There you go again.
Can't you understand that evidence means nothing.
All the evidence that matters is statements that were never made and events that never happened.
You are the sort of person who would go up to a "birther" and produce documentation about the time and place of birth..... in these situations it just doesn't work like that.

True, with many of these people they'll only listen to what they want to and will believe what they want to read. It's not just global warming deniers, but also creationists, flat earthers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the list goes on.. But for those who have an open mind and approach it to learn something, they at least have the opportunity.

Continuing on, later than I had hoped.

One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea level. This figure shows the results of satellite measurements of the change in average global sea level in recent times. The slope of the graph suggests that the change in sea level is accelerating, which is expected as a result of global warming.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...level-rise.gif

Source: Cazenave, A. and R.S. Nerem, 2004. Present-day sea level change: Observations, Causes, and Conclusions. Rev. Geophys., p. 42.

This figure compares the extent of the summer arctic sea ice in 1979 with the extent of the sea ice in summer 2005. Since 1979, more than 20% of the Polar Ice Caps have melted away in response to increased surface air and ocean temperatures. Information and graphical representation from NASA and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ce-decline.gif

This figure demonstrates the trend in arctic sea ice extent, as measured in September, the annual summer minimum for sea ice extent, for each reporting year. Starts in 1979, going in intervals of five years until the 2004 mark, and ends in 2006 (the quality is also downgraded, for some reason; probably the pure-white background it had in the magazine- from the National Snow & Ice Data Center).

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...line_graph.gif

This figure shows the number of named tropical storms in the North Atlantic, per year, smoothed out over a decade long running average to minimize the clutter of data in year-to-year variation. Since 1996, tropical storm frequency has exceeded by 40% the old historic maximum of the mid-1950s, previously considered extreme. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest a link between higher sea surface temperature and storm frequency. Extreme weather events are a projected impact of global climate change.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads..._1930-2007.gif

Emissions will be covered tomorrow.

I decided to take a break from this thread for a day to insure I could approach it with a clear head. Let me address you, Stealth Hunter.

You asked "Where did I use the term "thief"? You did not use the term - however - in post 152 of this thread you stated:

"Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light"
and
"You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal."

The word TAKEN - and you intentionally italicizing (for effect) of "very illegal" - well - I don't know what you call a thief, but where I come from its someone who takes something illegally. Which is what you were accusing me of. If I told you that you took something illegally, wouldn't you call that stealing? What do you call someone who steals something? I had to correct you on the source and show it was in the public domain, which I had no problem doing. Your response?

"As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright."

So basically you did call me a thief (using different words), then when I showed I wasn't, you admit that I was correct, but still try and find fault with me because I didn't "play by the rules" you expected. Yet in the same post you accuse me of stealing - you post 2 graphs without sourcing them which is not "playing by the rules" either. Of course, prior to posting your accusation, you had not posted in this thread at all... so nine pages in, nothing was worth responding to until that. I didn't say a word about it, but instead tried to move forward.

Next post by you - discussing the validity of the emails, and you come up with this one:

"You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject."

Another swipe at my character, for what reason? You could have simply said you disagreed or laid out some legal basis for a different opinion, but instead you had to make it a personal thing. Not cool, but again I kept quiet, though I ask, if one person had said the same things about you, what would your view be regarding the intent of that person to reasonably debate?

Then we get to your "quote". The quote really got to me, I admit that. To log in and see my ID stating something I know I would not type - especially in third person (since referring to yourself like that makes you a little off in the head in my view) ticked me off to no end, especially after all that had gone one before. Not everyone can see things tribesman posts, because he is on a few ignore lists, mine included. So there was no way I could have seen it as a misquote.

Having read your explanation, and seeing you did the honorable thing: admitting the mistake and correcting it, I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your apology.

I also have to ask what the post regarding young earth creationism has to do with this. Had you paid attention to the very first post of that thread - I stated it was a debate. I suspect you do realize that when people start a debate, they do not always get to take a side they are firmly behind? To start that debate I did have to take a side does not conform to my own personal views. I have not ever posted a personal belief in the young earth theory, though I do not dismiss it out of hand either. That actually was the first time I had ever looked at any science for or against it. So why that is even brought into this I can't figure.....

Regardless of our disagreements, you have brought some interesting science to this discussion, and I don't mind looking at it. My point in being here is not whether global warming is or isn't real - it is about the fact that the "science" of climate change - on both sides - is more about politics and money than it is about true science. It is also about the fact that climate change is not nearly the issue that some people make it out to be, since environmentally we actually have much more important matters to deal with.

Could we debate whether GW is real? Sure, but what we were discussing was why GW is a shell game - whether real or not. Its a money sink and political power play - ON BOTH SIDES. If you think $2 Million a year from exxon will buy a few scientists, what will $170 Million do? Are all the scientists crooked? But this wasn't an attack on the science itself - this discussion - at least from my end - was an attack on those who were doing all they could to KEEP from letting that science be reviewed openly. You can try and twist it every way you want, but intentionally telling people that your trying to find ways around FoIA acts to keep from releasing data - in science that is just ethically wrong. When you start questioning a group of scientists ethics, wisdom dictates you must then question their results.

Is global warming real? The theory of it looks good on paper. The computer models in labs seem to be reasonable and logical. As an engineer however, I deal in applied science, not theoretical science. I can tell you that where the rubber meets the road, or where the theory meets reality, way too often the theory just doesn't pan out "out in the field". So do I question the theory - absolutely. However, I am not adverse to looking at the data. But as someone who sees theory applied to the field 5 days a week, and see it fail at least 3 days out of those 5 most weeks, I have to say that the theory is not yet withstanding the "in the field" test for me personally.

Your glacial ice melting by 20% since 1979 chart. Interesting, but one question....

If all the glacial ice melted, the oceans would be expected to rise 68 meters (or 223 feet).

Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

So 20% of the ice melting would mean that the oceans should rise by 20% of that figure - or roughtly 45 feet at a minimum. Now how many scientists, or laypersons, feel comfortable with claiming that the oceans have risen 45 feet by 1979? What... no hands? That is because - it hasn't...

But wait - its arctic ice only right? Ok - that would amount to a rise in the oceans of 7 meters (or 22.96 feet - we will call it 23) if it were to all melt. I used the same source for the 7 meter number. So - at the least, 20% of that 23 feet is 4.5 feet.... yet where is the 4.5 foot rise in the ocean since 1979? That has not happened either. In fact, global warming alarmists say that in the next 100 years, the water level could rise as much as 6 feet - yet if their models were correct, we would have seen a 4.5 foot rise in just the last 30 years....

Just one example of why theoretical science cannot be used to dictate how humanity should live, since humanity does not live in the world of the theoretical.

GW is no abstract theory nor is it a computer model only.

It's reality is being measured.

And the results speak a very clear language: since some decades, we have an unnatural acceleration in climate warming up, several hundred times faster than ever before in known history of Earth. You can ignore it, you can weasel around it, you can try to distort it, you can want to discredit it, you can wish to relabel it, and you can hope to weaken it by constructing different, fictional contexts. But the data remains what it is, no matter wether it is tried to be ignored or discreddited, or not. And the data says: there is a global trend towards warming.

Supporting observations from related sciences also confirm this, namely different branches of biology, zoology and medicine (germ and virus research). The patterns of how species follow their preferred environmental conditions and avoid unpleasant ones, shows that it becomes warmer.

Theories and models only come into play regarding prediction of future climatic trend, or explaining the already measured values.

Skybird - then kindly explain the math on the issue above...

Not to turn this into a big argument, but he is kind of correct in the sense that what you did is plagiarism which is theft of ideas. The everyday world does it with out a second thought, but if caught doing so in the academic or scientific world and you would be in big trouble. These are the rules and what would happen if you got caught doing so at the University of Ottawa for example.
http://www.uottawa.ca/plagiarism.pdf
http://web5.uottawa.ca/admingov/regulation_13.html
As you can see the penalties can be very steep, including expulsion, and that is just for student work.

You are half correct that he did not fully cite the graphs. They are linked to their original sites, you just have to look at the image properties to see where they came from. But he did not formally cite them.

PS. public domain does not excuse a person from citing the source. Say I were to use Wikipedia (not that I would ever EVER cite them) as a source in a paper, even though the material may be public domain, I still would have to reference where the information came from and cite it properly.

He does have a point though you must admit, we have no way of knowing for sure. After all we can say, claim, and be anything we want to on the internet. I've caught many many people in all kinds of obvious lies on the internet that they used to bolster their image. Personally I don't have the impression that you are that sort of person, but it is mearly my opinion and I have no solid evidence to back it up.


I think given the modeling available, GW is a very pressing issue which could have dire consequences, especially given the current problems in the environment (it is already a set of systems under severe pressure). The whole system could topple over very easily.

See I don't agree with that, the reason being the different sources of money don't put the same pressures on researchers. Grant money goes toward specified research, but with out intended results (you will notice that the real researchers who are skeptical have the same sources of funding). They just want some results period, and not have the money wasted finding null results. When interest groups invest in 'research' they generally want specific results that are favorable to their position, when a tobacco company invests in 'research' they don't want the lab showing that tobacco causes cancer, and unsurprisingly the lab (cause they want to stay in business) fudges the results (and there are many ways they can discretely do this). There are countless examples of junk science papers when it comes to the tobacco industry. It would follow that similar is going on when the oil companies invest in GW research, and those companies have serious motivation to stifle GW research given how much it could hurt their bottom line with fuel efficiency and other things lowering sales rates.

Of course I would be equally suspicious of research from interest groups from the other side of the equation, I am wary of research from anti smoking groups. But most global warming research money is coming from more theoretically neutral sources.

It is also much cheaper to do junk science then it is to do valid science. You don't need research equipment, or to purchase data from other sources, you just make it up or fudge with existing data. Most of this stuff doesn't go through peer review, and isn't published in respectable journals, but often online. The time investment is also significantly less, as is the required number of staff. This is why they don't need as much money to function. Lastly of course is they are a minority, there are way more scientists doing more genuine research.

Now as for transparency, I agree it would be nice. Problem though is a bunch of the raw data the CRU used is private IP data, which they cannot disseminate. They can show the calculated results only. Remember this article? http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...etproposal.pdf It was about trying to make the data more transparent by using more independent non IP data.

From a human perspective I can understand why he would not want his data falling into the hands of skeptics with out a scientific background. I know full well how it would be twisted and misconstrued by them. Furthermore we all say things we don't really mean. Plus this was a snippet from a private conversation between colleagues, he could have been being sarcastic or joking for all we know. As I said before without the emails in the proper context, we don't know exactly what is going on there.

Don't forget that the data is also there supporting it, and that data comes from the field itself. Also how exactly have you been field testing the theories?

I've also said that theories are never perfect, there are always little flaws or areas which they don't yet cover, and they tend to be more accurate over averaged data rather then case by case.



Well the problem is you made an error, he is referring to polar ice, not glacial ice. The polar icecap expands and contracts every year, in the summer it melts, and in the fall/winter it refreezes, with only the northern areas staying ice bound all year. The problem though as the picture shows is that the icecap has been melting further and further back each summer. Glacial ice on the other hand is far more permanent, and does not melt and refreeze each year, its rate of change is much slower. Furthermore the temperature changes are much greater in the poles due to CO2 levels concentrating in those areas. The changes in the ice levels in the poles are pretty strong (and visual) evidence of the temperatures increasing.

All right... lets start with this first...

Neon - your answer to the polar/glacial ice issue makes me think you didn't check my source. :DL Call it my own lack of knowledge in the field - which I readily admit BTW - but I used the terms interchangably. The source does state Polar Ice Caps melting would cause the amount referenced - and I simply used the term "glacial" - an error on my part. However, comparing the source to his picture in question, we are in fact talking about the same thing - polar ice caps, so that math itself stands as correct.

Now - on the other issues. Your right - he and I both were in error on a failure to cite sources. My error may be the greater, so be it. However I was simply pointing out that one must be careful when they throw mud, because they might be a bit muddy themselves as well as there was no need to be personal about it. As to him having a point that I could be fabricating my own experience concerning emails in court, yes there is always the possibility that someone on the net is full of bull. However, my point was simply that the entire issue could have been dealt with in a manner that did not involve a personal swipe, which was how I took it given what had gone on before. It may not have been intended as such, and to me its irrelevant and I intend to move past it regardless. I simply think that pointing out that this forum can do less with the slams and innuendo - some of which I have seen I have used as well, much to my chagrin, would be a positive. I also thank you for your words regarding your impression of my character.

With that out of the way, on to the emails.

Lets look at the context.
Did Phil Jones know that a FiOA request was made regarding AR4?

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things - don't pass on either.
1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won't
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't
even measure it properly now.
The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships are
US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these ships for a few years.
So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely
ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way
around this.
I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ

(Source: http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=877&s=kw )

Per this email - dated May 9, 2008 from Phil Jones - it states clearly he is aware of the FoIA requests. In fact, he references the fact that the requests are specifically for all emails recieved or sent by specific persons regarding AR4.... So how does anyone still dispute that he knew about the request, or that he was, as he stated - finding a way "around" it? This is not out of context, the first part of the email simply does not bear on the question at hand. Now, hopefully there will be no arguement over his awareness of the request. So lets move on to the next bit - dated May 29.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

(Source: http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=893&s=kw )

Now - the recipient is not one of the people mentioned in the FoIA request, yet Jones clearly states that one of the people specified in the FoIA act, a person under his supervision I might add, will delete the emails in question - those regarding AR4. This is now 20 days AFTER his own words prove he is aware of the request, and has been looking to circumvent it.

So how can anyone ask "where is the deletion"? Do we have the requested AR4 emails? Were they ever released? The answer to those questions - is NO. Regardless of the opinion of Jones, or any other scientist at CRU about those who were making the request, they had a ethical and legal duty to insure the data in question was safeguarded and released in compliance with the law. Yet we can see that Jones, while aware of his legal duty, abrogated it, being aware that data was to be deleted by an person in his supervision, and doing nothing to stop it. On the contrary, he was attempting to assist by insuring all other copies were destroyed as well. These are not out of context - in fact - had you even looked at the title Jones chose for the May 29 email - he specifically was speaking in regards to FoIA issues since he chose that as part of the title.

To continue to ask "where is the smoking gun" on wrongdoing at the CRU is simply absurd. Is this a smoking gun disproving GW? No, but it does make the CRU - and its results - more suspect. Considering that the CRU has been the main source for the IPCC, which recall is a POLITICAL body, means that there are alot of unanswered questions still.

I understand the point about IP data, but then again - why would anyone try to use protected data on an issue where they knew the results would cause controversy? Doing so makes the results "uncheckable" - which will only add fuel to the debate itself, instead of move the science forward. Makes no sense at all to use protected data in something like this. The claim that its protected data is like a doctor coming in to see you after a physical and saying "well you have cancer, but don't try and get a second opinion because we use a test no one else can use and I won't let any other doctors see the results." I mean, its ludicrous.... I won't say it wasn't done, but I will say to do so was blasted stupid.

Then there is the question of how accurate is the data they really have? Part of what was released in the whole "climategate" documentation was a log by a gentleman working on their databases. He worked on the db's for what appears to be at least 3 years, and as any decent IT person will do, he kept that running log. Since that log is more in the area of my own knowledge, I have been taking time to read over it. I am not even 1/10th of the way through it, but I can say this - taking his log as a true record of his actions and the results, there is no way I could accept the data in use at the CRU as anywhere near accurate. It was one of your sources, Neon, that ultimately led me to finding this. It will likely take me a good week or two for me to complete the read but when it can reference 2000+ data readings from "unidentified" stations that also have no lat/long data - so no one knows where the heck they are (and thus cannot determine if they are even real) - being used in datasets that the models at the CRU use, I don't think its unreasonable to already question the veracity of the outcomes those models produce.The entire log I refer to may be found here:

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/docu...RY_READ_ME.txt

Lastly, and this has been a rather long post - I will say this. Yes, I fully agree that research funded by parties with an interest in the outcome means the science should be double and triple checked before acceptance. But once again - the CRU recieves funding from the UN and WMO, as it was and still is contracted by the IPCC (a political body) that was created by those groups. The UN is indisputably a political body - and the WMO on its own page describes itself with the following statement (bolding added for emphasis):

"WMO plays a leading role in international efforts to monitor and protect the environment through its Programmes. In collaboration with other UN agencies and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, WMO supports the implementation of a number of environmental conventions and is instrumental in providing advice and assessments to governments on related matters. These activities contribute towards ensuring the sustainable development and well-being of nations."

(Source: http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html )

To claim then that the UN, WMO or IPCC are not political in nature is clearly untrue. Thus, any research they fund must also be considered to POSSIBLY have a political motivation. Thus, any results should be double and triple checked just as "oil funded" results should be. Only one problem - that appears to be impossible when the CRU uses IP data.....

It should also be noted that the WMO - on the page I cited above - expounds on how they want environmental data to be freely accessible to all. Yet they fund a group that uses private data, and then uses the results from that group to "provide advice" to governmental bodies? Something smells fishy right there. Please, do not pretend that the CRU, the IPCC or the other groups involved do not have a political interest in this. It is blatently apparent that they do have a political interests, just as much as big oil has an economic interest.

No there is a problem as they are not at all interchangeable, polar ice cap (or pack) and glacial ice are not the same. Thing is that the polar icecap is over water, and glacial ice is over land. This is why in the summer time only the ends and surfaces of glaciers melt, where as much of the polar ice cap melts and refreezes on a yearly rate. Also there is a massive difference in thickness (which also enables glaciers to survive much longer then pack ice). much of the polar ice cap is not very thick, only a few meters on average. Glaciers can be several kilometers thick.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MaySy.shtml
Plus on top of it Glacial ice tends to be more dense with much less air trapped inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance
Usual caveat with wiki of course that there could be mistakes on those pages.

Furthermore I did read the article, and most of it talks about glaciers and icebergs not polar ice, in spite of the title. The important thing though is that the ice pack is over water, and the oceans are heating up. Water also conducts heat far better then air or soil do (put an ice cube in water, suspended in the air, and put on top of earth all at the same temperature and see for yourself). this is why the pack ice is getting smaller and smaller each year. The polar ice packs also does not represent a whole lot of water in comparison to the glaciers (particularly those of Antarctica). You also might want to reread your article a bit more closely, as they say that it is unlikely that the antarctic glaciers will ever melt, and that it represents 90% of the world's ice.


I will address the email stuff maybe later as I am very busy with my own work right now. I just wanted to finish addressing your other point and not leave it hanging. I do want to say though, that I do fully support a formal investigation into what exactly did go on there. If there was any improprieties then they should be held accountable.

The correct term for a person violating copyright on an issue of written materials is "plagiarist", not "thief"- particularly when trying to pass off somebody else's statements as one's own.

someone who uses another person's words or ideas as if they were his own - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarist

a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=thief

Though this issue is really pointless now, because you posted your source finally and rectified your mistake by showing where the materials originated from.

Plagiarism is not thievery- by their very definitions, as demonstrated above.

Yep. But what is this something? A physical object, or written statements?

A thief. Now, what do you call someone who uses another person's written material in an attempt to pass it off as their own? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "p" and ends in "ist".


And thusly rectifying your mistake, as I've already said.

*sigh*

someone who uses another person's words or ideas as if they were his own - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarist

a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=thief

:up:


It's not what I expect. As a debating rule of thumb, you always cite your sources for your information or any claims you make. If you bother going to a university with a debating class, oral and/or written, they'll make you do the exact same thing.

Plagiarism, not stealing.

Correction: "Because we the MBH model does nothing but confirm the data the University of East Anglia has produced." Then I posted the first graph for you to make your comparisons. The second graph is also from them, and if you bothered following the URL behind it, you would see it originates from NASA's Goddard Institute.

NeonSamurai's posts have been well worth responding to. His posted plenty of information and links (not to mention rebuttals of your posts and others') on the original topic we've been fighting on of global warming.

Hardly a swipe. What goes on in that head of yours I wonder? All I said was you may be telling the truth and you may not be, because what you posted has simply been for years a tired old way of trying to make oneself look more like an expert- and it's because so many people have tried using this over the years that we don't even bother dragging personal experiences into professional debates, which the latter is exactly what I'm trying to encourage here. Why do you seemingly have a problem with it? First, you scrutinize the routine of citing sources in debates, now this issue of personal experiences in them (assuming, of course, they ever really happened; people do like to lie so).

Was that not made obvious by the paragraph you're bringing up?

Hang on, I'm not the one making this personal. You are. By trying to force your personal experiences in here as proof, which, because we have so many people who lie and make up personal experiences to try and reinforce their positions, we don't do in debating. Yet it was you in the first place who brought that mannerism of content into this debate, not me. That's all I've been pointing out. Now, if you can prove that what you say is true, as far as the personal experiences are concerned, then do so- because then it can be used.

Well that's settled.

As far as the debate over global warming is concerned, little. As far as Aramike's statement that: "Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop."; quite a bit, by firstly showing that the ignorance of the public on such scientific matters makes them hardly at liberty to comment without some prior education on what they call into question- using one scientific example, the theory of evolution, to show that at least a good number of them know very little about the exact science which they show nothing but scrutiny for. Since your side finds global warming to be such a questionable thing, I figure something that's not nearly as up for as much debate (at least, not on the grounds of facts and truth are concerned, or general accepted amongst the educational institutions) should be submitted as an example. If you can prove their stupidity on one scientific matter (evolution), how likely do you think it is they'll be any more intelligent on another, i.e. global warming? Now, if you want to continue further into this matter, be my guest. We can revive the old evolution thread and take it from there to keep this thread less cluttered.

Yes- between you and me. The original post where I brought up the concurrent scientific issue of skepticism about evolution, in correlation with the same types of skepticism you get on the concordant issue of global warming, was in response to Aramike's statement.

Though as far as global warming goes, agnosticism really isn't a choice as far as the real world is concerned. Either it exists or it doesn't; either it's a true event that's happening as we speak or it's an elaborate hoax perpetuated by governments all over the world and their scientists in some kind of money-ploy scheme (there's so many conspiracies out there about it today I don't think I could name them all off... so I'll leave the job to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory); either the facts and statistics behind it are accurate and unaltered or they're inaccurate and have been fabricated. Etc.

But again, it's the same kind of deal: either the Earth's beginnings began as the Creationists' state or as the scientists state; either it is 6,000 years old as the Creationists say or it's 4.54 billion years old as the scientists say; concurrently with the latter, either radiometric and carbon dating don't work and are inaccurate for dating Earth and objects on it as the Creationists say or they're both fine and work perfectly well as the scientists say. Really, everything breaks down to a black or white deal. If you push it far enough.

"Just thought I'd throw this out there for the sake of Morts' comment."

Now we're making progress.

So the results would have been skewed and thusly make any evidence for global warming nothing but puffery, basically destroying the theory as we know it. After all, if the results don't support the theory, you really don't have a theory. Not a valid one, anyway. Fabrication of the results and the debunking of the theory would show it to all have been nothing but a hoax.;)

Environmentally speaking, assuming the greenhouse effect goes wild, and it will if we keep pouring billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere, we won't have to worry about deforestation, energy problems, and fuel source problems anymore. Because we won't be able to survive on the terranean hell that will become Earth. Consider the state Venus is in. Earth's condition would be a fraction of it, but the point in case is that we won't be able to survive it.

We've been discussing both. If it's nothing but a "shell game", then you may just as well have debunked the entire theory. Thankfully, that's not the reality of the situation, and the public doesn't have much sway in scientific matters.

So you do question its existence, nevermind the politics behind it. Thanks for finally admitting it.

But do you really think that private interests and governments have been able to buy out ALL of the scientists? All of them? Not that this amounts to anything less than pure speculation, but even so, do you realize how fantastical that sounds- not even taking into account the lack of evidence for such a notion about the majority of the community?

You tell me.

But by saying, or at least insinuating, that a good portion of the scientific community could be bought out by both private interests and government (if not all of it, as some conspiracy theorists claim), how is that not an attack on their integrity- let alone the community's? After all, it is the latter which they act as representatives for.

Which, as demonstrated, no twisting is necessary on my part. I've already explained the situation behind Dr. Jones' emails, the reasons for actions taken (in both his words and in scientific practice), but the one thing I haven't done is asked you this: what exactly was he hiding, assuming you were correct and ignoring the facts, in the data- and, on a related note, what did the data say? Produce it, and then you've got something. Until then, it remains rebutted speculation.

How does that prove he was hiding anything though? As I've already said, it doesn't. He deleted the data from his computer, passed it along to Dr. Scott so it could be archived and viewed by the public; Scott's computer crashed and the data was lost. An unfortunate event, but jumping to conclusions is all that's being done here by your lot.

So again, this does confirm that you have doubts about global warming being real. If you question the results, you question the thing which they are there to support or rebut.

Have you ever read anything on it, by chance? Informational and long, I mean, like a scientific encyclopedia article on it? Just wondering since you comment on it with such a confident tone, yet you have previously demonstrated that there are plenty of things you were unaware of about it (some of the most basic things to it...).

What about the tests done to produce results and work with these computer models in the laboratory? Are they reasonable and logical?

Dragging personal "experiences" back into this again I see. Well, as an engineer, do you happen to deal with climatology, meteorology, geology, anything of that sort on a daily basis like the scientists and people like myself (hey- if you want to throw personal experiences in there, I might as well do it too) do on a daily basis when studying climate change, the greenhouse effect, or global warming?:hmmm:

A freshman in high school can too, because learning this stuff is a mandatory requirement now. What makes you more of a professional and a better choice to comment than people who work with this stuff everyday? What reasons do you have for us to trust you on this? What's there to assure us that you yourself don't have any personal interests which are affecting your conclusions on this subject, as you insinuate about the scientific community's representatives on matters of private and government interests?

Of course, engineering theories and climate relation theories are two very different things from each other. But I digress.

To the point where it becomes repetitively unnecessary. There comes a point when it's time to stop, particularly after a ridiculous amount of information supporting the theory you're questioning has been brought to light. That's like the evolution issue, we use the theory everyday in biological science, we've shown it happens time and time again, we apply it to common things (like medicines and foods) also on a daily basis- yet we still get people who question its integrity.

So what exactly are you using global warming, climate change, and the greenhouse effect for in your engineering trade? I'm curious to know, and I'm also curious to know how you figured up the statistics behind those numbers. Furthermore, what details are there about your job? What position do you hold? How important is it within the profession you're in? What have you got to show us that proves that this is what your job really is?:up:

My god- there is no way you can be an engineer. Otherwise, you would understand that the 20% of melted ice converted into water is distributed throughout the world's oceans, meaning that, worldwide, you only see a small increase in sea levels, because 71% of the Earth's surface, an area of some 139.5 million square miles, is covered with water- and all major oceans and seas interconnect with one another, meaning that (and I'm reiterating here) the melted ice water would be distributed throughout them; nobody in their right mind (let alone a knowledgeable mind) would say that the graph means ALL oceans and seas- "the oceans"-- rose by 45 feet "at a minimum"!:haha:

Though it hasn't all melted. Not yet, anyway. This statement is moot. Furthermore, the error in your math above has been displayed. Not just an error in math, but also scientific know-how and measurements. You have to account for the percentage of surface area the oceans cover, then distribute the 20% throughout them...

"The ocean"? I wasn't aware there was just one- nevermind a single depth and current flow to every bit of it. Current rates of sea rising levels have occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century (a mean rate is used because there is no single ocean we're talking about here; they're all being affected- except for the landlocked ones like the Caspian Sea). With that said, you were apparently reading the graph wrong. This one makes it clearer (source: Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory; http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Level_Rise.png

You will note it's in centimeters. 1cm = 0.032808399ft

The problem noted by global warming is that if sea levels continue to rise at their present rate, as I previously mentioned, we will no longer be dealing with graphs that only extend as high as 35 or 50cm within the next century, but ones that go up as high as hundreds of centimeters (the mean average models placing it at 450cm, or 14ft- high enough that the Eastern Seaboard would be flooded as far inland as the Appalachian Mountains, eventually sweeping down through rivers and valleys even as far as the Midwestern United States- not accounting for the highest models that go to 880cm or 28.871391076088003ft; source: Miller, L. and Bruce C. Douglas, 2004. Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise and future projections. Nature magazine #428. p. 406–409.). From the Phoenix Project Foundation is a projected graph showing the outcomes of such a rise:

http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation....s/sealevel.jpg

Are you catching on to your error yet?

Citation for this? And I've already shown why your 4.5ft sea level rise within the last 30 years claim is bunk. You didn't bother accounting for all that water being distributed throughout Earth's oceans. This is like the third (maybe fourth) time I've had to point this out to you. There's no way you can be an applied science engineer if you left out that variable. And while it's just one factor, it's still a damn big one to the equation!

We live in a theoretical world as much as an applied world. The simple fact of the matter is that your lot is not going to acknowledge that we were right until the effects of us pouring out too many greenhouse gases are seen- chiefly, the mass extinction of Arctic animals, rise in sea levels, famine, widespread disease, a breakdown in governments, you get the picture. Because people, in disasters this big, due to their stupid nature, go batsh** insane.:shifty:

Continuing on.

In the year 2004, the United States emitted over seven billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO2E). Carbon dioxide accounted for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases (83%), followed by methane (9%), nitrous oxide (5%), and the high global warming potential gases (2%).

(sources are all listed beneath the images; if they're too blurry, I'll write them out for anyone who asks)

http://i43.tinypic.com/wgouht.jpg

Greenhouse gases are emitted by all sectors of the economy, including industry (30% of total), transportation (28%), commercial (17%), residential (17%), and agriculture (8%). In this figure, greenhouse gases from electricity generation have been allocated to the end-use sector.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2pzfyu8.jpg

This figure shows the trends in US carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004. The data indicate that carbon dioxide emissions increased 15.8% between 1990 and 2004.

http://i43.tinypic.com/hrhh7t.jpg

This figure shows the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in the generation of electric power. The three electricity-generating fuels shown here are coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a4sll4.jpg

This figure shows trends in emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of oil to produce energy for the following five sectors: transportation, industry, electric power, residential, and commercial.

http://i43.tinypic.com/205xk5d.jpg

The transportation sector is the second largest contributor of greenhosue gas emissions (mainly in the form of carbon dioxide) in the United States (see the second figure in this post). This figure shows the trends in aggregate and per capita vehicle miles traveled by Americans per year.

http://i41.tinypic.com/k1rs6b.jpg

Greenhouse gas emissions, largely CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, energy-related CO2 emissions have risen approximately 145-fold since 1850 - from 200 million tons to 29 billion tons a year.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ns.preview.JPG

Most of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from a relatively small number of countries. The United States, China, and the European Union (EU-25) together accounted for about 50% of global emissions in 2004. The eight largest emitters- the United States, China, the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Germany and Brazil- accounted for more than 70% of global emissions.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads....1.preview.JPG

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming long after they are emitted (in most cases, for a century or more), so cumulative emissions are an important measure of a country's contribution to climate change. From 1850 to 2000, the United States and the European Union were responsible for about 60% of energy-related CO2 emissions, while China contributed 7% and India 2%.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cumulative.jpg

Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are the energy supply sector (26%), industry (19%) and forestry (17%). Agriculture and transportation account for 14% and 13% of total emissions, respectively.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Sector.jpg

CO2 accounts for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions- 57% from fossil fuel use and 20% from deforestation and other activities. Methane, primarily from agriculture, is the next largest category of emissions (14%). Note that different gases have different potentials. All figures here are expressed in CO2-equivalents.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Gas.jpg

Well lets deal with this polar ice cap thing for a minute if you don't mind. I might learn something from it, because obviously we seem to be on different pages.

I looked at your sources Neon - and the first thing that jumps out at me was this - sourced from your first link (May Sy).

"Elsmitte, at the center of the Greenland ice cap, rests an elevation of almost 3,000 meters, and much of Antarctica is even higher."

Ok - either this is the name of a specific cap - or Greenland moved to the antarctic when I wasn't looking. I suspect the former. If so, then we are ok here, but if the latter, well someone needs to explain to me how that happened. Now - lets establish some basic terms, and correct me if I misread your sources.

Polar Ice Cap - Ice floating in water found at the poles. You have both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Antarctic holds 85-90% of the frozen water in ice caps on earth, the Arctic holding the balance.

Glacial Ice - Ice formed on land.

OK - if this is correct - then Stealth Hunter's chart states that 20% of the ice at the Arctic Ice cap has melted. That is waterborne ice. Now, this is where physics come in and the question gets more complex. If we are talking purely about waterborne ice - it could all melt and it wouldn't raise sea level one bit - because waterborn ice displaces the amount of water equal to its weight and density. Thus, frozen some of it may stick up in the air - but melted its volume takes up only the water it displaced (that being the water displaced by the underwater ice). So the 20% melting of "Polar Ice Caps" would thus not result in any change of sea level. Am I right so far? If not - let me know where I have gone wrong.

OK - assuming I am right to this point - there is still one problem. Your talking about an ice cap that is almost fully surrounded by land that does have Glacial Ice on it. For the waterborne ice to melt - the Glacial ice has to be doing the same thing - unless the ambient air temperature is not sufficient to allow it. This would require the ocean to be warmer than the air - which makes sense. However - for the water to be sufficiently warm enough to cause a 20% decline in the 30 years in question would mean that the water should be measurably warmer on average than it has been. After all - if it was generally the same temperature as it has always been we would not see a precipitous increase in polar ice cap melting. Some research indicates that warmer oceans are in fact expected with global warming.... The problem is that so far, the ocean has not warmed as expected. In fact, it appears that the oceans have been cooling - though not significantly. (Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025 )

So if its not warmer oceans - it must be warmer air right? But warmer air means that Glacial Ice would be affected as well and in fact would likely be melting faster than polar pack ice. (Take 2 identical chunks of ice - put one in a specific volume of 35 degree water, one in 35 degree air - which melts faster? The one in air - because water as it cools acts as a better temperature insulater than air....). Yet Glacial ice is what would cause the oceans to rise because water that is on land and melts goes where? Thats right - into the ocean (either running into it, or via the evaporation/precipitation cycle or a combination of them both). But we still don't see the rise such a melt would cause.

Ok - so it looks like it can't be warmer air.... and it can't be warmer water.... What the devil could it be then? There has to be an answer here. I mean - the data itself can't be wrong can it? What would cause seaborne ice to melt - but not the land based ice? The only difference is the water. Perhaps - just perhaps - your dealing with more than just temperature here.

Oh - and so much for "the icecaps are going to melt and flood us all" - unless they meant to say "Glacial" ice. The claim is that glacial ice is retreating as well - but if so - then where is the associated increase in sea level? Its still not happening. So where is the disconnect?

Edit - ok got some of Stealth Hunter's post to delve into - so lets start:

Want a source for the 6ft alarmist - ok - here ya go:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/read/default.html Just read the header section on Global Sea Level.....
I should also point out that that study is one written and condoned under the IPCC - which we have already establishd as and answering to - a political entity.

Though I must say Stealth Hunter - you seem to think that my 6' statement was somehow questionable or false - then you go right on to post a source claiming a max sea level increase of 28.871391076088003ft. - and ya know - I like your alarmist claim better.... I figure since you sourced it you don't need me to repeat the source back to you.

Now I have never claimed that I use any type of environmental science in my own work - and I don't know why you seem to think I do, because I am more than happy to admit I don't (unless we are talking about figuring out line of sight for wireless communication and possible environmental factors that could affect said communication, or simply where and how to best run wire). I simply was stating that generally, theory doesn't match reality an awful lot in the real world.

Now - on to the issue of sea level....

Ok let me get this right - your saying sea level is not generally uniform? If not - then how can your own sources come up with "28.871391076088003ft" as an increase in the sea level? Where would this increase take place? I mean - physics says any body of liquid will try to, in general, get itself to its lowest equal level. So if sea level in new york is at one point, and off the coast of North Carolina its 5 foot lower - explain to me why the water doesn't just even itself out.... because any liquid will try to do exactly that. Now oceanography is definitely not something I know about - but I do understand the physical properties of liquid, and something isn't adding up here. Now based on those physical properties - if a source claims that 100% melting would equal a 22.96 ft rise - how is it that a 20% melt does not equal a 20% rise? Now as I posted above - if we are talking sea ice only - I understand why it would have NO rise. However, on one hand you want to say "the changes would be minimal" - and then you want to quote sources that say the increase we would see is one of disaster sized importance...

Dude - make up your mind!

I also do not find it suprising that you sure didnt want to touch the email issue - since it did in fact show that the then head of CRU was aware of the FoIA request and emailed out requesting that same data be deleted (in violation of the law). I am sure some lame defense will be forthcoming on that - probably one just slamming the source since the parent company is "anti-gw" right? Oh and no comment either on the IPCC, WMO or UN being poltical entities - just a bunch of graphs that say "fossil fuel / CO2 is evil" in one way or the other.... and of course some of those pretty pictures originate with the IPCC themselves.... but of course they wouldn't have a political agenda though...

Which of course at this point - its only fair to remind our fair readers that most of the IPCC data - whether from the CRU or not - originates from the same WMO that admits it supports political action on environmental issues. No way that data that originates from them could possibly be suspect either right?

I will be brief this time, and just say that the glaciers in much of the world are melting too and this is what is responsible for the slowly increasing water level. Difference though is it is happening at a much slower rate given the thickness of the glaciers vs pack ice. Also your NPR article is hardly scientific. We will not get the massive flooding mentioned though unless the antarctic glaciers really start to melt (which holds ~90% of earth's frozen water). The ice pack there however has been also shrinking though over the years. Over the Arctic it is all pack ice with ocean underneath (with the obvious exceptions of northern Canada, Greenland, etc)

Anyhow some counter articles of my own
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/arti...rticleid=38531

Just remember that the glaciers are also shrinking too (well other then Antarctica since the average temperature is still far below zero). That is what is causing the ocean levels to rise slowly.

Okay - now I am REALLY confused. Neon - were your sources supposed to show the arctic water was warming? Cuz if so, uhm... they didn't exactly do that.

"Observations at a NABOS (http://nabos.iarc.uaf.edu/) mooring in the vicinity of Spitsbergen (Fig. O.3) along the entry point of the AWCT showed that the monthly mean AWCT at 260 m reached a maximum of ~3.8°C in November-December 2006. Subsequently, the temperature at this location has declined or cooled, reaching ~2.8°C in 2008.

This was from your second citing - and is referencing the entry point for water going into the Arctic polar area... So it actually concurs and states that the water has minutely declined in temperature. If the entering water is 1.0 degrees celsius colder than normal - thats cooling. This is water coming from outside the arctic after all - where the water would be expected to be warmer than normal - not colder. That doesn't work out to the ocean's being warmer....

The first citation - the one with the graph - shows 2003 to be the "hottest" ocean year - after a significant climb in the 1990's. However, since 2003 - that graph - both the yearly average and the three month average - shows a trend of overall slightly decreasing temperatures (though nowhere near going back to the 1990 levels - as yet).

Now the third citing does speak on temperatures increasing - and 5 degrees C is no small increase either. However - it does state the measurement was in one location - so there is no information as to whether this was a localized anomoly, or a widespread event. The first source is dealing with the bigger picture - and thus would not answer for us. The second - as mentioned above - saw both colder and warmer than expected temperatures in various locales, suggesting the temperature in the last source is likely to be a local occurance. As such, there is no telling if it will occur again, or not.

Now I promise you - I am not trying to be difficult - but anyone looking at the graph in citation 1 can see that since 2003 - there has been a slight decline in temps. If the melting was due to warmer oceans, then we would have seen more melting in 2003 than any other time. Did we? I mean - does it not stand to reason that the warmer the water - the more ice melts? It works that way in my tea - and I know that is a simplistic example, but the point itself is the same.

I am not disputing that the ice caps have seen a 20% decrease in size over the last 30 years. They very well might have and the graph you cited would explain quite a bit of that given the spike in the 90's. But forgive me - and maybe I am dense here - but we are talking about ice that we established isn't actually going to cause any change in sea level (which, after discussion with Stealth Hunter - I am not even so sure what that is anymore - always thought that the word "level" meant exactly that LOL). So it melts.... the problem there is what? I mean - if we are talking only polar ice caps (waterborne) - then ok why is that such a bad thing? If we are talking about glacial ice- I could see the problem as that would cause a sea level rise. However - one thing that keeps getting missed here on the whole "sea level rising" thing is that if glacial ice melts - the increase in temperature also opens up currently unusable earth, does it not? Your third citation suggests so, since it states:

"The extra ocean warming also might be contributing to some changes on land, such as previously unseen plant growth in the coastal Arctic tundra, if heat coming off the ocean during freeze-up is making its way over land."

So the warming of the ocean thaws currently inhospitable land masses - which would result in glacial warming - which then allows previously unseen plant growth to occur... This is bad why?

And if all this is bad - then shouldn't that first graph - which shows the temps decreasing over the last 7 years - be reassuring?

That's from Greenland's sheet and West Antarctic exit glaciers; an ~2m increase in sea levels from the largest ice sheets in the world by 2100. Neon has been trying to get through to you the difference between glaciers, exit glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, etc. Evidently, you have not bothered investigating his links. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, the guy cited in the Copenhagen Diagnosis, wrote a paper detailing sea levels based upon specific ice sources melting individually.

Rahmstorf's paper (with the 3.4mm/year statistic and the ~2m rise from Greenland's ice sheet/West Antarctic exit glaciers- the same statistics from the Copenhagen Diagnosis):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/315/5810/368

Science article detailing Rahmstorf's study and specifically mentioning the ice sheets and exit glaciers' melting contributions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ea-level-rise/

I quote the article's summary: In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the ‘default’ value.

This means no more than 80cm to ~2m worth of water can be expected to be added to be distributed throughout the oceans from the ice sheets alone.

We have established it as a governmental/scientific organization (it's not just political) with the intent or reporting to the world's peoples and governments information relating specifically to the issue of climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gases.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis' report was about ice sheets and exit glaciers, and that was made clear by them when they cited Rahmstorf's research (and when I got a link to his paper). Mine was taking ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, exit glaciers and the lot into account. There is a difference between the lot as Neon has been trying to point out, and, not only based upon their demographic distributions in nature but also the numbers included in the studies, that explains the reason why you were only coming up with ~2m increases in sea level (because Rahmstorf's report was only about ice sheets) and I was getting over 28ft (because mine was taking into account as many ice sources as possible).

Yeah, we've got nothing more to discuss on this issue of sea increases. I've already pointed out what was making the difference between Rahmstorf's numbers and mine. Neither one of our sources is inaccurate, just one of our personal interpretations of what the sources are saying... and it's not me as you seem to think. I've shown why, too.

I never even insinuated I thought you did work with it. Never. How you managed to come up with the idea that I was is beyond me; but then again so is how you managed to misinterpret so many things about Rahmstorf's work, the differences between glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, etc., and the projected totals (accounting for all major sources of ice in the world) for flooding by 2100. I was merely questioning if you did or didn't work with it.

Well now we're getting somewhere. Admittedly, you mentioning you're an engineer means nothing as far as climatology, meteorological, geology, etc. are concerned (these three are used often when dealing with the subject of climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gas research, in case you didn't know).


So pretty amateur stuff. Glad we cleared that up.:up:

Stating baselessly, might I add. We use theories every single day in the real world, particularly in science. Physics theories, chemistry theories, biological theories, general mathematical theories, etc. In doing so, we've been able to do some amazing things. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtmR3KvVBKE

All that off nothing but physics theories.

Yes. This is because of a variety of different things, including oceanic currents, depths, underwater seabed features (volcanoes, trenches, tectonic plate lines, mountains, etc.), barometric pressure, the list goes on. Indeed, oceanic currents are partially caused by these differences in sea area level heights (the other reason is oceanic temperature). Nothing huge, much different than a few centimeters, but enough to make a big difference on how our planet works.

You're stating that as if the number is definitive for all areas; it's based off the averages and means of models constructed based upon the data collected, and therefore is indeed itself an average increase statistic. For some countries, like the Netherlands that's located below what is our (the United States') sea level height, it would be measured differently, and in the event they flooded would be a different numerical value. But on.

Mostly in the northern and southern areas of oceanic waters, given the current flowing patterns of oceanic currents. But, when the ice caps are gone, the currents will be altered (no longer will the North Pole or Antarctic be in the way to block them from free-flowing all the way around), and we can only wonder at what will happen then (I'm not aware of any computer models that have been constructed to study this; I'm personally not aware, but that of course does not mean there aren't some out there).

A single uniform body of liquid, not many interconnected non-uniform bodies. Which is essentially what oceans and seas are, excluding distinguishing features above and below the surface.

It would move to do so (the water from New York). But because it's such a large volume, it would cause the waters off the coast of North Carolina to actually move. This is why we have currents (one reason, anyway; the other also relating to temperatures), the only difference being we don't have that huge of gaps in surface heights (centimeters yes; several feet no, though it can happen when you have a tsunami occur when the tides are pulled back out to sea before returning to shore).

Didn't you say that "generally, theory doesn't match reality an awful lot in the real world"?;) Anyway like I said, this isn't a small body of water, let alone a uniformed one. It's an interconnected network of non-uniformed bodies with different properties about them.

Surprise, surprise.

Apparently not the physical properties of the hydrosphere and their main oceanic element.

Actually, everything is. The problem is you just don't understand the science beyond a small and limited scale.

You're saying again that it would equal a 22.96ft rise, just through the percents value; as I've explained, that doesn't mean that's what it would be everywhere world wide, for the reasons I gave previously and further elaborated upon. Differences in sea level heights, currents, sea temperatures, barometric pressures, etc. This is accounting for the unknown variables' values.

What kind of sea ice: from glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, icebergs... what?

...what?

The changes would be small if it were just one thing, which SOME of the studies have been focusing on (just one thing). But it's not just one thing that's melting in the real world here. Like I said, glaciers are melting, exit glaciers are melting, icebergs are melting, ice caps are melting, ice sheets are melting... do you not see how it adds up to be a lot of water being put out there into the oceans eventually?

Dude... pay attention. "The changes would be small if it were just one thing, which SOME of the studies have been focusing on (just one thing). But it's not just one thing that's melting in the real world here. Like I said, glaciers are melting, exit glaciers are melting, icebergs are melting, ice caps are melting, ice sheets are melting... do you not see how it adds up to be a lot of water being put out there into the oceans eventually?"

Because there's nothing left to touch on. I've already shown, pages ago, that the emails prove nothing about global warming being a hoax or call its existence into question, I've given the true stories behind them from the perspective of the scientists, and I've also shown why the cherry-picked ones and sentences you've been using would not be admissible evidence for such conspiracies (despite what you and others claim) because of how vague these sentiments are about the exact natures of the bits of data collected by the scientists.

No. He said that IF there was an FoIA request, he WOULD delete the data on his hard drive and pass it along to Scott, for archiving purposes and for it to be accessed by any who wished to see it. He did not state, nor was there even any hint by him, that he knew of a forthcoming FoIA request.

Hardly. It's only in violation if none of it survived and if all of it was intentionally deleted. But, it DID survive in a copied format (the information that was sent to Scott) and was not intentionally deleted; it was lost when Scott's hard drive crashed. Simple.

Wrong.:03:

The IPCC is a governmental/scientific organization that is obliged to study, report on, and take in information from other scientists that pertains to the issues of global warming, climate change, and greenhouse gases. The primary thing they do, however, is publish data by other scientists (hence why you saw Rahmstorf's paper cited in the Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009 report). The WMO is no different. They are both governmental and scientific organizations- jointed. Not one or the other as you baselessly (and falsely, might I add) claim. The UN a political entity? Wow. None of us ever knew that...*sarcasm*. Redundancy: Because Someone Has To State The Obvious. Hurr durr.

No- global warming aside, there's nothing problematic about pumping billions of tons per year of gases poisonous to us into the atmosphere... what a stooge you are.:haha: CO2 evil? Well hey- you're making the personifications here man, not me.

But of course you wouldn't bother checking to see where the graphs came from in the first place. There was ONE that came directly from the IPCC. All the others came from scientists that are not members of the organization; that belong to different universities, organizations, units of research, institutes, etc.

Here comes the soapbox again; "it's only fair to remind our fair readers". You sound as bad as one of those Fox News correspondents. "Our fair listeners/fans/etc." Stick to the topic if you please.

What's wrong with that? Can't we as groups or individuals support political action against environmental issues if we want- let alone issues that will destroy us unless we get something done about them? Jesus, Haplo. I overestimated your intelligence over the course of the last few posts you made.

You can make anything suspect if you want. But it still doesn't prove a goddamn thing about them. It's just your own unworthy suspicions and paranoid attitude getting the best of you. "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! GLOBAL WARMING IS A POLITICAL LIE! THE SCIENTISTS LIE!":haha: I might put this "intelligent" conversation (which it has since devolved into) up on Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things.

http://www.fstdt.com/

Quote# 69479

I cant say I dont feel a slight tinge of justification towards those who have called me just the @crazy consiracy theorist who knows nothing about so called real science, hopefully this will wake many people up to the dogmatic pathetically politically oriented priesthood science has become.

This has now been confirmed as real and many of those involved are being pressured to step down from their positions, and all this in light of the upcoming Copenhagen treaty, which effectively seals our fate and lays the groundwork for the systematic destruction of first world economies and and massive transfer of wealth from 1st to 3rd world countries, though the likes of carbon taxes etc, carbon taxes effectively meaning we are taxing breathing, and the new President of Europe stated recently, this will be the first year of global governance, and copenhagen is the reason why.

Dont let this story fade, spread it far and wide, it is one of the most important stories of the century and unless addressed in the context of copenhagen, will be a travesty.

This is just confirmation of what many already knew, that Anthropogenic Global warming is one of the worst scams in history.

Just look at the man behind it and what he is brought to, the snakeoil soon to be green billionaire was recently caught photoshopping the image of his book and saying it was nasa data, making the effects of global warming seem worse, and then of course theres his famous hockey stick graph scam, and this scumbag won a Nobel Prize?

Sometimes I just dont know, then again if you know who owns the Nobel Prize System, it becomes pretty obvious.


SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!!!!

Outlawstar, Anime UK News 12 Comments [1/15/2010 7:57:13 AM]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=69479

I'm curious to know what you'll respond with next, because it's painfully funny to hear all the things you're saying. At the same time, I'm scared, because I may die laughing first.

No, they weren't. The ice itself doesn't have to warm. That's what I've been trying to tell you. If the water these glaciers and ice sheets, caps, etc. are resting IN is warming, that's all it would take. Melts it from below, causes it to weaken and break off into the sea. Hence these massive collapses you sometimes see people get on tape show up on the news or YouTube.

You're not making any sense at all, mate. The water is not the ice. The water can easily absorb the energy from sunlight and the UV-radiation. Ice acts as an excellent repusler of UV-radiation and can survive absorbing sunlight without too much trouble. Some melts, but because of the cold temperatures at the poles, the melted ice doesn't melt fully. When night hits and the temperatures decrease to way below negative, it refreezes. Some is lost, but not much. This is another issue where the degradation of the ozone layer by CFCs enters into the situation. Because it's not there in the upper layers of the atmosphere, more UV-radiation is allowed to enter and more energy from sunlight. This causes increased warming of the waters, not counting the increased particle density of other greenhouse gases.

And this happens in trends. It cools from time to time because of the oceanic currents, but that hardly matters if it drops one year by 1*C and the next rises back up by 2*C or anything greater than 1.0*C because of the seawater temperatures rising.

Actually, it does. Temperature-sensitive satellite imagery shows that the ocean waters, as well as landmasses, are increasing in temperature.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...ature_2009.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...re_2000-09.jpg

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42392

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth’s surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded, and the last year of the decade (2009) was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, is based on temperatures recorded at weather stations around the world and satellite data over the oceans.

These maps illustrate just how much warmer temperatures were in 2009 (top image) and the decade (2000-2009, lower image) compared to average temperatures recorded between 1951 and 1980 (a common reference period for climate studies). In both images, the most extreme warming, shown in red, was in the Arctic. Very few areas saw cooler than average temperatures, shown in blue in both time periods. Gray areas over Africa and parts of the Southern Ocean are places where temperatures were not recorded.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures, despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America, Europe, and Asia. The year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years—1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007—as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.”
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.


Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.


I never spotted any graph or any paragraph sentence that stated "since 2003...both the yearly average and the three month average show a trend of overall slightly decreasing temperatures". There's a chart on there, but it doesn't have 2003 even listed along the x-axis. The contrary, actually, is visible in the second source's imagery photographs- that take into account not only the landmass of the Arctic, but the waters surrounding it:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcar...3_2008-600.jpg

While his graphs may be that way, you never bothered commenting on my graphs that I meticulously cited and explained to you about, which were not just taken in one location. You simply dismissed them as being all from the IPCC (even though only ONE was) and insinuated that there was a suspect level of bias/intentional inaccuracy in the results they showed. That's hardly a rebuttal, that's just cupping your hands over your ears and making strange noises to shut out what I'm saying in the guise of intelligent written thought.

But it does. We're PART of the bigger picture, genius. What can you not understand about that? It's like trying to explain this to a toddler for me.

Though the general trend since 2003 was warmer. Darker, darker, and darker. 2007 it cleared up A BIT, but as of 2009, as my graphs showned and the NASA GISS satellite imagery showed that I posted above several paragraphs ago, it warmed up again more than it had cooled.

We figured that much. I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding this. I really and sincerely am.

Slight decline? In the Arctic? What the devil are you on about? The satellite imagery from the second source shows that they're warming up to 2007 when they cool down by a fraction of a degree, then my imagery photographs showed they warmed back up again in 2008 and 2009 more than they had cooled.

2007 was warmer according to my graphs and the second source he posted.

No because 2003 wasn't the warmest year in the decade.

It does. You're just misinterpreting the information. But don't take my word for it. Allow NASA to explain it in the form of a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjILZWW6Ko0

The point is moot. Your tea does not work the way the Arctic, Atlantic, or really any ocean or sea does, especially because it's not exposed to the same conditions the ice caps, sheets, and glaciers are.

"Might have". You still don't know that they did, even though we've shown you that they have. Neon has, I have. What is it going to take I wonder? If it melts and turns into water that becomes part of the hydrosphere's oceans/seas, it changes the sea level. Over the past few decades, it's risen just about over an inch and a half. Seems insignificant, but in a few more decades as more and more melts what kind of difference will it make then? And that's exactly what we're worried about. For the record, saying "level" or including it in a term does not mean it is EXACTLY level.

We have increases in sea levels by feet instead of centimeters. Floods in lowland countries and along the coastlines. Mass death for people who cannot evacuate, shifts in sea currents, changes in climate and how the Earth works on an ecosystem level, mass extinctions of animals and plants... I think I've covered most of the basics here.

Because the Polar Ice Caps are what regulate our oceanic currents (partially, anyway; as far as how the currents flow and move around the globe that is). If they go, the way the entire planet works will be altered. Imagine what it would be like without monsoon season, La Nina and El Nino, etc. My paragraph above covered some of the issues we'd be facing in the event it all melts. And it will if we don't start reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes, but how exactly can you still not see and understand that the exact same would result from ice caps, ice sheets, etc. melting? They ALL would contribute water to the oceans. Too much for comfort, anyway.

Yes and no. Some areas would be flooded over, others would be opened up. Not that the latter would matter, since the oceanic currents would be so badly messed up that our weather patterns would change completely and we'd have to contend with that issue as well as the problems of famine, mass death, extinction of numerous animal and plant species, etc. The funny thing about the ecosystem is that when you destroy one part of it, even the smallest, it always has this funny way of getting completely FUBAR'd.

On this one issue? It isn't. But allow me to reiterate: it wouldn't matter, since the oceanic currents would be so badly messed up that our weather patterns would change completely and we'd have to contend with that issue as well as the problems of famine, mass death, extinction of numerous animal and plant species, etc. The funny thing about the ecosystem is that when you destroy one part of it, even the smallest, it always has this funny way of getting completely FUBAR'd.

Over the last seven years? Barely three. Even then, and I should have mentioned this earlier, it's only discussing heat content energy in joules. As in of the actual ice landmass, not oceanic temperatures. But I've already stated like four times why it wouldn't matter in the long run. The Earth would basically become comparable to Venus at one point, perhaps thousands of years in the future. No oceans, a lot of atmospheric gases, high atmospheric pressure, high temperatures, you get the gist... I hope. I've been wrong before when it comes from what I assume you'll pick up and retain in that noggin.:yawn: