measurements in spite of their inherent unreliability should put your mind to rest. Did you bother to read alphatoalphas masterful paleontology explanation? That perspective alone should have opened your eyes.” (my words and my concepts)

                  I can only assume that you did not read or either comprehend mine or that analysis. You get an F for paying attention!! And the only data I “paraphrased” in the first half of my synopsis pertained to the Ozone and Montreal Protocol. And apparently you missed my most original, and I must confess ingenious analogy, when I compared the Biosphere, as the Yin, to the Yang of the accompanying 7 “transcendent” atmospheric categories, which you and the multitude of pseudo climate scientist blatantly disregard. (my words and my concepts)

                  The reason I posted the Albany data was to remind you that the really elite scientists that have constructed the advanced identification of what I call the “transcendent” atmospheric categories, utilizing the most sophisticated programming and measurement development, still regard weather as a “phenomena” Notice the use of the expression “all weather phenomena” in the definition of Troposphere. Phenomena: “that which can be observed but not necessarily fully understood.” In addition that site represents a truly unbiased and objective definition of what has to be considered the dominant factors in understanding the phenomena of the evolution and changes of climate. Where is the inclusion of these categories in your analysis of AGW or ACC. (my words and my concepts)

                  In fact it is sheer hypocrisy on your part to accuse me of plagiarism when it seems about 80% of your posts are just paste up, while the remaining comments are just ad hominem attacks. No original ideas of your own there. Just parroting the party line with this obsessive fixation on C02 within very narrow and therefore very unscientific parameters. So in light of the neglect and absence of the immense amount of data that contributes to the creation and sustainment of climate, on the part of the AGW or ACC crowd, or whatever they’re calling themselves now, your hypothesis of climate change dribbles into a little puddle at your feet. The problem with 99% of climate alarmists is that they fail at the first and most important law of Scientific Protocol to Prove an Hypothesis. I’ll leave you to ponder that and see “if you can make a more intelligent statement.” Good luck! (my words and my concepts)

      • John Swallow

        “Regarding this claim that the release of results prior to official publication was an act of showmanship rather than science, Elizabeth Muller – co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Muller’s daughter – responded that the results were too important to withhold and that the pre-release invites greater opportunity for constructive feedback from colleagues. She offered this defense to the LA Times:”
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/so-called-blockbuster-climate-change-studies-prove-little/2012/07/30/gJQAZZNMKX_blog.html

        cshorey , does this sound like unbiased research to you?
        “GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government.
        The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start.”
        http://www.linkedin.com/company/muller-&-associates_2

        “Elizabeth Muller is listed as “Founder and Executive Director” of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she’s been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick “the right technologies” – presumably meaning the right“Green” technologies.
        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/elizabeth-muller-director-of-best-ran-a-green-government-consultancy/

        Here is a different look at Muller’s believes:
        Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor
        Richard A. Muller
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

        • cshorey

          I love that video. Muller misses all the context of the quotes, accuses the scientists of not analyzing the data right, and then when the BEST team forms, he announces he is going to correct their work in a open and public manner. This is what folks, and I suspect some on this message board, were crying for. But Muller’s team found the same thing everyone else had, and found that removing the poorly sited thermometers Anthony Watts and his peeps provided us (again, the only useful thing Anthony has done on this issue to my knowledge) that it had no effect. You and I can go through the data they used and check it again. But it’s been done multiple times and all the reconstructions that use proper geostatistics and bias removal come to the same result. Muller is definitely a grandstanding ass. Note that after he came to the same conclusions as the other reconstructions he accused of falsification and bad science, he never said, “oops, sorry”. And the press conferences, SHEESH! But even worse would be putting your name on that study, and then when your cronies don’t like the results you turn around and attack your own paper a la Curry.

          • John Swallow

            You said: “The BEST study kind of pulls the teeth out of your argument here. Even the “skeptics” find the same thing as those you distrust. Funny.” Now the question is; which “you” are we suppose to believe?

          • cshorey

            Ok, you link to Muller saying everyone else did it wrong and then when his team does it HE COMES TO THE EXACT SAME ANSWER. And yet (set dramatic music for John’s conspiracy theory) John thinks that all these scientists got behind closed doors and planned to all get the same fake results to trick him and all the people who know more about climate that people who spend their lives studying climate like John have figured out the truth. Yeah. Maybe I’ll just walk away from you slowly.

  • asherpat

    Can someone post a link to the video clip? I find it annoying and impossible to find it.

    • John Swallow

      Climate Depot’s Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye on Climate Change
      http://www.mrctv.org/videos/climate-depots-marc-morano-debates-bill-nye-climate-change

      It is worth watching to see Bill Nye, the no-science guy, blabber about population but one must give him credit for
      coming forth and making an effort and that is something that very few climate
      alarmist will do because most of them know that the facts do not support their
      agenda and in most cases that is to get something from the government or whom
      ever else to “study” this scam.

      cshorey probably
      is concerned about how much money Anthony Watts may be getting from the Heartland Institute. I imagine it is
      fine that James Hansen is ‘First millionaire bureaucrat’: NASA’s James Hansen earns up to $1.2 million
      in 2010.

      James
      Hansen has become one of the most financially rewarded government employed
      alarmists.

      “Climate
      scientist Hansen wins $100,000 prize” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63636N20100407

      The Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment (run by John Kerry’s wife
      Teresa Heinz) gave Hansen $250,000 in 2001 for promoting the AGW scare [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3671]
      (Enron’s Ken Lay was one of the founding board members of the Heinz Center (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/12/lkl.00.html,
      and Enron was one of the biggest promoters of the Kyoto cap and trade.)

      George Soros’ Open Society Institute gave Hansen $720,000 to promote alarmist claims
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

      Please note this: The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.

      Entity USD

      Greenpeace: $300m,
      2010 Annual Report

      WWF: $700m, ($524m Euro)

      Pew Charitable Trust: $360m, 2010 Annual Report

      Sierra Club: $56m, 2010 Annual Report

      NSW climate change fund (just one random Gov. example): $750m, NSW Gov. (A$700m)

      UK university climate fund (just another random Gov. example); $360m,UK Gov. (£234m)

      Heartland Institute: $7m, (actually $6.4m)

      US government funding for climate science and technology: $7,000m, “Climate Money” 2009

      US
      government funding for “climate related appropriations”: $1,300m

      USAID
      2010

      Annual
      turnover in global carbon markets: $120,000m, 2010 Point Carbon

      Annual
      investment in renewable energy: $243,000m, 2010
      BNEF

      US
      government funding for skeptical scientists

      $ 0

      The
      skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money,
      and it is really some achievement as far as getting the truth known about this
      scam called anthropogenic global warming that only an ignorant, unscientific
      individual would defend.

      • cshorey

        cshorey probably isn’t.

        • Guest

          This is also for you cshorey.
          Michael Lawrence ISGI Institute for the Study of Global Ideologies
          John, you are a brilliant analyst, and after the long and ardorouus review of yours and cshoreys remarkable debate, your common sense, positive perspective, and instinctive intuition for the naturally occurring self corrective characteristics of nature, ( ie. climate), show’s the superior rationale of the spiritually in tune and motivated scientist and philosopher.

          Your cult analogy of climate fear mongers, if that was original, was absolutely, riotously spot on. These folks are truly fanatic to the point of convoluted irrationality (insanity). And when you add alpha2alphas sound paleontologists perspective it reinforces your arguments exponentially. I would differ with him on one point however, and that he leaves out the potential for what I call the stabilization effect of space settlement.

          Either God and His administration intend for us to evolve into a higher form of civilization by which His plans would include the prolonged ‘stabilization” of our energy systems, ie climate stabilization beyond the approx. 12 thousand year cycle noted, or He will let nature take its course and at some point in the long distant future the changes, perhaps abrupt or gradual or both, as alpha2alpha points out, will reconfigure civilizations. Either way we are talking about time frames and energy systems that transcends our influence and control over climate.

          We can have a modest impact with advanced technology that aids in the conversion or resorbsion of “real” pollutants, but one thing everyone is ignoring is the growing limitations of “dump sites” for nuclear waste. Now that should be the real concern of environmentalists. I believe a way to reuse spent rods for continued production of energy will eventually be discovered which will solve that problem.

          That aside, in the long run we have no control, as least not now, over the earths bombardment by various space rays, the gravitational effects of rotation and elliptical orbits and the integrity of the Sun, which are the real elements that control our climate, along with I suspect, the Higher Powers that are overseeing the evolution and spiritualization of our planet. Myself, I trust in God to lead men to knowledgeable and wise stewardship of our planet, but the singling out of CO2, which is such an infinitesimal part of the atmosphere, as the driver of climate change is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. It goes to the definition of pollutant in the debate. The one word absent from cshorey’s essays unless I missed it is symbiotic. Since when did meteorologists presume to define the principally biologic function of CO2 in terms of climate? It is scientific heresy to label CO2 a pollutant, when any sound biologist will tell you it is a symbiotic element. Their real target is petroleum and CO2 is just their paranoid, backdoor way of trying to put an end to the use of carbon fuels. Which are also a part of the symbiotic relationship between these natural reoccurring energy sources, we are provided, that must be used to maintain the proper balance of nature with our naturally designed carbon life form. The earth is a giant perpetual oil producing mechanism, continually heating the absorbing biomass and producing various forms of carbon, ie gas, coal, oil, just like our bodies. cshorey, if you want to see carbon pollution just stop extracting and using all of the natural fuels the earth is continually belching up and we might indeed return to the Pleistocene age!! End of discussion.

          • cshorey

            Mr Guest used the argument from authority and the argument from personal incredulity to make his point. As both of those are logical fallacies, Mr Guest has no real points to make. I love that Mr Guest even repeats the disbelief in concentrations having an effect, when all of our greenhouse effect is caused by less than 0.01% of the gasses of the atmosphere. We have yet another person with a lack of knowledge acting like they have special insight.

            • Guest

              Admit it. The Scientific community is split on the impact of C02 on climate. And your hypothesis of authority and incredulity as logical fallacies is not based on any fact or scientific protocol, when I offered several “sound theories” supported by the other half of the scientific community you dismiss.

              Attacking my statements with a pure abstraction shows your lack of analytical “knowledge” and the weakness of your arguments. In fact you offer one of the most persuasive arguments against the impact of C02 by sighting the 0.01% “statistic.” To support the lack of consensus I’ve seen measurements as far ranging as 2% to the 0.01% you quote.

              So what it boils down to is do you believe in the positive corrective creative design of nature and mans ability to master the theology and technology to adapt to it, or do you believe in the fatalistic, man as intruder, and instigator of an apocalyptic climate event because we drive too many cars. (Ha! a little humor) The sense of which the fear mongering crowd seems to lack). The point being, all of the hand wringing over something that is in essence unprovable at this time with no appreciable evidence of events or industry that will contribute to any catastrophic inclusion of C02 in the atmosphere is unnecessary. And there is ample evidence that the planet can provide greater resources (ie crops, agriculture) with even higher levels.

              Truthfully, I admire the depth and breadth of your research as well, and of course much of the data you presented is accepted statistic’s and measurements. Your arguments were brilliant as well, but John had a superior spiritual theology that coalesced his arguments into a more believable scientific hypothesis.

              Its just that I and the other half of the scientific community don’t agree with your conclusion’s. Remember science is as much the ‘Art’ of interpretation as it is the measurement of statistics and data. And, although the long running debate you had with John had a lot of interesting data, anecdote’s and theorizing it was an exercise in nullification. Except as I noted, John’s arguments were supported by a more positive common sense technique of analysis.

              Its been suggested that certain levels of volcanic eruption could contribute as much as 100 years accumulation of C02 instantly into the atmosphere. Who are you going to blame if something like that occurs? Or a nuclear winter in the event of a global conflict with those weapons. You either have faith in the stability and integrity of nature and it’s Creators over events we have no control over, or you don’t. I’ll repeat the first sentence of the last paragraph of my previous post. And by the way, you’re obviously a super intelligent guy but you just don’t have it quite right.

              That aside, in the long run we have no control, as least not now, over the earths bombardment by various space rays, the gravitational effects of rotation and elliptical orbits and the integrity of the Sun, which are the real elements that control our climate, along with I suspect, the Higher Powers that are overseeing the evolution and spiritualization of our planet.

              • cshorey

                I can not admit what is not true. You have now used the logical fallacy of the Straw Man as well. Your whole rant is a straw man logical fallacy and if you want to argue the amount of concentration of greenhouse gas, maybe go at it the other way. Realize that N2 and O2 and Ar, and H, and He are NOT greenhouse gasses (the transmit thermal IR). Now calculate what percentage of the atmosphere those gasses comprise. Then maybe you will see your number range is way off. Clearly you get your information from bad sources.

                • Guest

                  As for the Liberal Lunatics, who perpetuate these Lies, what can be said other than their Logic is Abstract, their Reasoning is Delusional, Common Sense is something that eludes them and it is their inherent nature to champion one ludicrous cause after the next with complete disregard for consequences!

                  It has been discovered and allegations have been made about what not surprisingly appears to be a rather surreptitious discrepancy with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) temperature data. It has been alleged that NOAA’s US Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) has been “adjusting” its temperature record data by replacing real temperatures with data fabricated by their computer models in order produce a specific desired outcome to support their otherwise unsupportable claims that the temperature of the planet was increasing.

                  These allegations allege that when the currently published temperature graphs are compared with previous graphs based only on temperatures measured at the time, they indicate that the US has actually been cooling since the 1930’s; whereas their latest graph, nearly half of it alleged to be based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to the their desired 3 degrees centigrade per century in order to coincide with the IPCC computer generated climate models based upon the assumptions of their 10/280/1 flawed hypothesis, which is in itself derived from the flawed greenhouse assumptions of Arrhenius, Tyndall, Pouillet and Fourier!

                  It should also be noted that the actual warmer land temperatures of the 1930s have been adjusted downward in all of the databases in order to create the illusion that the rate of warming in the latter 20th century was higher than it actually was making it appear as though today’s fraudulent temperature increases are unprecedented in at least the last 150 years.

                  As of yet there has been no formal refutation or explanation of these allegations by NOAA other than a few feeble attempts by independent Lunatics of the Global Warming Theory claiming that this is simply just another of the many anomalies that NOAA’s Computer Generated Climate Models have continuously suffered from, supposedly caused once again conveniently by some new computer program which in itself brings into question all of NOAA’s previous data!

                  It should also be noted, that since these allegations arose NOAA has quietly revised their revised data and reinstated their previous temperature record which took place back in the 1930′s!

                  There are of course other pending allegations with regards to the methodology of NOAA, NASA and the UEA/CRU temperature data collection stemming from allegations of poorly located temperature stations that cause increased temperature data, poorly maintained temperature stations that also cause increased temperature data and temperature stations that although they have been shut down or abandoned, are somehow still mysteriously providing temperature data at those locations.

                  It has now been discovered that NOAA has been unscientifically “ESTIMATING” temperatures at those abandoned stations based on data supplied by other temperature stations.

                  According to some reports, acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), scientists affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have stated that their own temperature data has more flaws than the temperature data from the University of East Anglia/Climatic Research Unit (UEA/CRU), which in itself is alarming and of course as by now everyone should be aware that the UEA/CRU is the British Institution at the center of the United Nations- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC”) “CLIMATEGATE” scandals entailing the manipulation of data that otherwise would not support their global warming claims.

                  When one considers the IPCC/UEA “CLIMATEGATE” scandals and puts that in perspective or context with statements made by UEA/CRU programmer Ian Harris, that their (CRU) database has no uniform data integrity, or Phil Jones Director of the UEA/CRU, who stated in a BBC interview that “his surface temperature data are in such disarray that they probably cannot be verified or replicated and then consider that most of the data in their CRU archive is the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive which is relied upon by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center” (NCDC) and that NASA uses the GHCN as a data source for their NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data then a rational and intelligent individual must not only question the validity of the data of these institutions but also the integrity of those who not only knowingly continue to rely on the flawed data but continue to insist their flawed data is correct!

                  Now, to compound matters add to this Michael Mann’s ridiculous hockey stick graph (considered by many to be the most laughable and widely discredited object in the history of bad science) which apparently because the Tree Ring Temperature data upon which he relied contradicted the Global Warming trend which he desired had to be manipulated with the help of IPCC/UEA/CRU scientists (CLIMATEGATE) in order to support his otherwise unsupportable global warming claims indicated by his ridiculous graph!

                  Apparently, Mann is now litigating against anyone who dares to question or criticize his Hockey Stick graph in what appears to be a blatant attempt to silence his critics even though he has refused to provide any of his scientific data that would support his hypothesis!

                  One might consider all of this as nothing more than a coincidence; however, there is no such thing as a coincidence when governments are involved, especially when those governments are in dire need of generating additional
                  revenues through “TAXATION” by falsely indicting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the
                  reason for nonexistent Global Warming.

                  And then of course we have individuals like Al Gore (who believes he created the internet) who adamantly claims (An Inconvenient Truth) that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for the increase in Global temperatures when in fact all of the data, whether acquired from Ice Core samples from the Law Dome, Taylor Dome, Concordia Dome, the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, or the data acquired from the study of Plant Stomata, or the data acquired from the study of Foraminifera Plankton extracted from Deep Ocean Cores studying magnetic pole reversal dates or the data acquired from the study of Fossil Corals, etc., etc., confirms that not only is Mr. Gore apparently a Liar but that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) does not cause global temperature increase, but quite to the contrary, as the Planet emerged from the last period of glaciation exhibits, it is instead a direct result of it, then it should be quite apparent why an ever increasing number of Scientists and the population in general believe today’s computer generated climate models that depict Global Warming as being an Anthropogenic Phenomenon caused by Industrial Emissions that somehow magically precipitate Climate Change have been manipulated through a consorted effort by less than honorable individuals, with less than honorable intentions, by manipulating their climate models with corrupt or flawed data that intentionally ignores or misconstrues historical and scientific data, in order to provide an otherwise unobtainable outcome for either monetary gain or to advance a sociopolitical agenda.

                  If the phenomenon of Global Warming were in fact real then there would be absolutely no need for these supposedly men of science to manipulate or conceal their data in order to prove a nonexistent phenomenon and there would be no need to continually disparage those who legitimately question those results unless the data was in fact flawed or knowingly being manipulated!

                  In science, when an individual postulates a scientific hypothesis or posits a scientific theory those assumptions are not accepted prima facie and any and all concerns, conflicts, disputes or disagreements surrounding the phenomenon in question were usually resolved through an adversarial review process in order to substantiate the premise upon which the assumption is predicated, that is until the fallacy of Global Warming was presented during the latter part of the 1980’s and rather than welcome the adversarial process, there has been a concerted effort to disparage any and all who would dare to question those theories in what appears to be an attempt to dissuade any and all who disagree from further analogy or review!

                  The earth’s changing climate is much too complicated to be simply explained by the hysterical indictment of 0.04% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere!

                  The idea that the complicated climate of this planet rests upon the function of a single parameter of 4/100th of 1% of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not only absurdly
                  implausible it is absolutely ludicrous!

                  • John Swallow

                    Thank you, Michael Lawrence for taking the time to put together the well written and totally logical dissertation that you have recently submitted. One will never see anything with that degree of quality and basic logic coming from the delusional likes of cshorey who does not even have enough pride in his believes to offer up his real name and I can understand that is something that perhaps he should hide because of the flawed opinions that he/she puts forth and ,I assume, expect people to believe.

                    I am deeply troubled that what use to be a reputable scientific organization, NOAA, has now been taken over and subverted by these charlatans, such as cshorey represents, and no longer turn out information that one can trust but only what the anthropogenic global warming mafia allows them to produce. This reminds me of George Orwell and his book “1984″

                    ”And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”. – George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3.

                    ”Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”.

                    ”Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”.

                    - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3 (This last one was written with cshorey being the obvious “Winston” who demonstrates that he/she is incapable of thinking and analyzing anything regarding this issue to arrive at what is the TRUTH)

                    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts.” Mark Twain.

                    It appears that, so far, we still have the present, here &
                    now, to rely on to try to keep some of
                    these corrupt government agencies honest.
                    What I now present shows just how unreliable the climate models are that are said to use the most powerful computers available to generate their predictions. Can an argument be made that in this case it is biased “garbage in=garbage out”? The far left agw alarmist are always showing what the models predict and they do not seem to understand that we who are blessed with a brain and therefore common senses know that these models can not even replicate the past, and those are known facts, until NOAA & NASA’s GISS gets their corrupt hands on the data (think James Hansen who thankfully has retired).

                    “Farmers’ Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
                    Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for
                    farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year’s harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can’t even predict the past.

                    Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers’ Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold,snowy winter.
                    The Maine-based Farmers’ Almanac’s still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
                    The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.”
                    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm

                    “It seems that this is exactly the problem that has started
                    bedeviling climate change models. A recent issue of Nature had a very interesting article on what seems to be a wholly paradoxical feature of models used in climate science; as the models are becoming increasingly realistic, they are also becoming less accurate and predictive because of growing uncertainties. I can only imagine this to be an excruciatingly painful fact for climate modelers who seem to be facing the equivalent of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for their field. It’s an especially worrisome time to deal with such issues since the modelers need to include their predictions in the next IPCC report on climate change which is due to be published this year.

                    Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable

                    The uncertainty remained hidden. Now that more real-world
                    factors are being included, the uncertainties endemic in these factors reveal themselves and get tacked on to the models. You thus face an ironic tradeoff; as your models strive to mirror the real world better, they also become more uncertain. It’s like swimming in quicksand; the harder you try to get out of it, the deeper you get sucked in.”
                    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/27/are-more-accurate-climate-change-models-worse/

                    It will be interesting to see if they are correct with this last
                    prediction. We will see if the size of the stripes on caterpillars, which way a dog turns before they lay down, among some scientific inputs that the “Farmers’ Almanac ” uses, is again so much more accurate than the tax payer financed super computers that NOAA uses to present the unwashed masses with fallacious garbage and call it a scientific prediction.

                    “The Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts ‘super cold’ winter”
                    Aug. 21, 2014 – 4:45 – The Old Farmer’s Almanac
                    Editor Janice Stillman on predictions for the winter weather.
                    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3742701515001/the-old-farmers-almanac-predicts-super-cold-winter/#sp=show-clips

                    • Guest

                      Hi John!! As usual a thoroughly enlightening and entertaining correspondence that filled me with at once great nostalgia and joy. Joy that we are not alone in the common sense interpretation of God’s creative manipulations of nature, Ie the Farmers Almanac, which should be required reading for any aspiring meteorologist, and great nostalgia as you reminded me of one of the three required tomes from a very conservative history and social studies teacher I had: “Fahrenheit 451,” “The Animal Farm,” and of course “1984.” Many decades ago as you may have surmised. Not to mention the Heisenberg Principal which I came across not to long ago while trying to disprove the validity of the SAT Testing Algorithm Formula for detecting cheating. I was defending the scores of a young female student who made a surreptitious leap in score by her third try after an intense 3 month prep class. The system was/is already under attack by purists for glaring mathematic and theoretic aberrations, but you know how it is. Once it’s institutionalized its almost impossible to overturn unless you have the financial means to take them to a higher court. Much like the Climate debacle. Money and fanaticism seems to be the driving force behind so much of what is wrong in the world. I was up against a rubber stamped arbitration board consisting of attorneys not math theorists. Sometimes I think Shakespeare was right about all of the attorneys.
                      By the way, are you familiar with the Urantia Foundation? Your analysis definitely has a “spiritual” bent, though you express it well without sounding religious or proselytizing.
                      If you haven’t run across this volume of epochal cosmic and scientific revelations you’ll enjoy it immensely. It offers a profoundly challenging resource of explanations of a multitude of miraculous phenomena associated with the great Spiritual and Scientific mysteries still unbeknownst to these modern institutions of study. Enjoy!!! keep up the good work. And PS, That research I sent you was from a previous post I came across under the name “Archangel!!”

                    • cshorey

                      You guys should get a room.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey: It is
                      obvious that you already have your own room where people with experience
                      in dealing with the mentally deranged can perhaps take proper care of
                      you. One has to be mentally
                      incapacitated if they actually believe that a trace gas, CO2, is the
                      driver of the climate and not that object that they have not been able to
                      observe in so long of a time that does not shine into the dark, dank room
                      where you are held in this insane asylum, the sun. Very sad; but, I’m sure it is for your
                      own good.

                    • cshorey

                      And how do you define trace gas then? I can’t wait to hear this.
                      N2 = 78% v
                      O2 = 21 %v
                      Neither of the above are greenhouse gasses. Neither is Ar, He, nor H2. How much of the atmosphere does that leave to cause all our greenhouse gas.
                      How do you define trace gas then? Do tell.

                    • John Swallow

                      It is not surprising, cshorey, (AKA because you do not people to know your real name and discover how brazenly stupid you are, as this latest post exemplifies.) I am to assume that you have never heard of the green house gas that is responsible for from 95 to 99% of the green house affect on earth, H2O in its various forms in the atmosphere.

                      “Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ – the greenhouse effect.”
                      http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/pages/sci_johntyndall.htm

                      With this post that you have submitted, you have removed all questions about why you appear to be so ill-informed and delusional. It is because you are stupid.

                    • cshorey

                      Hi John, you already know H2O is tied to ocean temperature. We’ve gone over this before. Before you just dismiss it, build some models yourself and test it.

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey, (AKA) I do not intend to discuss anything, any further with some one such as yourself who is dishonest, stupid and ignorant besides. So long and maybe you can get someone in the insane ward where you are being held for your own good to help you to remove the spittle from your ever open mouth to help keep the flies from bothering you too much. You should know that the spittle is almost 100% H2O.

                    • cshorey

                      And H20 in the atmosphere is still a direct function of the oceans’ temperature. It can’t drive climate change, but we do include it in calculating trends as a positive feedback.

                    • John Swallow

                      Michael Lawrence said, “Much like the Climate debacle. Money and fanaticism seems to be the driving force behind so much of what is wrong in the world.”

                      “According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has
                      increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

                      How many more resources that could be spent to help people have a decent life will be squandered on this hoax?

                    • Guest

                      Hi John! I’m still marveling at Ed Berrys (sp) calculations of planetary positioning. I’ve worked on some pretty sophisticated math problems in the past but nothing with quite that many factors. Would be fascinating to see a documentary of how the process is worked out.

                      I still believe people are growing aware by leaps and bounds of the hoax of climate change. Look at all the countries that just dropped out of the White House Idiots latest climate conference. Australia is a step ahead.

                      So the estimate is about 100 billion stolen and mis allocated? The truth is I would have thought it was about twice that. Hey! We’re about 100 billion to the good, or at least we can work toward preventing that loss.

                      Got caught up in a couple more exchanges with cshorey. Will send it to you when I get back on the computer. Wrapped everything up in an ingenious attack upon his theoretic analytical technique. His major weakness. Which is where he gets contradictory, illogical, and tunnel vision. His fanaticism distorts and destroys his ability to stay focused on complex sequence’s, and he looses awareness of the connectivity to the integrated whole. Anyway, I throw in a little humor and satire and he goes nuts. I told him I wouldn’t read anymore of his responses because he became repetitive and redundant. He sent 4 back to back posts, and then responded to one of our exchanges from over a week ago!! Of course I didn’t read any of it!! The guy really flipped! Will dig those up tomorrow. Take care. Michael Lawrence.

                    • Guest

                      Hey John. So busy haven’t had time to cut and paste those exchanges. A waste of time anyway. I’m working on a correspondence to government entities regarding political issues and islam. A lot of really relevant data is surfacing from the research of everyday Americans. I’m getting ready to collate and edit a lot of this and put it into an academic format and send via “hard copies” (paper mail) to Congress. Read a study a while back that the ease of deleting emails makes them less viable and that letter correspondence gets more attention. Have to shift priorities for a minute. Take care and keep up the good work. MLawrence. ISGI

                    • cshorey

                      So John, you think that mass can be a percentage of volume too? Is that what you call reasoned and logical? I already knew you were damaged goods, but this little circle jerk you have going with Guest is so obvious I’m surprised you don’t see it. You’re definitely smarter than Guest, so you’re sinking down to his level seems below you. Oh well. What can expect from the echo chamber in the lion’s den?

                    • John Swallow

                      cshorey:
                      It is not hard to understand why, being as delusional and illogical as your
                      post make you out to be, that you choose
                      not to use your real name and go with a
                      stupid ‘aka’ instead. Way to go, one who
                      has no conviction regarding your ignorant believes! Is this now one of your
                      insane “answers” to a post that I made, an ad hominem attack against myself and some
                      one that you are not even intelligent enough to identify, who did present his
                      name & that is something that a fool like you have never done, Michael
                      Lawrence .

                    • cshorey

                      I’ll take it then that you agree with Guest that a mass can be represented as a percentage of a volume? Interesting. Got to wonder how you define delusional and illogical. Kissing Guest’s butt doesn’t make him nor you any closer to being marginally correct. Do you still think trace gases can’t cause a change in climate? That seems to be your pet idiocy.

                  • cshorey

                    This is yet another straw man. If people actually believed what you believed they believed, I would start by having a hard time believing it. You are also extending in to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well now too. The NASA and NOAA temp records are only a sliver of what climate is, and have been confirmed over and over. You only have evidence free doubt on your side. But I will let you in on a little secret, I have been having fun here shooting down dumb arguments with minimal effort and watching the rants go on. John Swallow must have wasted hours of his life, and now our Guest has given a wonderful example of long winded, time-wasting, non-sensical ranting. Please, do post another rant for me.

                    • Guest

                      Hey, nobody is reading these posts but you and I. And I have to be honest I saw how you liked the long posts to read with your conversations with John so I borrowed that post from a profoundly bright poster by the name of ‘Archangel.” Fitting don’t you think? But you are slipping, your resorted to that tired soliloquy used in the majority of your rebuttles “that its only a small part, “sliver,” of what climate is. You’ve got to admit that’s pretty weak after the well researched and documented dissertations that have been presented. I guess you are a legend in your own mind, shooting down all those dumb arguments. (Ha!) Don’t take that personally I just couldn’t resist as I have complimented you on your research, aggressive and dogged determination. I assume you do have a sense humor. Seriously, I’ll let you in on a little secret. I do believe in climate change. Just not on a scale, time frame or the manner in which you do. Why are you worried about something that you have no control over now nor a 1000 years from now? Look, seriously, I believe you have a good mind and I’d like to change the subject and share with you some scientific and spiritual revelations that you might find fascinating since you seem to have a passion for different types of research. Log onto the Urantia Foundation, and the table of contents to the sections on Scientific subjects. I’m sure you’ll thoroughly enjoy it, and I sincerely mean that in the spirit of friendly competition with malice toward none and hopes for an eventual resolution of this controversy.

                    • cshorey

                      Now go and calculate the heat capacity of the hydrosphere vs that of the atmosphere and then come back and see if you can make that a more intelligent statement. Then start looking into the heat capacity of the cryosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere too. Good luck.

                    • Guest

                      The suppositions about the influence of man on the biosphere are still just that. Suppositions. And the contributing factors (hydro, cryo, and lithosphere) function as systems of asymmetric temperatures to the point you have to look outside to the truly cosmic influences of the major “spheres” of particle interaction with the atmosphere, ie the stratosphere, magnestosphere and the plasmashpere to try to determine the true influences to climate. Not to mention the Mesosphere, Thermosphere, Exosphere and Ionosphere. The biosphere is the Yin to the outer atmospheres Yang. And it would take greater minds than yours or mine to fathom the complexity of that relationship. We can analyze it, qualify it, quantify it and theorize how this multidimensional system works, but nobody has yet provided and empirical experiment or completed formula of how all of these phenomena interact to produce and control the weather.

                      Like you said, the elements being discussed on this thread are only a “sliver” of the puzzle, including your own, and fail to take into account the phenomenal presence, structures and power of these forces of atmosphere and space (see below) that make any assessment of what controls climate purely speculative and beyond the ultimate influence of man. ACC cannot be proven when all of the forces of nature are taken into account particularly the Magnetosphere and the Plasmasphere. That’s not to say that a catastrophic use of nuclear weapons wouldn’t have an immediate impact upon the ‘biosphere,” but to what extent we can only speculate. And catastrophic volcanic activity aside, mans industrial footprint is still miniscule by all measurement standards.
                      You and the majority of climate change fanatics leave out a multitude of atmospheric influences because the conditions that control climate are just too complex for even the most ardent meteorologist too fully comprehend. When was the last time any weatherman got it consistently right. As noted below the ozone layer is a far more crucial element to the stability of plant and human life, but that has been pretty well addressed by the international community over the last 4 decades since it was discovered that CFC’s were the main contributing factor. Severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer was first observed in the early 1980s. The international response was embodied in the Montreal Protocol. Today 191 countries worldwide have signed the Montreal Protocol which is widely regarded as the most successful Multinational Environmental Agreement ever reached to date.

                      Furthermore the phasing out of ozone depleting substances (ODS) has helped to fight climate change since many ODS are also powerful greenhouse gases. The use of all CFC’s has ceased since 2010 and the ozone hole is shrinking.

                      Since that villain has been vanquished the “green’ extreme, now the new “Red” George Orwell movement needed a new revenue stream, and what better way then to demonize the source of all modern society including what we exhale, to acquire funding for the academics, and try to turn us back to the stone age for the anti-human anarchists. Petroleum, gas and coal are what the fanatics really want to end the use of. If that’s your goal, then you had better throw away your computer, your phone, your car, your house, the roads the buildings, and nearly every modern convenience that makes you comfortable. Just trek off into the wilderness, with your knife and canteen and build yourself a log cabin. But you can’t burn wood for fuel because you’ll be putting carbon intro the atmosphere. And the moron green movement forcing the end to fire lanes in wilderness areas have contributed to some of the greatest releases of carbon from out of control wildfires in the last 30 years. Oh, well, you might as well put a gun to your head since by your calculations we’re all doomed anyway.
                      But If you were really up on your research you’d know that recent discoveries have led a number of respected geologist to announce that fossil fuels are not “nonrenewable” and as I explained in a previous post the earth is one large oil producing mechanism and producing it at a much faster rate than previously thought.. Surely you’ve seen the videos, if you watch science documentaries, of oil bubbling up out of the deep ocean floor fissures near volcanic activity. We are going to have to use it or let it pollute us. Its simple as that. The only real issue: is the technology to capture and make inert the pollutions form using renewable petroleum fuels moving at a pace consistent with protecting the environment? If you lived in Los Angeles in the 60′s and 70′s and saw the smog there, and you see it’s not there today you realize we’ve come a long way toward achieving that goal. And I’m confident we will continue to perfect our use of petroleum, eliminate pollution and provide the economic freedom and opportunities it generates as long as the idiots in government get out of the way. And long before any appreciable amount of CO2′s do any damage. We are carbon life forms and symbiotic with CO2. I have faith that man will be guided by the intelligence, morals and ethics to achieve this success.
                      I included for fun the exciting definitions of these “powerful forces” that are also part of the phenomenally complex systems that influence and control our climate. Notice the use of the expression “all weather phenomena” in the definition of Troposphere. Phenomena: “that which can be observed but not fully understood.
                      Troposphere The troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the planet and contains the largest percentage (around 80%) of the mass of the total atmosphere. Temperature and water vapor content in the troposphere decrease rapidly with altitude. Water vapor plays a major role in regulating air temperature because it absorbs solar energy and thermal radiation from the planet’s surface. The troposphere contains 99 % of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations vary with latitude. They are greatest above the tropics, where they may be as high as 3 %, and decrease toward the polar regions.

                      All weather phenomena occur within the troposphere, although turbulence may extend into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Troposphere means “region of mixing” and is so named because of vigorous convective air currents within the layer.

                      The upper boundary of the layer, known as the tropopause, ranges in height from 5 miles (8 km) near the poles up to 11 miles (18 km) above the equator. Its height also varies with the seasons; highest in the summer and lowest in the winter.

                      Stratosphere

                      The stratosphere is the second major strata of air in the atmosphere. It extends above the tropopause to an altitude of about 30 miles (50 km) above the planet’s surface. The air temperature in the stratosphere remains relatively constant up to an altitude of 15 miles (25 km). Then it increases gradually to up to the stratopause. Because the air temperature in the stratosphere increases with altitude, it does not cause convection and has a stabilizing effect on atmospheric conditions in the region. Ozone plays the major role in regulating the thermal regime of the stratosphere, as water vapor content within the layer is very low. Temperature increases with ozone concentration. Solar energy is converted to kinetic energy when ozone molecules absorb ultraviolet radiation, resulting in heating of the stratosphere.

                      The ozone layer is centered at an altitude between 10-15 miles (15-25 km). Approximately 90 % of the ozone in the atmosphere resides in the stratosphere. Ozone concentration in the this region is about 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as compared to approximately 0.04 ppmv in the troposphere. Ozone absorbs the bulk of solar ultraviolet radiation in wavelengths from 290 nm – 320 nm (UV-B radiation). These wavelengths are harmful to life because they can be absorbed by the nucleic acid in cells. Increased penetration of ultraviolet radiation to the planet’s surface would damage plant life and have harmful environmental consequences. Appreciably large amounts of solar ultraviolet radiation would result in a host of biological effects, such as a dramatic increase in cancers.

                      Mesosphere

                      The mesosphere a layer extending from approximately 30 to 50 miles (50 to 85 km) above the surface, is characterized by decreasing temperatures. The coldest temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere occur at the top of this layer, the mesopause, especially in the summer near the pole. The mesosphere has sometimes jocularly been referred to as the “ignorosphere” because it had been probably the least studied of the atmospheric layers. The stratosphere and mesosphere together are sometimes referred to as the middle atmosphere.

                      Thermosphere

                      The thermosphere is located above the mesosphere. The temperature in the thermosphere generally increases with altitude reaching 600 to 3000 F (600-2000 K) depending on solar activity. This increase in temperature is due to the absorption of intense solar radiation by the limited amount of remaining molecular oxygen. At this extreme altitude gas molecules are widely separated. Above 60 miles (100 km) from Earth’s surface the chemical composition of air becomes strongly dependent on altitude and the atmosphere becomes enriched with lighter gases (atomic oxygen, helium and hydrogen). Also at 60 miles (100 km) altitude, Earth’s atmosphere becomes too thin to support aircraft and vehicles need to travel at orbital velocities to stay aloft. This demarcation between aeronautics and astronautics is known as the Karman Line. Above about 100 miles (160 km) altitude the major atmospheric component becomes atomic oxygen. At very high altitudes, the residual gases begin to stratify according to molecular mass, because of gravitational separation.

                      Exosphere

                      The exosphere is the most distant atmospheric region from Earth’s surface. In the exosphere, an upward travelling molecule can escape to space (if it is moving fast enough) or be pulled back to Earth by gravity (if it isn’t) with little probability of colliding with another molecule. The altitude of its lower boundary, known as the thermopause or exobase, ranges from about 150 to 300 miles (250-500 km) depending on solar activity. The upper boundary can be defined theoretically by the altitude (about 120,000 miles, half the distance to the Moon) at which the influence of solar radiation pressure on atomic hydrogen velocities exceeds that of the Earth’s gravitational pull. The exosphere observable from space as the geocorona is seen to extend to at least 60,000 miles from the surface of the Earth. The exosphere is a transitional zone between Earth’s atmosphere and interplanetary space.

                      MAGNETO-ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE

                      The upper atmosphere is also divided into regions based on the behavior and number of free electrons and other charged particles.

                      Ionosphere

                      The ionosphere is defined by atmospheric effects on radiowave propagation as a result of the presence and variation in concentration of free electrons in the atmosphere.

                      D-region is about 35 to 55 miles (60 – 90 km) in altitude but disappears at night.
                      E-region is about 55 to 90 miles (90 – 140 km) in altitude.
                      F-region is above 90 miles (140 km) in atitude. During the day it has two regions known as the F1-region from about 90 to 115 miles (140 to 180 km) altitude and the F2-region in which the concentration of electrons peaks in the altitude range of 150 to 300 miles (around 250 to 500 km). Most recent map of the Height of Maximum (hmF2). The ionosphere above the peak electron concentration is usually referred to as the Topside Ionosphere.

                      Plasmasphere

                      The plasmasphere is not really spherical but a doughnut-shaped region (a torus) with the hole aligned with Earth’s magnetic axis. [In this case the use of the suffix -sphere is more in the figurative sense of a "sphere of influence".] The Earth’s plasmasphere is made of just that, a plasma, the fourth state of matter. (Test your skills on sorting the states of matter with the Matter Sorter.) This plasma is composed mostly of hydrogen ions (protons) and electrons. It has a very sharp edge called the plasmapause. The outer edge of this doughnut over the equator is usually some 4 to 6 Earth radii from the center of the Earth or 12,000-20,000 miles (19,000-32,000 km) above the surface. The plasmasphere is essentially an extension of the ionosphere. Inside of the plasmapause, geomagnetic field lines rotate with the Earth. The inner edge of the plasmasphere is taken as the altitude at which protons replace oxygen as the dominant species in the ionospheric plasma which usually occurs at about 600 miles (1000 km) altitude. The plasmasphere can also be considered to be a structure within the magnetosphere.

                      Magnetosphere

                      Outside the plasmapause, magnetic field lines are unable to corotate because they are influenced strongly by electric fields of solar wind origin. The magnetosphere is a cavity (also not spherical) in which the Earth’s magnetic field is constrained by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). The outer boundary of the magnetosphere is called the magnetopause. The magnetosphere is shaped like an elongated teardrop (like a Christmas Tree ornament) with the tail pointing away from the Sun. The magnetopause is typically located at about 10 Earth radii or some 35,000 miles (about 56,000 km) above the Earth’s surface on the day side and stretches into a long tail, the magnetotail, a few million miles long (about 1000 Earth radii), well past the orbit of the Moon (at around 60 Earth radii), on the night side of the Earth. However, the Moon itself is usually not within the magnetosphere except for a couple of days around the Full Moon.

                      Beyond the magnetopause are the magnetosheath and bow shock which are regions in the solar wind disturbed by the presence of Earth and its magnetic field.

                    • cshorey

                      Very good copy and paste Guest. Why not just say “go to the Albany edu website to look up what they say about atmospheric structure. As far as simply figuring out the heat capacity of the hydrosphere vs. the atmosphere, I give you a solid F. Plagiarism and can’t stay on target.

                    • Guest

                      My dear Mr C. You really are a big disappointment. Obviously you didn’t engage in an in depth read of my essay. The entire first half is totally original analysis, hypothesis and theory with a little anecdotal humor and maybe a bit of sarcasm for which I humbly apologize. You’re just not making this as much fun as it could be. Your not living up to my expectation of being the Moriarity to my Holmes. Such a dreary and abbreviated response, when I presented you with so much material to mull over.

                      Of course I pasted the Albany data on purpose, for reasons I explained that you missed, going right over your head I suppose. And I added the addendum to clarify why I wouldn’t waste any time researching the heat capacity issue, which was really just an obfuscation and red herring you threw out to hide the fact that your research is truncated, incomplete and improbable speculation, (read again, I added more clarification) ie:

                      “The suppositions about the influence of man on the biosphere are still just that: Suppositions. And the contributing factors (hydro, cryo, and lithosphere) function as systems of asymmetric temperature “fluctuations” to the point where you must also look outside to the truly cosmic influences of the major “spheres” of particle interaction with the atmosphere, ie the stratosphere, magnetosphere and the plasmashpere to try to determine the true influences to climate. Those are also part of the critical factors affecting the “heat capacity” of the systems you reference, in addition to the earths internal heating mechanism and oceanic gravitational inertia. And any measurement as to their “heat capacity,” which I’m sure is the subject of several scientific suppositions and calculations, serves only to further redundant speculations about catastrophic potentials over which we have no control. I’m sure you can reference me to some obscure scientific study that will provide an apocalyptic picture should the ocean temperatures and the air temperatures exceed certain capacities. In the meantime the focus on the “mean” temperature measurements in spite of their inherent unreliability should put your mind to rest. Did you bother to read alphatoalphas masterful paleontology explanation? That perspective alone should have opened your eyes.” (my words and my concepts)

                      I can only assume that you did not read or either comprehend mine or that analysis. You get an F for paying attention!! And the only data I “paraphrased” in the first half of my synopsis pertained to the Ozone and Montreal Protocol. And apparently you missed my most original, and I must confess ingenious analogy, when I compared the Biosphere, as the Yin, to the Yang of the accompanying 7 “transcendent” atmospheric categories, which you and the multitude of pseudo climate scientist blatantly disregard. (my words and my concepts)

                      The reason I posted the Albany data was to remind you that the really elite scientists that have constructed the advanced identification of what I call the “transcendent” atmospheric categories, utilizing the most sophisticated programming and measurement development, still regard weather as a “phenomena” Notice the use of the expression “all weather phenomena” in the definition of Troposphere. Phenomena: “that which can be observed but not necessarily fully understood.” In addition that site represents a truly unbiased and objective definition of what has to be considered the dominant factors in understanding the phenomena of the evolution and changes of climate. Where is the inclusion of these categories in your analysis of AGW or ACC. (my words and my concepts)

                      In fact it is sheer hypocrisy on your part to accuse me of plagiarism when it seems about 80% of your posts are just paste up, while the remaining comments are just ad hominem attacks. No original ideas of your own there. Just parroting the party line with this obsessive fixation on C02 within very narrow and therefore very unscientific parameters. So in light of the neglect and absence of the immense amount of data that contributes to the creation and sustainment of climate, on the part of the AGW or ACC crowd, or whatever they’re calling themselves now, your hypothesis of climate change dribbles into a little puddle at your feet. The problem with 99% of climate alarmists is that they fail at the first and most important law of Scientific Protocol to Prove an Hypothesis. I’ll leave you to ponder that and see “if you can make a more intelligent statement.” Good luck! (my words and my concepts)

                    • cshorey

                      And no again, that’s still not anywhere near a discussion on heat capacity which is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of an object usually expressed as Joules or Calories or Kilocalories per degree Celsius or Kelvin (though we don’t use the term degree for Kelvin). So maybe you got confused between molar heat capacity and specific heat capacity. So I’ll give you one more chance before just explaining all this to you. What is the difference in specific heat capacity of the hydrosphere vs. the atmosphere? I will let your grade come back up, but you just went through the floor. F–

                    • Guest

                      Again, I will not go down that red herring rabbit hole to focus on a miniscule peripheral function of potential endless variations of heat capacity comparisons of air and ocean temperatures unless you can explain the purpose! The focus of the discussion is on the “big picture” of climate change and an assessment of the “critical theories” that maintain and sustain specific climactic conditions, past, present and future. If you want to impress me with the calculus of how “heating capacity” factors into that narrative I’m all ears!

                    • cshorey

                      Your brevity is improving, but your understanding is not. I tried to pitch you a soft ball and even gave you the definition of specific heat capacity and you can only wave your uncertain arms around. Ok, I’ll hold your hand and guide you. When I ask if you can find the specific heat capacity of the hydrosphere, all you need to do is realized that the hydrosphere refers to water, and water has a specific heat of 4.179 J/g degC. The atmosphere is made of air is about 1.01 J/g degC. See how easy it was to answer that. See how much verbiage you supplied not answering that? I guess I hope to show you that you’re not as expert in this as you think, and should perhaps leave climate science to those that do have expertise. Now see if you can go back to when I first asked if you could figure this out, and see if you can suss why I would ask you to realize this fact in the face of your previous statement.

                    • Guest

                      Yes, and apparently you still can’t read. I referred to both the formal and informal designations of the biosphere. Your tangential excursion into the temperatures of the “ocean land and air” still does not address the complex theories that reveals the thousands of variables that compose the creation, maintenance and sustainability of climate. And you still made no concise connection between “heat capacity” and climate change. You’re still looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Look up some of the work of Astrophysicist Ed Berry.

                      From the Eagles famous hit song, “you can look up in the night and see the stars, but you still can’t see the light.”

                    • cshorey

                      I read you, and didn’t go into an excursion on temperature. We are starting with heat capacity. I was helping teach you basics from the ground up. We have started with the most basic which is specific heat capacity. This a physical property of a substance and does not depend on the formal nor informal definition of biosphere. Your bringing it up as if it did shows your ignorance in this matter. I agree that no one is actively reading this but us, however I do write for future generations. I will tell them that on this day Phoenix, AZ received record rainfall and killed two in flooding, that CA is in an all time historic drought, and fires rage in Yosemite park, and that’s just the western U.S.. To the future generations, I promise to continue correcting bad science in order to give you the best standards of living you can have. Guest, on the other hand, has one argument which is “It’s too complicated for us to know or act”. It’s a good thing scientists don’t listen to people like him. Hope he never really needs brain surgery. His brain is too complicated for neurologists to know or act upon it beneficially.

                    • Guest

                      Yes, do tell me how your going to impact the Suns temperature or our elliptical orbit around it and the rotational gravity of our earth and the moons orbit!! And then explain how you’ll influence the bombardment of our planet from the various subatomic and atomic particle radiation from deep space. Oh and don’t forget to tell future generations how you influenced our planet’s transversal positioning through intergalactic space to save the atmosphere. The only thing you might be able to influence is some negligible environmental pollution. And you might want to start with all of that fear mongering garbage about ACC polluting your brain. The earth is the history of severe weather changes within the context of long term era’s and on a lesser scale even within the context of seasons. The rainfall is historic and so is the drought? Do you see the contradictions there. The drought in Calif is purely political, the water supply cut off by competing agricultural intetests, while the excess water from Arizona could hardly hurt the desert. It’s sad the weather experts couldn’t give more warning. As to the wildfires, again you’re too blind to read. Since the late 80′s the fanatic “green” terrorists have lobbied to stop the cutting of fire lanes in wilderness areas as I explained. Well, they succeeded and you see the results: more our of control wildfires then ever. Put that in your temperature capacity and heat it up! !

                    • cshorey

                      It’s called heat capacity, not temperature capacity, and why would I do any of the things you just suggested as they don’t affect heat capacity. When you finally show that you understand heat capacity (and use the proper name for that physical property) we can move on to calculate the mass of the hydrosphere and atmosphere. Then maybe I can show you how this all relates to the issues at hand. So far you can’t even recognize that heat capacity of substances exists. That’s like saying mass doesn’t exist. Just stupid. You think there is a contradiction when the rainfall record happened in a different place then the drought. Maybe you are ignorant that long term predictions have been for more droughts and floods. Putting climate on steroids seems to make weather more bipolar. In fact, this is what has been predicted by models and shown by the paleoclimate record. You ask us to look to the past, so I guess you know that after the PETM there are evidences of very accentuated droughts and flash floods. Hey here we are, and you fiddle while Yosemite burns. There’s some food for thought, but you might have to ingest rectally to get it in your mouth.

                    • Guest

                      Obviously you didn’t get the play on words. Do you really think anything you have to offer at this point makes any sense in the realm of sound Scientific protocol and theory. You’re all over the place with your assertions about heat capacity properties having nothing to do with the formal or informal designations of the biosphere. What a total contradiction of terms. On the one hand you’re trying to assert that the heat capacities of the components of the biosphere are instrumental in your theory of climate change and then you turn around and say they have nothing to do with the formal or informal designation of those component’s (of the biosphere).
                      Your brain is all twisted up like a pretzel in your frustrated zeal to try to invalidate the very sound common sense conclusions by the truly elite scientific community that rejects the fundamental exaggerations and misapplied statistics of climate cultists. And when did I say heat capacity doesn’t exist. You’re becoming delusional, trying to put words in my mouth and revise history to try to prove you have something relevant to say. Of course it exists but not for the effects and in the manner that you envision. I’ve already researched your heat capacity theories and there are more common sense concepts that invalidate your theory then support it. First the doomsday climate cult said we’re going to freeze in an ice age, then when that didn’t happen we’re going to fry in global heating. Now that that has proven to be false we’re going to suffer from catastrophic climate change. The potential for climate temperature redistribution exists with or without man’s industrial input as is proving true day by day. Man will always be faced with the imperfections of nature, ie earthquakes, volcanoes, floods etc. and can only adjust by better prognostication’s and geographic selections for building. The kind of contemporary catastrophes you envision can only take place over time frames in the hundreds and thousands of years over which we have no control.
                      For the third time it was your buddies, the tree hugger terrorists, that did the fiddling, by putting the brakes on the true conservationists that would cut fire lanes and prevent widespread, out of control, fires. They got their wish with tons more carbon emissions in the last 3 decades.
                      I won’t dignify your last crack with a response and sink to that level of vulgarity, but I have a good one in mind for you. My “put that in your pipe and smoke it” metaphor certainly deserved a more respectful and intelligent reply. But obviously your not capable.

                    • cshorey

                      Guest isn’t a good name for you. Your name to me is Nothing. I actually know what I’m offering is sound science. No one but you has ever debated with me, or anyone else I know of, what the value of heat capacity of water and air are. You’re in that “not even wrong” category because such simple science goes over your head. None of my buddies hug trees nor indulge in terrorism, and the joke is on you. I’m a conservative. You’re just clueless. Have you figured out how I might want to combine mass and specific heat to teach you something about the climate system? You have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven to anyone reading this, that you are ignorant of the most basic concepts of this science and are a bit nuts to expect a respectful reply. I don’t suffer fools lightly, and you are running for king of the fools now. I’m not sure to trust that you can give the mass of the hydrosphere and atmosphere, but suspect that you are going to give us more of your . . . Nothing.

                    • Guest

                      Michael Lawrence (my name) Founder, Editor ISGI
                      Institute for the Study of Global Ideologies

                      We are a think tank that addresses Political, Scientific (Mathematic), Theological, Sociological, Cultural and Psychological issues with critical analysis that coalesces the multidimensional and multilayer influences of ideological and material events upon specific issues. Climate change is a recent addition to our research.

                      The attached information is from a variety of elite Scientist and research that combines the disciplines of Astrophysics, Geophysics, bio- electrochemistry, paleontology with the accompanying statistical data measurements that validate their hypothesis. This information confirms the assessments and conclusions that I have sent you.

                      First I’ll address the “heat capacity” issue from investigative journalist Peter Farrara who sites scientists from around the globe including NASA. You can read the rest of the article online.

                      The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

                      Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

                      The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

                      And this from Dr. John R. Christy
                      (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville)

                      “…the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery.”

                      Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called “Industrial Revolution,”– caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway “Greenhouse Effect.”

                      Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

                      Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?

                      Causes of Global Climate Change

                      Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output.

                      “Greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere also influence Earth’s temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% – 0.3% to Earth’s greenhouse effect.

                      Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts

                      (1) Astronomical Causes

                      11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )

                      21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )

                      41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )

                      100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

                      (2) Atmospheric Causes

                      Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases– the “greenhouse effect”

                      Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

                      (3) Tectonic Causes

                      Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth’s poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

                      Undersea ridge activity: “Sea floor spreading” (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

                      For more details see:

                      http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
                      http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm

                      Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.

                      Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth’s climate is heading is being propagated by “scientists” who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth’s climate.

                      During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well – established but not well – publicized.

                      Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the “hottest year on record.” The UN’s executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

                      Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the “urban heat island effect”). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data.

                      Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?

                      Before joining the mantra, consider the following:

                      Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example– so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)– long before humans invented industrial pollution.

                      CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years– long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

                      As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth’s atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been on the increase for 18,000 years. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes– confirming that CO2 is not a primary driver of the temperature changes (9).

                      Incidentally, earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 – 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

                      Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the “greenhouse effect” (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

                      Approximately 99.72% of the “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes — mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

                      If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?

                      This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).

                      Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be “effects” and our own sun the “cause”.

                      And this from former NASA scientist Roy Spencer:

                      The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 for it even to make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

                      Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 [2008] in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!

                    • cshorey

                      Sorry I didn’t reply yesterday. I was being reverent on 9/11. Sorry you couldn’t join me. It took me a little longer to stop laughing when I finally read your verbal diarrhea. So the comedy value isn’t obvious to you? You are the founder and editor of an institute that claims to study ideologies, and the first post from you out the gate had “Lunatic Liberal Fringe” and later you told me my friends were “tree hugging terrorists”. I won’t waste my time going back through your feces to find more examples of the absurdity of who you are. Oh, you can’t make up this kind of comedy. Stop stop . . . you win. You are officially king of fools. And as noted elsewhere, your argument is truly the argument of incredulity. You can’t imagine how something happens, so you won’t believe people who can. So, where is you peer reviewed publication that disproves all this? Why isn’t the science community jumping up listening to your argument from incredulity? Probably because it is not only a fallacy, but a failure of your imagination. Say hi to John Swallow for me, I’ve enjoyed your circle jerk echo chamber antics. Funny how neither of you seem to know what heat capacity is.

                    • Guest

                      What is this preoccupation you have with bodily excrements? Obviously due to the constipation of the brain, an ailment typical of so many of you and your peers. There were dozens of accredited, established scientists and climate experts referenced that verify and validate the theories and hypotheses I presented. This, your last response I will acknowledge proves you’re totally incapable of comprehending the very material you’re arguing over. You’ve still yet to offer a response to any of my challenges except for infantile, sophomoric obscenities, typical of an impoverished intellect. I guess you do have a bit of a sense of humor with your tourette like syndrome blathering on about “heat capacity.” But I think you’ll find the most succinct and clear definition of your intellectual maladies in my response to the pathetic metaphor you offered to Alpha2actual’s palentological rebuttal to the stilted and aborted crap you’ve been spouting throughout this conversation. A nihilistic vision puts blinders on any empirical hypothesis regardless of passion, which itself can lead to numerous irrational and illogical conclusions. Climate alarmists really are the modern day version of “flat earthers!” A better comparison is the sign carrying “lunatics” claiming the “world is ending.” Got signs yet!!

                    • cshorey

                      To the future generations: last week the Audubon Society names climate change as the biggest threat to N.A. birds. But Guest Nobody claims science is a nihilistic view because it doesn’t jive with his ideology. What challenges have you offered? All you do is say that climate is too complicated for you. I don’t think we need to debate that. Basic science, let along complex climate science, seems to be beyond you. You really did try to say a mass was a percentage of a volume. (I’m still laughing at that one). You really did spend pages going into an argument of incredulity in response to being asked for the specific heat content of the hydrosphere and atmosphere (a physics 101 student knows better). You really do think that a pause in atmospheric temperature is the one data set you need to look at to see climate trends (does this give you a hint why I would ask you about heat content yet?). You really don’t know much on this matter, and I’m going to take a wild guess . . . you’re a young earth creationist too, right? Oh and “the world is ending” and “lunatic” stuff you’re spouting, more Straw Man fallacy. Turn that finger around, point it back at yourself, and you’ll be closer to making a sensible statement that doesn’t make you look like a callous uncaring human condemning future generations to a worse standard of living (not the end of the world) because your too blinded by ideology. Shame on you.

                    • Guest

                      Pathetic, disoriented response, still devoid of any rational hypothesis that correctly interprets the complexity of climate manufacture vs the known and unknown interactions of all contributing factors. I’ll admit I did say it was too complex, but I didn’t want to be egotistical and infer that my understanding was superior. But there you have it. I believe the data is overwhelming that supports all of my assertions backed up by that more distinguished body of Scientific research and Scientists that are the most advanced in their fields. Not political hacks and academic grant seekers.

                      Creationist? My profession: 40 years in Design & Systems Analysis. Hobbies: Theology, Theoretics, Advanced Scientific Concepts. I’ll admit our foray into climatology is more recent but no less intense than required to make a sound assessment. In fact we’re ready to move on as the majority of informed citizenry are beginning to see the irrational fear mongering, the lack of capable analysis, consistent contradictions, the inability to predict trends, and the obvious normalcy of severe weather cycles that belie the climate alarmists overreaction to mans environmental impact. We have to be good Stewards but not paranoid knee jerk fanatics.

                      There you go again trying to put words in my mouth.
                      I have always asserted that obviously, multiple forces influence climate trend not one single set of data.
                      Your flimsy rebuttals can be summed up by three myopic paradigms that you use over and over again because of the limited acumen of your knowledge of theoretics: straw man; incredulity; and logical fallacy. Terms you have used incorrectly, with incompetence, and without their true definition. As I said, you have done a great deal of research on climate, but you’re just not adept at weighing all of the relevant data and coming to the proper conclusion. Oh, and Do you think a radical environmentalist group like the Audubon can be trusted to put out “unskewed” data? They can make nice pictures of birds and know all their mating and migratory habits, but as to the entire history and trend of Ornithology I’d want to see additional sources.

                      I suppose it depends upon your definitions of living standards. You (environmental extremists) are the ones standing in the way of civilization progressing. But this is becoming a tired argument because you’ll never really trust the integrity of man and technology in the way it will most benefit mankind. The draconian over regulation of our political, technological and industrial systems by your type of thinking will continually drag down the “standards” of living and impose unnecessary and costly hardships to the working poor, while enriching the elite political and academic charlatans that want to impose ever greater levels of control and tyranny over their fellow man.

                    • cshorey

                      Except for that study released this week showing that adjusting to a low carbon economy can be done in a very affordable way in the next 15 years makes the argument that being kind and good to future generations is too expensive for you utter garbage. You throw out the Audubon study just because it comes from Audubon? How about you look at the study first instead of using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Do you still think mass can be a percentage of volume? I can quote you if you like. How about, “enriching the elite political and academic charlatans that want to impose ever greater levels of control and tyranny over their fellow man.” No hyperbole there, eh? You’re not a creationist? That surprises me, because you use the same Gish Gallop technique of spouting so much garbage, it’s hard to know where to begin correcting you. I tried with heat content, but it just turned out to be pearls before swine. You can’t even acknowledge yet that heat capacity is a real physical property of matter, and that’s a starting point for understanding the climate system. You’re knowledge on this matter breaks down at the very basic elements. And yet you’re going to inform others on climate and climate policy? What a joke. Please take a look at yourself. You really are ignoring evidence and condemning future generations to hardships. I’m very serious when I say shame on you. A very ugly shame too.

                    • Guest

                      Adjustable carbon economy: false science to erect draconian excessive taxation: the wrong way to fight crony capitalism.

                      Logical fallacy! Hillarious. What did I tell you about using that oxymoron? Your excuse to believe there is no contradictory doctrine. At least I admit the climate changes and acknowledge epochal patterns, while you won’t admit the alarmist have been proven wrong by a priori evidence at every turn for the last half century of just what those changes are or will become. You just can’t quite fathom that Science is as much an “Art” as it is the observation and recording of data, which proves time and again to be misleading and ambiguous without the sound theory of “creative intelligence.” Whose you may ask? I’ll leave you with that little puzzle to contemplate.

                      Creationist! What a hypocrit! Whose spouting “pearls before swine?”

                      You’re like the three monkeys except all you see, hear and speak is the nonsense “garbage” parroted by the “pseudo scientific” crowd about C02. You add to that your obsessive blindness to my response, three times now!, I recognize and always did that “heat capacity” is a property of matter. How could it be anything else. But in your own words it is but a “sliver” of the complexities of, as I like to put it, “the creation, maintenance and sustainability of climate. Where is you dissertation that summarizes this phenomena?

                      Give it a rest. I’ve addressed all of these,your recent batch of out of context, uniformed, academically challenged and theoretically incompetent accusations for the last time.

                    • cshorey

                      Criticizing another study you haven’t read? You see, the term “logical fallacy” is not an oxymoron as I used it. Look it up and learn. When we practice science we must be careful that our primary assumptions have a solid base, and that we use NO logical fallacies following that. Your posts are a catalog of logical fallacies and that is what I am pointing out for anyone with a brain reading this. I can tell even the most simple things escape you so I figure you’re a lost cause. Let’s examine your own professed expertise in theology. Because I said “pearls before swine” you are equating me with a creationist. How dumb can you be? You don’t even know how discuss within your own proposed field of expertise, and now you are delving into an area which you are not expert. How can we trust anything you say on this matter? Look at your own statement, “I’ll admit our foray into climatology is more recent but no less intense than required to make a sound assessment.” Let’s translate: I don’t have expert knowledge on this, but I will proclaim that my uneducated confusion is the general state of the science.” Wow, bold, unethical, and unintelligent. Shame on you. Very deep and ugly shame.

                    • cshorey

                      And by the way, there is a reason in court we ask people to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don’t think you’re deceitful, I think you’re duped. You post things and insist you are posting the truth, and to you it is probably nothing but the truth, but you really don’t have the knowledge base for the whole truth. I don’t have time to explain everything you’re missing, but there are resources out there. Try reading science journals on climate to see how much you are missing. It’s ok to have humility when sticking your fingers into other people’s expertise.

                    • Guest

                      Mr C., Mr C. You have my deepest sympathies! I hope you worked out everything in your mind. Unfortunately, as I indicated I did not, could not (no more time for this insanity) and have no interest in reading your tiresome response’s. My sincerest apologies, and no hard feelings. (If only we could both be right, and then what if we’re both half right!! LOL!) Keep your sense of humor, no one gets out of here alive!! Good Luck, I know you’ll enjoy rereading what you’ve written. Very cathartic.

                    • cshorey

                      That’s Dr. C, and that doctorate is in paleoclimatology. I have held back to be nice to you, and in hopes that you could actually learn something. I was wrong. I can’t even get you to admit that you can’t say a mass is a percentage of a volume. I do hope you live long enough to regret your horrid error of judgement and you must accept your shame. I had fun with you, and learned once again how absolutely ignorant you climate science deniers really are. Thanks for all the examples of logical fallacies i can use to teach my class critical thinking. You practically hit every logical fallacy out there in your rants. I did hope that you could improve, but the fact you mentioned Al Gore in your first post should have let me know you’ve already guzzled the Kool Aid and are too far gone.

                    • cshorey

                      And I’ll ignore your “alarmist” BS and assume you’re not making a stupid straw man argument, so let’s test your idea that nothing predicted has come to pass. Prediction: atmospheric temperature will rise with the most obvious emergence from your beloved background influencers starting in the 1980′s. Result: proven to be true.
                      Prediction: the stratosphere will cool and the troposphere will warm. Result: proven to be true.
                      The Arctic sea ice will decrease, while the initial Antarctic interior ice will increase. Result: proven to be true.
                      The Arctic will warm more rapidly than anywhere else due to positive feedbacks. Result: proven to be true.
                      There should be an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Result: proven to be true.
                      Oceans should show a warming trend. Result: proven to be true.
                      And I can go on, but you’re so confirmation biased to your hyper-conservative ideology you won’t see any of this as convincing. I don’t post for you, I post for the future generations so they can see how ideologues like you ruined the sustainable party. Shame on your. Deep and ugly shame on you.

                    • cshorey

                      And why not inundate you as you think you have a right to inundate me. Here is more verbiage against your position. Have you ever looked into the analogy Richard Feynman uses to explain the conservation of energy using an example of a mother who has a son with 20 identical and indestructible blocks? If not, look into it and it may make this issue clearer to you. When energy is stored in the climate system it may go to heating the atmosphere, or it may go to heating the ocean, ice, living systems and lithosphere. It can be also be expressed in the evaporation of water or the blowing of leaves in the wind. You ignore everything but the atmosphere when you started your opposition to rational science by saying that the atmosphere hasn’t warmed much in the past decade (even though the last decade has most of the hottest years on record). The child’s indestructible blocks may not just be under the cushion of the couch, it may be in a locked box, or a dirty water bathtub. We are getting better at measuring these aspects and all say we are retaining energy in the climate system. Your constant plea to ignorance is worthless to people like me. We strive for knowledge, not revel in ignorance.

                    • cshorey

                      Was there any substance in that? I can’t find any science to respond to. Guess that’s all you had. Now let me explain why I asked about specific heat. The atmosphere is not the only aspect of the climate system. It includes the oceans, lakes, streams, ice sheets, ice caps, valley glaciers, cirque glaciers, vegetation, land, and all the objects on earth that can absorb heat. Sorry you’re so limited that all you see is the atmosphere, which is why we started this track. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to get it.

                    • Guest

                      The atmosphere is the gaseous envelope that surrounds the solid body of the planet. Although it has a thickness of more than 1100 km (more than 700 mi), about half its mass is concentrated in the lower 5.6 km (3.5 mi). The gases within it are mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen, which we breathe. I calculated the volume of the air to be approximately :
                      volume = 7.081 x10^20 cubic meters
                      assuming an average density of 1.2 kg/m3 which
                      decreases as we increase altitude
                      mass = 8.497 x10^20 kg = 0.014% of earth’s mass
                      38% of earth’s volume

                      The Hydrosphere is the layer of water which covers about 71% of the earth’s surface. This layer is the combination of rivers, seas, lakes, underground water, and all the world’s oceans. The average depth of the oceans is 3794 m (12,447 ft), more than five times the average height of the continents. The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35 quintillion (1.35 × 10^18) metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the earth. This is 0.04 % of the earth’s mass.

                    • Guest

                      I felt my initial response (below) did not adequately address your question so I have modified it to include specific reference to the concept of heat capacity:

                      The suppositions about the influence of man on the biosphere are still just that. Suppositions. And the contributing factors (hydro, cryo, and lithosphere) function as systems of asymmetric temperature fluctuations to the point you have to look outside to the truly cosmic influences of the major “spheres” of particle interaction with the atmosphere, ie the stratosphere, magnestosphere and the plasmashpere to try to determine the true influences to climate. Those are the critical factors affecting the “heat capacity” of the systems you reference and any measurement as to their “heart capacity,” which I’m sure is the subject of several scientific suppositions, serves only to further redundant speculations about catastrophic potentials over which we have no control.

                    • cshorey

                      I think John Swallow might be reading these. Hey John, go check out the Urantia Foundation. This guy Guest is on to some really whacky stuff.

              • John Swallow

                Michael Lawrence; It is indeed a strange
                thing when some one can say that “all of our greenhouse effect is caused by less than 0.01% of the gasses of the atmosphere. What ever the exact percentage of green house
                gases in the atmosphere is not important if one can only understand that the greenhouse gas that cases the greenhouse effect is H2O that contributes from 95 to 98% of the affect. To be charitable, lets say that CO2 is
                0.000383% (call it 0004 % if it makes delusional folks happy) of the gas composition of the atmosphere,
                compared to 3-4% for water vapor.

                This is using arid region relative humidity figures, so the true average for H2O vapor would be higher than that. For simplicity sake we go with the 3% figure for arid regions. Calculating it out we get this: 3 divided by 0.000383 = approx. 7833

                in other words water vapor is 7833 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2; therefore, for anyone with a brain, it is easy to see that H2O contributes the most to the green house effect.

                We can look at this another way and that is that CO2=400 ppm. People unable to understand anything get their skirts billowed when told that the level of CO2 has increased to this level and claim that total and complete disaster and a melt down of the earth is immanent. It is interesting to look at just what one part per million is in the real world and that is not the one that cshorey finds himself stumbling around in and hiding under the bed to escape his boogie man in the sky, CO2.

                There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 338 ppm to 400 ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help cshorey to sleep better at nights.

                A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink. A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon.
                Some other things that are one part per million are…
                One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
                One inch in 16 miles
                About one minute in two years
                One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
                One penny in $10,000.

                I know that you understand that these 62 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the400 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.

                At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

                Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

                http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

                Those whose line of thinking that is so distorted by a hoax that has never moved beyond being nothing but a false hypotheses, are afraid that anyone that opposes their myth about CO2 causing the end of the earth, when it never did before when it was much higher than it is now. In the last 600 million years, our solar system passed through 4 spiral arms of our Milky Way. Earth’s average temperature was 22C when outside our galaxy’s spirals arms but decreased when inside each spiral arm.

                From 450 to 420 million years ago, Earth passed through the Perseus spiral arm and the average temperature dropped to 12C even while CO2 concentration was at 4500 ppm, 11 times today’s CO2 concentration. Temperature drops during high CO2 concentrations contradict the global warming hypothesis. Upon exiting the Perseus spiral arm, Earth’s temperature returned to 22C. I know that this is all news to cshorey; but, that does not mean that it is not true because almost everything that is true is news to you.

                • Guest

                  Hey John, M Lawrence here. Tell me your source for the passing of the earth through the different positions of the Persons spiral. Absolutely fascinating! What genius was able to calculate that phenomena? Look forward to hearing from you!

                  • John Swallow

                    Global warming just eco-religion?

                    By ED BERRY

                    Last Summer I met Ed Berry in Big Fork, MT and we had a rather long and interesting conversation about agw and he has the credentials to back up his opinions with, plus practical experience in the field.

      • Guest

        Michael Lawrence ISGI Institute for the Study of Global Ideologies
        John, you are a brilliant analyst, and after the long and ardorouus review of yours and cshoreys remarkable debate, your common sense, positive perspective, and instinctive intuition for the naturally occurring self corrective characteristics of nature, ( ie. climate), show’s the superior rationale of the spiritually in tune and motivated scientist and philosopher.
        Your cult analogy of climate fear mongers, if that was original, was absolutely, riotously spot on. These folks are truly fanatic to the point of convoluted irrationality (insanity). And when you add alpha2alphas sound paleontologists perspective it reinforces your arguments exponentially. I would differ with him on one point however, and that he leaves out the potential for what I call the stabilization effect of space settlement.
        Either God and His administration intend for us to evolve into a higher form of civilization by which His plans would include the prolonged ‘stabilization” of our energy systems, ie climate stabilization beyond the approx. 12 thousand year cycle, or He will let nature take its course and at some point in the long distant future the changes, perhaps abrupt or gradual or both, as alpha2alpha points out, will reconfigure civilizations. Either way we are talking about time frames and energy systems that transcends our influence and control over climate.
        We can have a modest impact with advanced technology that aids in the conversion or resorbsion of “real” pollutants, but one thing everyone is ignoring is the growing limitations of “dump sites” for nuclear waste. Now that should be the real concern of environmentalists. I believe a way to reuse spent rods for continued production of energy will eventually be discovered which will solve that problem.

        That aside, in the long run we have no control, as least not now, over the earths bombardment by various space rays, the gravitational effects of rotation and elliptical orbits and the integrity of the Sun, which are the real elements that control our climate, along with I suspect, the Higher Powers that are overseeing the evolution and spiritualization of our planet. Myself, I trust in God to lead men to knowledgeable and wise stewardship of our planet, but the singling out of CO2, which is such an infinitesimal part of the atmosphere, as the driver of climate change is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. It goes to the definition of pollutant in the debate. The one word absent from cshorey’s essays unless I missed it is symbiotic. It is scientific heresy to label CO2 a pollutant, when any sound biologist will tell you it is a symbiotic element. End of discussion.

        • John Swallow

          First off, Michael Lawrence, I thank you for your kind words directed towards me regarding this long running debate that I HAD with cshorey, I say HAD because due to a person who will not debate using their own name and who is seemingly intransigent and incapable of understanding facts, I see no need to continue such a discussion; I have much better ways to use my time.

          I totally agree with you that there are real issues to
          try to solve rather than wasting time on this unproven hypotheses of how this essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO2, is somehow, because of some politically induced motives, is now the doomsday ingredient of some science fiction writers dreams (Such as Al Gore and James Hansen) You mention Nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is the answer to our energy needs. It is safe, reliable and has been used for over 51 years in submarines and other Navy vessels; so where is the false argument about “not in my back yard” when how much smaller of a back yard could one have than to be under the sea on a submarine? One side note: There has never, in the US, been a person killed by nuclear accidents while there have been many killed by gas explosions.

          Of course, the 3 Mile Island event didn’t help
          the popularity of nuclear power; but, I’m sure that you are aware that the nuclear aircraft carrier “Enterprise” was recently decommissioned after 51 years of safe service to the US Navy and, like I said, how much smaller of a back yard could one imagine than being on a nuclear powered ship.

          According to one viewpoint of reports offering the comparison between wind versus nuclear energy, there has not been one single injury to a nuclear plant worker in all its 104 power plants and 40 years of service in the United States… not one!
          http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/14/even-candles-kill-many-more-than-nuclear-power/

          MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — A national safety group is urging states and regulators to adopt new standards that would ban a pipe-cleaning practice blamed for a 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion that killed six workers.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/connecticut-power-plant-explosion_n_983884.html

          To the point of how to deal with the residue of the
          power plants. The utilities thought that they had that problem solved after having pumped billions of dollars into the Yucca Mountain storage project only to have a totally irrational administration just arbitrarily shut it down with out presenting any alternative storage plans.
          This was a stupid political move by an administration that would rather cripple the nations energy supply and raise the cost of energy, for rich and poor alike, and kill the economy than to seek logical and beneficial solutions to some easily addressed concerns & this comes from Obama listening to the advice of charlatans, such as John Holdren, who knows no more about this issue of the earth’s climate than what Obama and the equally delusional John Kerry know & I should add cshorey to this shrinking list because James Lovelock who knows far more about this subject than the a for mentioned individuals, saw the light.

          “White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” in a coming new ice age by 2020.

          As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

          Holdren’s prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling “eco-disaster” was announced in Ehrlich’s 1986 book “The Machinery of Nature.”
          http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112317/

          “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet.
          We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

          “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it
          should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” James Lovelock

          http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

          • John Swallow

            “Examining Holdren’s extensive publications, WND does not find him balancing his concern that anthropogenic-induced climate change will cause world hunger with a concern that the production of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions could itself be a source of global famine.”
            http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112317/

            We must take into consideration that the US government mandates that gasoline must contain at least 10% ethanol and this is done as a “climate saving” exercise by this totally inept administration that has an idiot like John Holdren filling one of the Czar positions create under Obama as a “Science Czar” . This link below will show you just how smart of a plan this is; but, what would one expect from an administration that has John Holdren as science czar and John Kerry as
            Secretary of State?

            “Ethanol; Science News
            … from universities, journals, and other research
            organizations

            Study: Ethanol Production Consumes
            Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One”
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

            I would think time and money spent on this nonsense of anthropogenic global warming, and it is billions of dollars per year, could be better applied to other proven problems on earth. In 2007 I spent 6 weeks in Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo and what is being done to the old growth rain forest on this third largest island on earth is sickening. I understand that it is worse yet in the Indonesia portion of
            Borneo. It is being cut and destroyed and replaced with palm oil plantations that can be used for bio-fuel production and with the rain forest goes the habitat for the orangutan, the pygmy elephant, the rhinoceros and also the proboscis monkeys plus the unique plant life that occurs no where else on earth. This is all promoted by the ignorant “greens” that have no idea about what happens in the real world and only look to the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen for guidance.
            It is not strange that because of their oil production, Brunei seems to have a good conservation plan and is trying to save their rain forest.

            This is just another area where this green
            revolution destroys rather than saves but the naive “greens” of the world can pat themselves on the back
            for “saving the planet”. A side note, as with ethanol, it takes more energy to produce this bio-diesel than what is
            derived from the burning of it and how can humanity be so stupid to believe that it is practical to use a food crop such as corn to make a fuel out of?

            Another issue; where are the majority of the earth’s life forms found? It for sure is not in the arctic, if you have never noticed and I have due to having lived above the arctic circle for 14 years.

            “The poison dart frog Ranitomeya amazonica is one of more than 1,200 new species of plants and vertebrates discovered in the Amazon rain forest between 1999 and
            2009, the international conservation group WWF announced Tuesday in a new report highlighting the region’s biodiversity.

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101027-amazon-species-wwf-bluetooth-tarantula-science-rainforest-pictures/

  • cshorey

    Hello future generations. This week Google separated ties with ALEC because the conservative think tank was lying about climate change. Google chairman Eric Schmidt, “Well, the company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts—what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people—they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”