Surface melting of snow and ice in Greenland explodes as temperatures soar to record levels

By Tom Yulsman | June 12, 2016 8:50 pm
Melting at the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Numerous melt ponds are visible in this image of Greenland’s southwest coast, captured by NASA’s Aqua satellite on June 12, 2016. The grayish-blue band also is indicative of melting at the surface. (Source: NASA EOSDIS)

With parts of Greenland experiencing record high temperatures of late, melting of snow and ice at the surface has been skyrocketing.

This follows a record low extent of Arctic sea ice in May, and other troublesome signs that global warming is taking off in the high north.

The satellite image above of Greenland’s southwest coast shows what’s happening at the surface: numerous blue melt ponds, and the telltale grayish-blue coloration indicative of melting snow and ice. (Make sure to click on the image for the full-size version.)

Extent of surface melting in Greenland

Surface melting of surface snow and ice in Greenland has spiked dramatically in recent days. It is, by far, the largest of three surges in melting seen so far this year. (Source: NSIDC)

The graph above tells the tale: a spike in melting far in excess of the average melt percentage for this time of year, following on from two earlier spikes in May and April.

It has already been an extraordinary melt season in Greenland — one that began very early. The first spike evident in the graph above came so early in the year that it prompted a Danish climate scientist to say that she and her colleagues were “incredulous.”

The second spike was even bigger, prompting Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center to say that “the Arctic is going to go through hell this year.”

SEE ALSO: Second dramatic spike in thawing on the Greenland ice sheet heralds an early start to the melt season

Extent of surface melting in Greenland during 2012

Source: NSIDC

Now, we’ve got a third melting spike that blows the others right out of the water.

Overall, what’s happening in Greenland looks very similar to what occurred in 2012, when surface melting during the warm season was far in excess of any earlier year in the satellite record, which dates to 1979.

Click on the thumbnail at right for a graph of the melt extent that year.

It’s no secret why snow and ice is melting at such a rapid clip in Greenland right now: soaring temperatures — and not just in Greenland but throughout the Arctic:

High temperatures in Greenland have led to a dramatic melting spike.

Departures from average temperature on Sunday, June 12, 2016. (Source: ClimateReanalyzer.org)

Last Thursday (June 9), temperatures in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, reached 75 degrees F. That was the the warmest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic country during June, according to Jason Samenow of the Washington Post. “It was warmer in Nuuk than it was in New York City, where the high was only 71 degrees,” Samenow writes.

The warm season is still young, and it’s possible that the situation could change significantly. But I wouldn’t bet on it. All signs point toward an extraordinary year of warmth and melting in the high north.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • OWilson

    I can’t figure out why they are so “incredulous”, and feel that “the Arctic is going through hell”, this year. And now the recent spike will “blow the others right out of the water. Not much scientific cool detachment there :)

    Ah, but then there’s this, “Overall, what’s happening in Greenland looks very similar to what occurred in 2012”.

    This is without question, absolutely, far and away, the mother of all hype, the likes of which has never been seen before in the history of mass publishing which goes back at least to the Gutenberg Press :)

    • go2green

      Thanks for your comment. Do you think it will change the fact that the Arctic melting is getting worse?

      • OWilson

        Thank you.

        You know, we live in a global world where we have two poles, and overall, global ice cover has not declined much in the last 10 years.

        I’d like to see more emphasis on “Global” warming, is all.

        • go2green

          “overall, global ice cover has not declined much in the last 10 years”

          LOL. That is not a true statement. Even though you deny AGW it would be nice if you would stick to the facts.

          If you choose to ignore the obvious I see no reason to argue about it.

          • OWilson

            I can see why you don’t :)

            Check out NSIDC Global ice cover for May of 2006, and compare it to NSIDC Global ice cover for May 2016.

            Virtually no change!

            Your welcome :)

          • midpath

            Misleading to look at ice cover only as that is surface area. Three dimensional methods such as piomas and grace show a better picture of the massive volumes of melt occurring. Having said that, the long term trend of the 2d measurements can only be described as depressing, 10 year periods are cherry picking, 30 years is minimum for a true climate trend,

          • OWilson

            Thanks for your comment! :)

          • John Dolza

            I saw your comment about 2 poles, here’s the thing. I live by the NORTH pole. Most of humanity lives closer to the north pole. And the arctic ice cap floats, making it prone to warming oceans affecting it. Now that we’re in a phase where the arctic ice cap is shrinking, the northern circumpolar jet is being affected. That is causing massive effects on my country. Biblical floods in TX, wildfires during the rainy season, an epochal drought on the West Coast. Those things are real and they’re linked to the Arctic. I couldn’t care less about the South Pole.

          • OWilson

            I’m sure you don’t. LOL

            There was another true believer who dealt with “Biblical Floods” a few years ago.

            Maybe you should get to work on an Ark. (a smaller version, though, cause you don’t have to worry about the poor saps who live south of the equator :)

          • Paul Shipley

            Same is happening down here, record temps, wildfires, droughts but hey we’re not in Merca (US) so that doesn’t matter does it.

          • CB

            “we’re not in Merca (US) so that doesn’t matter does it.”

            I would say it does, actually… and it doesn’t matter which pole you pick.

            Both are melting down.

            That people aren’t interested in this fact when they know it’s very likely to endanger them suggests suicidal impulses are at work.

            “Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • OWilson

            That’s “Land Ice Sheets”. Stop cherry picking :)

            How about total ice cover, which is responsible for “One of the Greatest Positive Feedback Loops we face” AKA “The Albedo Effect?” :)

            Flash!!!!

            October 15, 2015

            “NASA Study Says Antarctic is Gaining more Ice than it Is Losing, Overall”.

          • CB

            “NASA Study Says Antarctic is Gaining more Ice than it Is Losing, Overall”

            …and the person who wrote it says you’re a liar.

            What’s your point, sweet pea?

            “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

            http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

          • Gallilao

            What’s the matter CB? The fear mongering not paying off?

          • OWilson

            Leave him be :)

            This blog is a permanent record of the debate, and he is the poster child for their side.

            He damns himself and his followers with every post.

            Fear mongering and name calling is always the last resort of the frustrated and the ignorant.

            They are not fully functional adults.

          • Gallilao

            Yes, words of reason and I will cease and desist. I see her referring to suicide a lot lately and she may be becoming unhinged.

          • OWilson

            They don’t realize they are talking to a mirror, themselves.

            A psychologist and a psychiatrist could pick up a lot of case study here.

            (Actually, I am putting together enough stuff for a book myself)

            I need more of their input!

          • Gallilao

            I can hardly wait. 😉

          • CB

            “I can hardly wait.”

            lol! You weren’t waiting! You 2 were doing an amazing hall of mirrors routine right there.

            Now what besides mental illness explains your inability to engage with the topic of the article? Are the poles losing ice, Mr. Lao?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147e2c9db47cb45e06ced1ef3b9926e243c177958a672d8adb1e722a0900242e.png

          • Gallilao

            Is the loss of ice something we are supposed to be afraid of CB?
            Why are we supposed to be afraid CB?
            How is the Doomsday cult coming?
            Any new recruits?

          • CB

            “Is the loss of ice something we are supposed to be afraid of CB?”

            You tell me.

            Would it be “scary” if the seas rose 220 feet worldwide?

            What kind of effect might that have on your well-being?

            “If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).”

            nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

          • Mike Richardson

            Speaking of looking in mirrors, you may want to devote a few chapters to yourself. Psychological topics like paranoia, projection, confirmation bias, and the ability to insulate oneself in a reality devoid of any concessions to facts or logic would be good topics to focus on for those chapters. Need some more input, since we really can’t expect you to be well-practiced at self reflection? :)

          • OWilson

            Here’s a quarter – LOL

            Go find someone who cares.

          • Mike Richardson

            Thank goodness you’ve never engaged in name calling, right? 😉
            Anyway, still not seeing any factual refutation of global warming here. Maybe it’s time for you to resort to that name calling. 😉

          • OWilson

            That’s your job, troll!

            Take care of your own business :)

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Wow, well there you go! Fantastic. Your complete lack of irony continues to provide a steady source of amusement for all, me particularly. Thanks. :)

          • Gallilao

            CB, it might be time to seek some professional help. When people start mentioning “suicide” all the time, it speaks of a certain emotional instability.
            Just because the world isn’t coming to an end, doesn’t mean you have to do yourself in.
            Don’t worry CB, you have nothing to fear but your own wild imagination.

          • Deborah Marie Flower Power

            Yes…It is not just part of our Earth in trouble…It is the ENTIRE Earth in trouble…

          • OWilson

            I guess you just ruled out “One of the Greatest Positive Feedback Loops we face”. aka “the albedo effect”. which is about ice cover area, NOT ice cover density.

            You and your uptickers need to get up to date with the talking points :)

          • go2green

            What a coincidence 2006 was an anomaly year with very little sea ice. But you knew that didn’t you? Again it would be nice if you would stick to the facts that the overall the trend is downward.

          • OWilson

            2016 gave us Tom’s “Godzilla, mother of all El Ninos”, so I’d say we are even :)

          • John Dolza

            LOL that’s funny ! An Ark ! I worked 5 minutes from the creation museum, about 25 minutes from the proposed Ark Park. Sea level does affect us a little – I made a lot of money working in NYC leading crews cleaning up after Sandy. But poor Tuvalu will last longer than I will. No- Arks are for idiots.

            I’m talking about weather- huge swings in the jet stream putting a 500 year flood on TX a week after a 100 year flood, even though there was a 1000 year flood last year. The Gulf is HOT. The weather is not like anything anyone remembers. And Cali is only back to exceptional drought …. Beats last years Mega Drought….since Godzilla El Nino gave it a bit of rain. Not nearly as much as it should have … Something about the jet stream being whacked ….

            We’ll cope, that’s mankind’s way – we made it through the ice age we’ll endure the heatwave.

          • Peter Airey

            Let’s just ignore the fact there is now a northbound passage through the arctic in summer for ships which didn’t exist 10 years ago. I have a question for you OWilson…
            How does CO2 cause warming?
            Do you understand and appreciate that it has to do with infrared radiation? If so, from where does this radiation originate?

          • Paul Shipley

            The sky is falling, “No it’s not” “yes it is” lets all ignore the science and pretend we know better because we are members of the Republican Party. Yep let’s do that. Brains and dynamite again.

          • Plenum

            2006 was well below the standard deviation, too, but not as much as THIS year… Your argument doesn’t stand. Here, check it out yourself by year: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

        • Jeff MacLeod

          Global ice ‘cover’ has been in a long term decline. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg while, at least, Arctic ice volume has seen a substantial decrease. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png. Antarctic sea ice area is increasing slightly but not to the tune that the Arctic is decreasing. Antarctic ice volume may or may not be decreasing given recent studies on the subject. Perhaps a more pertinent statement regarding global ice cover would be to actually take global ice and not just polar ice. If we do we see substantial decreases in glaciers and ice caps world wide.

      • Deborah Marie Flower Power

        TRUE !!!!!!!!!! It has been getting worse every year…The biggest warming changes has taken place during the last 20 years…Not good at all….

      • BBQman

        Same thing happened from 850 to 1050AD during the Medieval Warm Period and that is why the Vikings decided to settle there. You climate driver deniers need to get a grip.

        • Dale Anderson

          No the same thing did not happen during the MWP…. The NW Passage has never been open for shipping until now.

          This summer season huge ships will cross the NWP in a few days of time.. The Vikings never got through during the MWP with their long boats.

          • BBQman

            Just a short review of history will show the quantity of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 38th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 49 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.
            Just over the course of a few hundred years, many regional climate variations take place, grapes grown in Stockholm around 35 CE, Vikings found Greenland “green” around 1,000 CE, needless to say, a few degrees of warming in Antarctic means less then nothing where the temperature is below -85f, see “Garnier” for more details.
            Man Made CO2 is not a climate driver, never was, never will be.

          • Dale Anderson

            The issue is not SEA ICE BBQman….. The issue is the rapid melt of the Arctic’s FRESHWATER ice…… So go back to school and get yourself educated on the subject instead of making a dam fool of yourself again.

          • Dale Anderson

            You stupidly wrote > (“Man Made CO2 is not a climate driver, never was, never will be.”).

            There are thousands of scientists and professors around the globe who have earned Doctorates in their specific fields of scientific study who say you are wrong.

          • BBQman

            Your thousands of scientists climate models have never been accurate, first, they operate under the false premise that CO2 is a primary climate driver, then they rely on faulty data such as ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles that contain less then 50% of the atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the mechanics of the jet stream that turn away around 60% of that CO2 infused atmosphere at around the 30 degree makes before the poles, then the models ignore the reality that within the 30 degree marks to the poles, very low amounts of CO2 are exuded from the polar regions.

            Now they have finally figured out that the sink and source of CO2 is different from night and day along with temperature changes that effect the convention, AGW scientists need to admit that they have know idea what position their knobs should be turned on their GIGO climate models and focus on actual climate drivers if they ever want to reasonably predict the future climate patterns.

            Is that not the goal, to better predict climate patterns, if so then scientists should stop wasting time on the fictitious CO2 boogerman and start focusing on the true climate drives that control the other 99.99999% of our climate patterns, magnetism.

            The contributions of “man made CO2” to the atmosphere only represent around 0.000001% of the total climate drivers, the climate has always changed, our energies should be spent in adapting to the ever changing climate and stop wasting time and money trying to control 0.000001% of it, imho.

          • Dale Anderson

            Write your science opinions up BBman and have it peer reviewed, published in a science journal and I’ll believe the incredible new science you wrote.

          • BBQman

            I have my own standards of fact, you do as you wish with yours, I do not operate by your rules of incoherent shortsided rules that the bogus AGW settled science guys have invented to perpetuate falsehoods , your growth and development has stagnated with your false theory of MM-CO2 being a climate driver, such a pity.

          • tetse

            BBQ. Incoherent short sightedness sounds like a terrific major in progressive colleges.

          • BBQman

            Probably found right next to 14th century Belgium Lesbian studies in the campus directory!

          • jmac

            QED!

          • Paul

            I have seen convincing evidence that CO2 levels lag temperature rise rather than lead it. But people who are convinced that wagging a dogs tail with make the dog happy see convincing evidence of their belief in every happy dog.

          • BBQman

            They ignore science, because it is settled. There has got to be a way to use the soup Nazi as the settled science climate Nazi.

            http://youtu.be/MVm1KcrHM6s

  • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

    In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level. This rules out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.

    Emergent structures analysis demonstrates that climate change since before 1900 can be explained (97% match with measurements) by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.

    If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 2020 an as yet unidentified factor is preventing it.

    At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This chart puts CO2 levels in context.

    • John Dolza

      Dug this up – https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm – got something else? Because that argument is a fail.

      • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

        Skeptical Science is so lacking in engineering science skill that they don’t even understand the difference between power and energy. Their blog is rife with nonsense and misinformation.

        • Lakota Clearwater

          “Skeptical Science is so lacking in engineering science skill ” — Whereas your bizarre, incognate excursion into alchemy is deserving of a Nobel prize? You seriously don’t have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about, and your abuse of English for the purpose of obfuscating your ignorance is obscene. Apparently you obtained your academic training from Palin University.

          • Gallilao

            It’s just the AGW, “Duck Speak!”

            They have no scientific foundation for any of their arguments so they think they can elevate “opinion and consensus” to the same level as that of a “scientific fact.” They obviously have no concept of what the term “science” means. But what else would one expect from a bunch of weathermen, calling themselves, “Climate Scientists.”

            Real science is about trying to remove, and/or eliminate guess-work. Climate Science tries to elevate “guess-work”, to state-of-the-art science, by trying to program computers to do their guess-work for them! How Lame is that?

            Nothing about Climate Science has any resemblance to a real science and should be treated with the greatest skepticism.

          • OWilson

            Well said.

            “Climate Science” is to physics what chiropractic is to medicine, and astrology is to astronomy, and religion is to reality.

            They all operate under a different set of evidenciary rules.

          • Gallilao

            Well said yourself!

          • Lakota Clearwater

            Gallilao? You’re even less coherent than Dan Pangburn. You make no sense, so there’s nothing to argue. Your embarrassing attempt to coopt of the name of Galileo fits perfectly with your word confetti. Are you even a high school graduate, and have you ever passed a science course with a higher grade than a D? Although, if you live in hillbilly country (most of the USA) then getting a good grade in science doesn’t mean much.

        • John Dolza

          You clearly have a the nonsense and misinformation angle nailed.

      • CB

        “that argument is a fail.”

        lol! …as if Dan Pangburn were capable of formulating an argument…

        “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved

    • Peter A. Dimitriou

      such a load of crap, “Emergent structures analysis and as of yet unidentified factors” go back to conspiracy school and give them back the diploma your an embarrassment to any good conspiracy theories out there.

    • peter choyce

      OWilson I have been studying climate denial for 2 years now. What motivates u? Do u want it to be wrong or want to tell everybody they are wrong?

      • peter choyce

        I hope my book comes out before COLLAPSE.

        • Richard

          Hurry – or you maybe too late. We are depending on you and your book to “save mankind”. We don’t have a choice. Either buy your book or perish.

          • peter choyce

            Richard, while i am as poor as a churchmouse, i’m happy just to be published. I’ll inform u so u can go get it at the library. My website should be back up and running by then if u do want to support me. RIght now it just has the audio of my radio shows. thanx. !!

          • peter choyce

            oh. Peterchoyce.net

          • Lakota Clearwater

            According to denier logic, if you can make money from something then it’s a scam. Yet the emotional basis for their irrational belief is their extreme attachment to their money and possessions. Apparently it’s fine for trillion-dollar oil companies to deny climate change, but if you’ve ever sold a solar panel then you’re part of the global warming swindle. Trying to reason with these chimps is exasperating, but entertaining. I enjoy seeing what canards they’ll parrot in defense of their psychotic paranoia.

          • OWilson

            When the three largest Oil Companies in the world, go bankrupt and take $20,000,000,000.00 of your tax money with them let us know :)

            Sun Edison
            Abengoa
            Solyndra

            The three biggest solar energy companies in the entire world, just went broke! :)

            Well, not really them, the taxpayers got the bill!

          • Lakota Clearwater

            Disqus addict, solar’s cost is plummeting while we continue to subsidize oil globally at a rate of half a trillion per year, as fossil fuel resources dwindle in size and becomes increasingly difficult to extract. The sun’s energy is pretty constant and it’s free. Solar is rapidly increasing as a percent of total global energy supply. I don’t spend my entire day on Disqus as you apparently do, so I’m not going to individually defend the practices of particular solar companies. The right-wing city of Georgetown, TX, recently decided to obtain 100% of its energy from renewables, not because of environmental concern but because they believe it’s the wisest decision. The sun and wind are constantly giving us energy for free, but you want to continue to invest in increasingly costly extraction of limited resources. You’re clearly an idiot with no economic sense, or you’re invested in a shale oil play and you’re desperately trying to defend your future earnings against the inevitable energy transition that will hopefully leave you penniless. As you say, “LOL”.

          • OWilson

            As I say, It’s still going on!

          • Gallilao

            Yes OW, it is still going on but, just look out your window………… it doesn’t matter where you are; everywhere around the world, the environment and ecosystem are thriving and are generally more robust and global agriculture are more productive than ever and it is all due to a tiny increase in CO2. Just imagine what it is going to like as the CO2 increases. We are turning the planet into the Garden of Eden, once again. Soon those effects will be so incontrovertible that no one will be able to deny it, and the AGW fanatics will scurry away, back where they belong.

          • OWilson

            Those facts are incontrovertable now,

            “They” NASA, NOAA and the rest are producing studies on Global Ice Cover, and Co2 “Greening” with results that even shock the lead scientists on the project.

            Now these politically appointed types have to go before the Media and contradict their own studies,

            It’s pathetic, just look up Zwicky and Antarctic ice.

            This kind of stuff is reaching critical mass and is a little hard to swallow for the true believers, not to mention any unbiased scientists involved in the project.

            The biggest hoax the world has ever seen is crumbling, one study at a time. They have already ditched their Gurus, Gore, Hansen, Gliek, Perchaed and the rest!

          • Gallilao

            Great news!
            They couldn’t perpetuate the AGW lie forever. The truth will eventually show itself.

          • Gallilao

            You should get the job!
            Good interview!

        • Gallilao

          The “COLLAPSE?” Is that the collapse when everyone falls on the floor laughing!

      • OWilson

        I have been “studying” true believers who cannot tolerate any dissent for a lot longer.

        When I was a child, we had people holding up signs on street corners, and shouting about the doomsday hellfire we would face if we didn’t go along with their cult.

        “The End is nigh! Give up your worldly goods and ye shall be saved!”

        As kids, we used to laugh at them, as adults, we still do.

        None of these dire doomsday predictions ever come to pass, but when you point that out it makes them all somehow angrier and hateful., even in certain cases, suicidal.

        I figure it’s because they don’t think for themselves, and have been duped by charlatans, and can’t bring themselves to admit their gullibility.

        But that’s just my opinion, mind you :)

        • peter choyce

          Thanx OWEN

          Comparing real life science to the religious apocalypstics is actually very common in the mind of the denier. I appreciate your response but i must tell you from my research, that was not unique.

          I’m trying to understand what drives you your passion in your fight for the right to be WRONG. thanx again. Can u use your name in my book? You’ll be famous!

          • OWilson

            As long as you quote me accurately, and in context :)

          • Gallilao

            You certainly are a legend in your own mind!

            I doubt you have the intellect to discern you own name. If the self-promotional drivel you display here is any indication, I wouldn’t give up my day job if I were you.

        • peter choyce

          Sorry OWEN, i’m new here and failed to see “read more” on your kind response.

          I have no “beliefs.” as Richard Dawkins says “i only care about what is true.” To answer your, (and the other deniers) claim that we;ve been DUPED by the typical salesman that i agree, operate openly under this system of profit over people, i came across Climate science at a lecture by the esteemed Prof Guy McPherson, who left his worldly position at the university, eschewing a reliable fat paycheck, to travel the world to teach of the serious and irreversable damage of the climate for no money. Check his talks out on Utube or his web
          Naturebatslast dot com.
          After my initial shock, loving life as i do, i delved into 2 years of study analyzing for myself the mad variety and contradictions of the deniers. My friend, i WANTED to be wrong. I poured thru every imaginable denail from the incoherant ramblings of the SUNSPOTS guy to the most prestigious “ALT. Scientist.”

          Your comment on the UN reveals YOU to be yet another, i’m sorry to say, right wing guy on a mission. U prefer a world where dimplocacy is impossible. well…

          enough of you! Thanx, but i must move along!
          I need to publish my work before the end of the world and i’m working against the clock here. Take care, i hope you get the last laugh.

          FIGHT for your RIGHT 2 B WRONG. But do check out Guy McPherson. I can arrange a DEBATE if you wish, with him. DO let me know and i will ask his permission and we can broadcast it.

          Respectfully

          Peter Choyce of Knoxville

          • OWilson

            I am quite interested in such a debate, Peter.

            I hate to see science mixed with politics or religion, but unfortunately we live in such a world.

            The same intolerance towards dissent is a depressing factor in both.

        • Lakota Clearwater

          Your long comment is an incoherent rant that has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, logic, or sanity. What is the purpose of your diatribe about doomsayers? Here’s a little rant of my own, which you’re free to append to your next screed: “When I was a child, there were people talking about atoms and molecules, yet in all my 60 years on this planet I’ve never encountered a single one of either!” If that makes no sense to you then that will help you get a feel for what it’s like to read your folksy small-town editorials.

          • OWilson

            The gentleman above, asked me a specific question, to which I responded seriously and honestly.

            If that gets your panties in a knot, then that is your problem. Not ours!

            (And don’t worry about my readers pal, I just looked up yours :)

          • Lakota Clearwater

            You “looked up” my “readers” — what does that even mean? I don’t have “readers,” other than our fellow comment enthusiasts, who are presumed to be the same cast of characters for both you and me. Making sense of your comments is a challenge. But you added “LOL” which means that you won. Congratulations, your feigned insouciance has paid off magnificently and we are devastated by the magnificence of your intellect.

          • OWilson

            Here’s a scoop, Einstein :)

            If you click on your avatar, you can see how many people agree with you.

            If you click on mine, you can see the same :)

          • Lakota Clearwater

            You care about getting agreement on Disqus? That’s sad. I hope you find some enjoyment in real life and that you’re not entirely dependent on comment validation for your sense of worth. If you’re confined to a chair then I wish you well right where you are, but if you’re able to get out and about then you should. The world, and all of life, is amazing.

          • Mike Richardson

            Pretty ironic that someone that rails against scientific “consensus” is so eager to brag about his popularity among politically motivated Disqus denizens as a proxy for factual support.

          • OWilson

            Our Pocohontas wannabe was devining in his own deluded mind, what my readers think.

            I told him not to worry about my readers, they can think for themselves. He’s not that bright. He didn’t know there was record keeping.

            Same goes for you!

          • Mike Richardson

            Record keeping? Really!? Man, you’re placing way too much importance on what gets posted on a Disqus board. If you think the posts you’ve left here are going to be validated by future events, I really hope you aren’t holding your breath. If anybody ever is bored enough to check back in a few years, they’ll only shake their heads in dismay that folks like you continued to deny the overwhelming science refuting their fantasy view of the world. And Wilson, if most of your fans did much thinking for themselves, well, they likely wouldn’t be your fans. Just a sad example of groupthink derailed from reality, I’m afraid.

          • OWilson

            But fun and good material for the book! :)

            I don’t waste my time with the likes of your ilk for nothing, ya know? LOL

          • Mike Richardson

            At least you’ve acknowledged wasting your time. That’s a good first step in achieving some proper perspective here. :)

          • Lakota Clearwater

            Ha! That’s a very clever observation. I wouldn’t have even seen that if you hadn’t mentioned it. Yes, we’re all quite skillful at spinning incoming information to make it conform to our preconceived notions, and to bolster our self-esteem and any argument we happen to be making. It’s nice to get a large number of up-votes for a comment that we’re proud of, but I’ve never thought of that as having any correlation with the validity of my remarks. Given that most people believe in ghosts and angels, I’m quite happy to be in the minority on most issues. But there’s another aspect of the up-voting, which is that it signals the writer’s capacity to engage an audience, and if OWilson is better at doing that than I am then good for him.

          • OWilson

            You asked me a question.

            If you don’t like the answer, don’t ask. :)

          • Lakota Clearwater

            You’ve actually got me laughing, as your replies have provided good-spirited entertainment, and you don’t seem nearly as hostile and demented as I had expected when I first replied to one of your comments. You’re actually kind of intriguing. I can see why you’d have a lot of up-votes. You certainly don’t hold back with your opinions. But I haven’t explored enough of your comments to get a thorough sense of your overall philosophy of life, science, and politics, so I’ve only been basing my perceptions on an extremely small sample size of your remarks.

            Are you willing to respond to a question or two? (Oops, I just used up one question.) So, here’s my other question: Do you genuinely believe that climate isn’t affected by humans, or do you accept that we’re warming the planet while not believing that to be as urgent a crisis as many of us think it is? I’m interested in the potential to view anthropogenic climate change as an opportunity rather than seeing it only as a threat. The threat concept is useful for purposes of urgency, but once we’ve got the urge, I think we can do marvelous things with the abundance of carbon that we’re dredging from geological history. My utopian vision involves the conversion of most of the world’s agriculture to capture and sequester carbon in the biotic zone, rather than sending it back to the deep where it’s relatively inert.

            Obviously you know that carbon is the backbone of life. What if we’re inadvertently creating an opportunity to increase the amount of life on the planet? By changing land management practices, we can stabilize CO2 levels, increase soil fertility and water retention, reduce erosion, increase production of food and other resources, and make the earth even greener and livelier than it already is. What do you think, are you open to exploring climate change from this perspective?

          • OWilson

            Always open to positive thinking and adaptation.

            The earth is warming according to the satellite record of NOAA . (the margin of error in charting terrestrial temperatures back to 1850, by proxy, is not good science and a major report on that subject will be out eventually)

            NOAA publishes the earth’s average temperature anomoly monthly has has done so for the last 37 years so we have a good basis to work from.

            If we use the rate of increase that NOAA provides, and extrapolate that to the future, the anomaly would be 0..65 degrees by 2050 and +1.25 degrees by 2100.

            What to do about this slight warming during an naturally occurring interglacial epoch?

            With have thrived during such periods before.

            I agree, there is opportunity, if we don’t let the politicians and their dupes run around shouting fire in a crowded planet!

          • Lakota Clearwater

            p.s. — I took a gander at our stats and I see that you have approximately 4 times as many up-votes per comment as I do, so congratulations. See my reply to Mike Richardson for further discussion.

  • Mike Richardson

    The alarming thing about the melting of Greenland’s ice cap, as opposed to the polar sea ice, is that it will contribute to rising sea levels. Considering that a significant percentage of the world’s population lives in coastal cities at, near, or below sea level (such as New Orleans), this rise in sea level will have a major impact on many of us as the century progresses. And yet there are those who still deny the object facts of global warming and the resulting meltdown, because they can’t accept that humanity will need to change its methods of energy production and work together to mitigate the effects of the warming to which we have already committed the planet. That in itself is also alarming, and rather depressing.

    • MPawesome-o

      And?

      • John Dolza

        Not just the water raising sea levels, it’s the heat. Hot things expand, and the warmer seas just plain take up more volume.

        Storms and drought are the 2 biggest problems in our lifetimes. India is facing a shrinking monsoon. Australia is baking like a brick in the kiln.

        Let’s not forget freshwater supplies from glaciers. Numerous mountain ranges are already failing to supply water, because their glaciers have shrunk.

        In conclusion – centuries long trends are great to debate. But real costs because something has changed are already here. Real money, real deaths, fortunes lost, infrastructure paid for, depended on and suddenly gone. We need to be real and deal with today’s problems, even if you’re to scared to talk about anthropogenic climate change.

        • MPawesome-o

          Bring it on, I say.

    • CB

      “there are those who still deny the object facts of global warming and the resulting meltdown, because they can’t accept that humanity will need to change its methods of energy production”

      I’m not so sure that’s what’s going on!

      I believe Climate Deniers are suicidal.

      They are actually trying to destroy the entire planet.

      It’s a little too late to be ignorant of facts so plain when so much is at stake.

      “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

      climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

      • Mike Richardson

        Maybe you’re right in terms of suicidal, though many of those who refuse to accept the facts adhere to a belief system in which they will be “raptured” away before civilization collapses — some of the same folks who latch on to political candidates who promise not to be afraid to use nuclear weapons, since they expect to be magically whisked away before the bombs fall. Others are advancing in age, so the more severe effects of global warming will likely occur after they’re gone — unfortunately, they don’t seem to hold younger generations in very high regard, as their shortsightedness, spitefulness, and greed will have the greatest impact on the young and those yet to be born. That implies not just suicidal behavior, CB, but homicidal behavior to be perfectly honest.

        • Deborah Marie Flower Power

          Sickeningly very true :(…..

        • CB

          ” That implies not just suicidal behavior, CB, but homicidal behavior to be perfectly honest.”

          Yes!

          Climate Deniers are essentially suicide bombers.

          The difference is only in the scale of the likely destruction… if they are allowed to get their way, of course.

          • BBQman

            You are a climate driver denier, Man made CO2 is not a climate driver.

          • CB

            “You are a climate driver denier, Man made CO2 is not a climate driver.”

            Uh huh, and how do you differentiate between the CO₂ produced by humans and the CO₂ produced by nature?

            “Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them”

            http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study

          • BBQman

            It’s really hard, because it all comes from the earth.

          • CB

            “It’s really hard”

            …and yet you were able to do it.

            Somehow you’ve discovered that the CO₂ coming from your tailpipe does not warm the Earth.

            How were you able to accomplish that feat, Barbie?

            …or are you just trying to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions like a tiny child?

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

          • BBQman

            God bestowed to man the earth with all of its resources to use for his subsistence, the oil, coal and natural gas are part of that, be it not me to reject gifts from our creator.

            Besides, we still have not proven that the 0.000034% contribution to the atmosphere of man made co2 has any more impact to our climate then a flea on the back of an elephant.

            I suggest that you prepare for the next 30 plus years to be colder during the winter months because of the effects of magnetic forcings upon our orbital eccentrically balanced helical journey through space.

          • CB

            “God bestowed to man…”

            …so your imaginary friend whispered into your ear that your car’s exhaust does not warm the planet?

            Is that actually your claim?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            Car exhaust only has a regional impact in places like Mexico City and Boise Idaho that sit down in a bowl like configuration with mountainous surroundings.

          • CB

            “Car exhaust only has a regional impact in places like Mexico City and Boise Idaho”

            …so you believe your car exhaust stays where you emit it?

            Did your imaginary friend whisper that into your ear too?

            Barbie, if you understand it is my contention that you are mentally ill, why would you go out of your way to prove me right?

            “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

            news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • BBQman

            CB, now you know that Mauna Loa has been discredited because they only sample for 13 hours at night, due to the updrafts during the day. You do understand that at night when the atmospheric temperatures become less than the oceans surface, that condensation takes place, thus drawing off CO2 as another unintended source that contaminates the sampling. The sensors at Mauna Loa need to be raised to 4,375 meters above sea level to produce acceptable uncontaminated atmospheric samples.

            If I’m going to fast for you, just let me know, ok sweetie!

          • Pumpkin Pie

            Nice brother!

          • Dale Anderson

            Atmospheric CO2 levels are taken at 70 different locations around the globe twice a day… Those reading are sent to the CDIAC scientists every day.

          • Gallilao

            And such great news too!

          • Dale Anderson

            What is great about an atmospheric CO2 level above 320ppm?
            Now it is at 404ppm and rising at over 4ppm a year… Any who thing that is great are extremely ignorant and should try to learn a little science.

          • Gallilao

            Keep it coming, the more CO2 the better! I can hardly wait till we hit 800 ppm!
            This planet will become the Garden of Eden again!

          • Dale Anderson

            I do appreciate you displaying your stupidity.

          • Gallilao

            It must be hard to maintain ones resolve, when one is as overwhelmed as you are, with contradictory evidence.

            Sorry DA, no Doom and Gloom around here. But go ahead, tell yourself all the scary stories you like, just don’t come crying at night, when you wet the bed!

          • BBQman

            CB’s link referenced Mauna Loa, that is what I responded to, please Identify any one of the 70 different locations and I will analyze it for flaws, this is a free service I provide to benefit mankind.

          • Dale Anderson

            You e not doing anyone any service by writing lies about the most important issue humanity has ever faced…. Show me where the data taken from the Mauna Loa site has been discredited by any credible person…. To say it has been is an outright lie.

          • Dale Anderson

            I cannot make the edit feature work to correct spelling errors…. The post above should read > You are not doing any service

          • BBQman

            If you don’t believe me, why should you believe any links I might provide, the best thing for you to do is just check the data and site conditions for yourself and stop believing things that make you feel good about your world view.

          • Dale Anderson

            You should conduct research about the issue before you post ignorant false information about the subject.

            The Mauna Loa observatory site does not measure atmospheric CO2 emitted by any volcanic activity…
            The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory and is then removed from the background data…
            Do you understand what the scientific phrase “Keeling Curve” means? If not you should learn what it means or stop your BS remarks about the issue.

          • BBQman

            I never said volcanic activity was infecting the sampling. Please attempt a factual response next time..

          • Dale Anderson

            Right… You said the Mauna Loa site data has been discredited..
            For exactly what reason is given for saying it has been discredited? Of course you don not reply to fair questions. ..
            The GW deniers say it is not credible because it is near an active volcano, not knowing how the site actually functions.

          • Dale Anderson

            So you cannot show me where the Mauna Loa site has been discredited… Of course I knew you couldn’t.

          • BBQman

            If you don’t examine the site conditions and environmental impacts yourself, please don’t waste my time.

          • Dale Anderson

            It is actually you who has failed to examine the site conditions or you would not have lied that the site has been discredited.
            Wasting your time?? __Who ordered you to take the time to reply to my posts? This is an open forum if you don’t wish to take the time to respond to another that is your prerogative… I am not wasting YOUR time….

          • BBQman

            Have you, or have you not, examined the environmental site conditions at Mauna Loa, YES or No, please stop deflecting away from the inadequate and sloppy work preformed at that site.

            If you have any human curiosity at all, you will wonder why the sensors are not at 4,850 meters above sea level so that they can sample the true atmospheric conditions.

          • Dale Anderson

            They have been sampling the true conditions since it was first put up in 1956…. You saying otherwise is just nonsense and dishonest blathering.
            Cite a reference for your lies.

          • Dale Anderson

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
            Now tell us that the NOAA and ESRL scientists don’t know what they are doing. You can say anything of course you being an expert on how to measure atmospheric CO2 levels.

          • BBQman

            Your link only projects propaganda and reads like a Cruise ship travel brochure with nothing more then flowery sounding impact words.

            Please revise and resubmit.

          • Gallilao

            I think Dale A and CB are members of the same church group. Science is meaningless to them, it contradicts their dogma.
            You can’t reason with religious fanatics.

          • BBQman

            It seems that no matter what evidence you provide them, they refuse to debate it. They only cherry pick a little dab out of a paragraph and twist it to mean something other then what it meant to begin with, I believe both of them must be paid trolls.

          • Gallilao

            Well, if they’re paid…. it’s too much! 😉
            But yes, they do their level best to avoid the “scientific” facts because they discredit their religious beliefs, so they typically try to sidetrack the conversation to avoid dealing with the truth. But it doesn’t matter, it will soon be a moot point.

            All we need do is look outside. The whole of the natural world is flourishing and natures bounty is presenting itself. People will find it impossible to ignore, in the very near future. I just keep ogling my neighbours’ cherry tree. The poor thing is sooo loaded with fruit, the branches are just about dragging on the ground. It looks like it’s bowing down, begging someone to accept its bounty. I have never seen such an overburdened tree and I grew up on a cherry orchard with half a dozen breeds. This is the work of our very good friend and benefactor, CO2.

            CO2 is the route back to the plenty of the fabled, Garden of Eden. Soon everyone will know and understand, CO2 is Good, CO2 is our friend!

          • BBQman

            Everything is really greened up around here as well, but I do anticipate the next 30 plus years to be colder then the last 30.

          • Gallilao

            Yes, that concerns me as well. I was hoping for a few more degrees of warming. I hate the cold but personal preference aside, a warmer climate would alow more atmospheric moisture, which of course means more precipitation and more natural productivity. What are these AGW cranks always calling them? Oh yah, a feedback system. No matter, even if it doesn’t get any warmer, as the tree next door shows, in spite of the fact that this years is colder than last, the added CO2 works, and it obviously works in a range of temperatures, so we will still get the benefit, even if it doesn’t get any warmer.

          • Dale Anderson

            The article I linked was not written by me … It comes from the scientists who monitor the atmospheric CO2 levels. Thank you for saying they are not credible.

          • BBQman

            I do what I can to help mankind.

          • Dale Anderson

            You would be a big help if you would stop lying about AGW and saying things like the Manao Lao site data has been discredited which I have asked you to prove and you cannot do that.

          • Gallilao

            You have to try to understand that CB refuses to understand or admit the scientific facts because she feels that science disproves her faith. It is a matter of religious bias and she wants to believe that she can just rely of her divine intuition, to know everything, so she doesn’t need science.

            She is totally incapable of telling anyone what she is afraid of and thinks everyone should be able to read her twisted little mind.

            You can’t reason with a religious fanatic.

          • OWilson

            If someone disputed “Settled Science”, say like gravity at sea level, to me, I would just laugh at them.

            So, why do they need our reasoning and our links and cites? Constantly challenging our facts? And all the questions, that never end?

            Answer that, and you have an answer to the whole Global Warming Scam! :)

            I know the answer!

          • Gallilao

            I would love to hear it. Why do they need our reasoning……..

          • OWilson

            Looking to see if they can pick holes in the huge wall of reality :)

            If they can’t do that, they’ll point out your typos, and when truly frustrated they’ll just give up and resort to name calling!

            (Just trolls)

          • OWilson

            He’s the guy at the bar who everybody wants to avoid.

            He’s the Jovy that comes around on Sunday and wants to lecture you at your own front door.

            Both are impossible to “reason” with because they are true believers, and that’s that! :)

          • Gallilao

            You are the one who seems to divine thing from imaginary threats that you can’t express but you think everyone else can read your mind about.

            Here for instance, you say that in the Pliocene when the CO2 was the same as today, the sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer, so what you are saying is, that CO2 obviously has nothing to do with climate because if it did, the sea level would be higher and the temperature would be warmer than it is today.

          • Gallilao

            CO2 does not trap heat! Co2 conducts heat!
            Throw away your scriptures CB and get an education!

          • Gallilao

            Learn a little science CB!

          • Gallilao

            CO2 has nothing to do with climate! So who cares what the source is?

          • Dale Anderson

            You should stop posting your version of atmospheric science on websites and have it peer reviewed and published in Science Journal and then write new science text books, have them published and sell them to every school, college, university and library in the world…
            You will be as famous as was Albert Einstein and become richer than Donald Trump.

          • Gallilao

            Why would I be even remotely interested, in your infantile ambitions and dreams!

            Please DO NOT confuse yourself, with me. You could no more comprehend my motives, than a snail could comprehend yours. You’re right, why would a snail want to know your motives?…….. Or anyone else for that matter?

          • Dale Anderson

            No sweat…. I will never confuse myself with you.

            I do find it strange that you would not accept my advice and start writing your scientific version of how our atmospheric gases function and have your paper peer reviewed and published in a credible and respected science journal.

            The things you write about CO2 and CH4 are totally opposed to what is published in scientific papers and science text books that have a chapter about our atmospheric gases… You may be a very important person.

            You would become very famous and wealthy.

          • Gallilao

            There you go again, confusing me with yourself.

            Those may be your aspirations but they are most certainly not mine! I am already published, in thousands of posting on the internet that will never go away. I have thousands of entries and anyone can check the validity of the things I say and I would never demean myself by publishing in anything as biased and meaningless, as peer review. Peer review is just the establishments way of maintaining the status quo. Look at all the peer reviewed climate science claptrap. There is no such thing as climate science.

          • Dale Anderson

            Albert Einstein would say you area dam fool.

          • Gallilao

            You are one sad excuse!

          • OWilson

            My my.

            Your telepathy is as disfunctional as your predictivity. :)

          • Dale Anderson

            Your policy of being sapient is injudicious when the opposite condition confers felicity.

          • Gallilao

            You really are getting desperate CB. What’s the matter? Why isn’t everyone running for cover? Oh please, protect me from food! Oh please, end CO2 now!
            Learn a little science and throw away your scriptures.

          • Dale Anderson

            Speaking of a “Little Science”, you sure do have that down pat.

        • OWilson

          “as their shortsightedness, spitefulness, and greed will have the greatest impact on the young and those yet to be born”

          Are you talking about your favorite politicians who are promising all this “free” stuff while racking up obscene debt on generations yet unborn?

          Maybe I’m with you on this one :)

          How much did Hillary score again, while Sec of State?

          • Mike Richardson

            You mean debt like the obscene spending on a needless war in Iraq? Corporate welfare? Tax breaks for millionaires? If so, you might want to take it up with a previous inhabitant of the White House — how much did W’s cronies score while he was President? :)
            But no, I was referring to those supporting foolish adherence to fossil fuel dependence and denial of scientific fact where it relates to their environmental impact, both short term and long term. You with me on that? :)

          • OWilson

            Get up to date. Read the latest talking points.

            Bush is so yesterday :)

            Trump is now your real boogeyman!

          • Mike Richardson

            I see the money bothers you more than the lost lives in the Iraq War, just as debt seems to bother you more than lives lost to an increasingly chaotic environment we’re contributing to. And we need to remember the history of disastrous right wing presidencies, so we can avoid even worse in the future. Meanwhile, you have nothing substantive to dispute the melting of Greenland’s ice pack, and the inevitable crisis this is going to cause coastal communities. Continue to support the industries contributing most to global CO2 emissions, and resulting global warming, regardless of the consequences, right? It’s not a terribly rational course of action, you know.

          • OWilson

            You delude yourself.

            I can’t deal with your “beliefs”.

            Go talk to someone else about it . Someone who cares :)

            Adios!

          • Mike Richardson

            So “Beliefs” is your new buzzword, the talking point your fan club should be using in these debates, now? Someone’s projecting, again. Objective facts are not a belief system, and reality does not require your approval. :)

      • Gallilao

        You only say those things because of your religious beliefs. You think science disproves your religious beliefs, which is why you refuse to learn any. You think you can just go with the flow and you can’t go wrong!

        How immature!

        There just is no reasoning with religious fanatics.

  • CB

    There isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high.

    This should surprise no one.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147e2c9db47cb45e06ced1ef3b9926e243c177958a672d8adb1e722a0900242e.png

    • Deborah Marie Flower Power

      Yes CB….We are in a lot of trouble…Very sad…Very scary…

      • zlop

        The scaremongers will panic us into paying more
        carbon taxes to the Rothschild, Gore and Blood
        carbon tax extortion racketeers.

    • Gallilao

      What are we afraid now CB?

      • Dale Anderson

        One thing we should fear is people such as yourself who have managed to create so much unnecessary doubt about global warming.
        What to fear about a warming Arctic Region is the melting Arctic’s permafrost both on land and on the Arctic Ocean floor… There are trillions of tons of methane gas, CH4, in the form of microscopic bits of methane called hydrates. locked in the Arctic permafrost…
        When ice melts anything once locked in the ice is free….
        When just one trillion tons of methane releases into our atmosphere it will cause the next mass extinction of life on Earth…. At the present time the atmospheric CH4 level over the Arctic is at 1,900ppb and rising at a very fast rate and the atmospheric CO2 level over the Arctic Region reached 416ppm last Feb.
        That is why the ice on Greenland is now melting off at an incredibly fast rate and when only one forth of the freshwater ice on Greenland melts, seal levels will rise by 5 feet. At the current rate of melting that could occur before 2022….. Half melt, 10 feet sea level rise and all melted would cause a sea level rise of 20 feet.
        Another most serious issue from global warming to fear is the dying ocean coral reefs due to warming ocean waters… The tiny green plant life phytoplankton bloom from LIVE coral reefs and the ocean phytoplankton produce at least half of our oxygen…. So ifwe lose half of our oxygen the atmospheric oxygen level would reduce to about 10%… That will kill you bud,,,, and everyone else. So if you are insane and suicidal you have nothing to fear.

        • Gallilao

          IF if if if if………….

          Yes atmospheric CO2 and Methane are rising. Big deal, so does hot air. Who cares! I don’t create uncertainty, all I do state hard scientific facts, something you Flat Earth, AGW fear mongers are so deathly afraid of.

          God bless CO2, the more the better!

          • Dale Anderson

            You wrote > quote > (“all I do state hard scientific facts,”) Quote > (“Yes atmospheric CO2 and Methane are rising. Big deal, so does hot air. God bless CO2, the more the better! < Unquote…

            You call that scientific facts. The truth is; what you wrote is incredible ignorance and utter stupidity.

            For at least 800,000 years prior to the late1800s, the atmospheric CO2 level had never exceeded 300ppm and had averaged 280ppm.

            After humanity began burning coal and then oil the atmospheric CO2 level began a steady rise to now it is at 404ppm and atmospheric CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas which traps some of the heat which rises from the planet.

            The more atmospheric CO2 in the greenhouse gases the more heat trapped and the warmer the planet and ocean waters' warm.

            There was not a single thing I posted in reply to you that is incorrect.

            Btw; with an atmospheric CO2 level of 250 to 290ppm, plants do very well. They do not rquire an atmospheric CO2 level of 300ppm or higher to thrive.

          • Gallilao

            Are you for real?

            What a pile of meaningless “Duck Speak!”

          • Dale Anderson

            Explain exactly what I wrote that is not correct. Try an intelligent, adult debate instead of personal insults.

          • Gallilao

            All you site is a lot of meaningless fear mongering drivel, founded on the “speculations” of possible future timelines and alternate realities that have no basis in reality….. Nothing of any scientific relevance.

          • Dale Anderson

            I hadn’t sited anything.. Here is an article that backs up what I wrote 100%

            https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=2016+Arctic+News+On+Atmospheric+Ch4+And+Co2&qpvt=2016+arctic+news+on+atmospheric+ch4+and+co2&FORM=EWRE
            What have you cited?

          • Gallilao

            Why would I care what You say?

          • Dale Anderson

            I am very certain you don’t care. I don’t care if you care or not.
            This is is an open forum. If you wish you may reply. If you don’t care what I say, don’t reply.
            The truth is I am not really replying to you with any intent of educating you… I bother to reply to ones such as yourself in the chance some person is unsure about the AGW issue and may wrongly believe you are intelligent and educated on the subject and perhaps my comments will help that person get educated on the subject and realize you are extremely ignorant about the AGW issue.

          • Gallilao

            NO one is going to listen to your baseless fear mongering for much longer. But go ahead.

          • OWilson

            Getting the picture?

            They are trolls, just riding every intelligent discussion into the dust.

            That what they are here to do!

            They do it with a nod and a wink from the moderator Tom Yulsman, that finds fault if I call someone “low info”, and yet he takes pleasure when I am called “a despicable liar and unfit to be termed a member of the human race”

            On his own same blog.

            That kind of dogmatic prejudice and intolerance is what keeps me motivated.

            They are happy when totalitarians come for the conservatives, but as I said before, they may then come after the gays (how prescient that was! before Orlando) then the Jews, and then the “useful idiot” liberals.

          • Gallilao

            Thanks OW, I think I’m starting to get the picture.

          • Mike Richardson

            Remind me what side of the political spectrum the fascists and Nazis were on? Seems you see totalitarianism in only one flavor, and worse yet, where none exists. You honestly think someone’s worried enough about what you say on a discussion board to “come after” you? That’s a tad paranoid, and certainly displays some traits of grandiosity. But when all else fails, rail against the moderator and play victim. My, but I’ve seen this pattern before. Just get the prepared and insincere apology ready beforehand when you get the attention you’re seeking.

          • OWilson

            They were Sociailists, Mikey, just like you and your Bernie.

            Nazi is short for National Socialism.

            Your welcome! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            I’m well aware of what they called themselves — but they were a far cry from actual socialists. Government worked in league with corporations and industry, but didn’t own it. As with any fascist state, the populace were kept distracted from how little the state was actually doing to help them with rampant nationalism and militarism. The people existed to serve the state, and not the other way around. It was as socialist as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic. Dysfunctional political ideologies often use doublespeak — for example, conservatives who don’t believe in conserving natural resources or the environment. Now I could sink to your level and accuse you of being a fascist, but I think I’ll keep the high ground and let you continue to embarrass yourself with amateurish historical revisionism. :)

          • OWilson

            Good luck looking for high ground in that Socialist Swamp you inhabit :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, no real good comeback to the fact that you distort history to support a viewpoint that’s otherwise indefensible. The truth doesn’t really work that well for you, does it? :)

          • Dale Anderson

            Want citations? Okay here is another one that backs up what I wrote in replies to you by 100%.

            http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/02/methanes-role-in-arctic-warming.html

            You wanna cite some Anthony Watts lies?

          • Gallilao

            I don’t know what makes you think I am even remotely interested in what you say or think!

          • Dale Anderson

            What made me think so was you replied to my reply to you. My reply to you was to try and educate you on the issue as you clearly don’t know what you are talking about…. If you think that you do start writing up your atmospheric science theories and have them peer reviewed and see if Journal Science will publish them…… Anthony Watts will and no peer review would be required.

          • Gallilao

            You really do live in your own universe.

            I wouldn’t care if you were peer reviewed up the hoop, you’re a mindless zealot and I could care less what you say! It’s all just, foundless, fear mongering, “Duck Speak!”

          • Dale Anderson

            Yes indeed; I live in the same universe that you live in.

          • Gallilao

            Too bad for you, you’re not welcome in my universe and I wouldn’t touch your universe.

          • Dale Anderson

            I now see I have been arguing with a brain damaged child.

          • Gallilao

            Personal insult?
            Do you even know the meaning and reference of, “Duck Speak?” ……. Hint: “1984”……
            Mindless minions!

          • Dale Anderson

            Duck speak was not the insults I referred to… In fact when I wrote the personal insult comment you hadn’t even posted the Duck Speak comment.
            You ignored the words have an intelligent adult debate.

          • Gallilao

            I most certainly DID NOT ignore your words, it’s just that you can’t have an intelligent adult debate, with someone who is neither intelligent, nor adult. That would be you Sunshine!

          • Dale Anderson

            “Sunshine” is a nice nickname. If you think I’m not an adult or intelligent; how about the scientists I quoted? Are they all stupid too?

          • Gallilao

            How many ways is it necessary to say, that your comments are meaningless drivel, so who cares what you references say?

          • Dale Anderson

            So far all of your replies have just been insults like this last one… You haven’t posted a single thing to show what I wrote was incorrect in any way and I posted links for two articles that backed up what I wrote by 100%.

          • Dale Anderson

            (“So who cares what your references say?”)…. LOL, thank you for proving my points. You are one pitiful example of a GW Denier… Incredibly even Sparafucile is better at it than you.

          • Gallilao

            And you are a pitiful AGW fear monger!

            GO fish!

          • Robert

            Even 11 Yr ills know they need references, yet the adult denialists don’t

          • BBQman

            An atmospheric level of 250ppm of CO2 puts us back into the little ice age, are you for real?

          • Dale Anderson

            No the Little Ice Age was not global… We do need the polar ice caps back however like they were 100 years ago and prior.

          • BBQman

            No, the little ice age was not global, it only impacted the whole northern hemisphere where most of the land mass is and if you would check your history, the quantity of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 38th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.
            Just over the course of a few hundred years, many regional climate variations take place, grapes grown in Stockholm around 35 CE, Vikings found Greenland “green” around 1,000 CE, needless to say, a few degrees of warming in Antarctic means less then nothing where the temperature is below -75 f, see “Garnier” for more details.

          • Dale Anderson

            No the Little Ice Age did not impact the entire Northern Hemisphere. Again you don’t know what you are babbling and lying about.
            Cite your reference.

          • BBQman

            I don’t do cites, that is such a stupid expectation on a blog site when everyone can check out anything they want to themselves, I do not recognize the o,d rules for bloggers, if someone reading our conversation is interested enough, they can look up stuff themselves…you are a waste of my time, we are done until you answer the two questions I asked you earlier.

          • Dale Anderson

            You say that you don’t do cites… Ha ha haaa, Right, you just say whatever suits you and have no backing or proof of what you say…. There aren’t any cites for anyone to look up for your lies so you don’t cite them. You can’t.

          • Robert

            “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
            D. Moynihan

          • BBQman

            Not true.

          • Robert

            Said uncitingly…..
            (H/T to Tom Swifties)

          • BBQman

            Just like you “climate driver deniers” to avoid facts and insult those of us who understand what the true climate drivers are. The problem is that your side can’t figure out a way to tax man over the true climate drivers.

          • Robert

            Which would- with links to the best resources that informed your thinking – be?
            “..true climate drivers.”

          • BBQman

            Are you not capable of comprehending information without a link, unable to follow a conversation and build on it without a link?

          • BBQman

            Let’s review the year 1750, right before the industrial revolution, yes the atmospheric CO2 levels were low at ranges between 210 to 260 ppm. This was due to the fact that plant life had been stunted primarily because the earths temperature in the northern hemisphere had been 2.5 degrees Celsius below normal as a result of the little ice age, of course CO2 levels were to be low, less vegetation decaying for the previous 600 years.

            Now as we emerged from the LIA around 1800, the planet began a long slow process of warming up about 1 degree C every hundred years, more plant growth and related decay which produces more CO2, to around 380 ppm. We are currently on track to remain normal as far as the climate is concerned, except that magnetic pulls and pushing’s exerted by our gaseous planets Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus are causing our geographical Arctic pole to shift from the current tilt of 23.4 degree angle from the sun to 24.1 degrees over the next 30 plus years, in effect, our ice caps will increase back to the width at the outer limits of know boundaries. The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.

            An organization has been developed to expose the truth about climate change and expose the AGW CO2 greenhouse lie. We at “Catastrophe Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” are happy to report that our efforts to expose the AGW lie are making an impact, donations are accepted, please make out checks to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……

          • Robert

            No citations.
            And:
            “An organization has been developed to expose the truth about climate change and expose the AGW CO2 greenhouse lie. We at “Catastrophe Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” are happy to report that our efforts to expose the AGW lie are making an impact, donations are accepted, please make out checks to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……”

            Well done.

          • BBQman

            I thought you would appreciate that!

          • Robert

            In the real world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Ipcc.ch
            Climatechange2013.org

          • BBQman

            Your links contain no information.

          • Robert

            None so deaf as those that will not hear.
            None so blind as those that will not see.
            Matthew Henry

            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/matthewhen189365.html

          • BBQman

            To bad you can not respond to any of my points in an intelligent manner

          • Robert

            In the real world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Ipcc.ch
            Climatechange2013.org

            In bbq’s world : . “The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

            Said, presumably with a straight face, in full fervor. And no evidence.

          • BBQman

            Please show the math that proves MM CO2 is a climate driver. Just plain old math, no links will be accepted, it must be in your words.

          • Robert

            Yeah, that is so how science works. /s

          • BBQman

            That’s what I thought you would say, HA HA.

          • Robert

            You could do like scientists – and the average 11 yr old – do and bring forward your best resources that support your contentions.
            You tried it on the Obama bit… why not the gassous planets’ effect on the tilt of Earth?

          • Woodfords Frog

            Come on Bobby, dazzle us in your own words, generally, how doubling CO2 can drive climate…. I’m waiting….

          • Robert

            The work is there to read. You, and bbqman,- on the other hand – have basically spent hours avoiding supporting your claims.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Hmmm, ignoring all those cites I linked to again Bobby?
            I’ve read plenty. I’ve also shown you I know my way around the IPCC reports much better than you.Come on…. show us your critical thinking skills. Or at least show us you have some general knowledge on how CO2 is supposed to drive climate.

          • Robert

            Bbqman wants to claim the observable changes are due to magnets and gaseous planets’ influences on our tilt ( or something like that, he seems unable to support his claims.
            You are claiming it is cosmic rays, or magnets , or cosmic rays and magnets. Or that the basic physics is wrong.
            Or something. You also seem incapable of writing a cohesive thesis, but think some near random links ‘proves’ your point. At least you pretended to do some research.

            Here is a short list of coherent, cohesive explainations of the basics. They are, in effect, a model of what either (or both, as co-authors) need to do; clear, referenced as necessary, written to explain, a developed argument from a clear hypothesis.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
            http://www.universetoday.com/77842/mann-a-changing-climate-doesnt-have-a-political-agenda/
            http://www.nationalacademies.org/OCGA/111Session2/testimonies/OCGA_147143
            https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
            http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_40768.pdf
            https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
            http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/10/the-physics-of-global-warming/
            https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-behind-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Climatechange2013.org

            Please point us to where you’ve done something cohesive and cited.

          • Woodfords Frog

            That’s not explaining how C02 is supposed to drive climate in your own words.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Yes, Bobby, how about, in your own words describe the physics of CO2 and how it drives climate.

            Edit: Because I have already, in my own words, with cited reference, shown you how the physics of CO2 can’t drive climate.

          • Robert

            Oh, please link to where you did what you claim.

            And please link to your best alternative hypotheses and their best supporting evidence.

            Really. You and bbqman need to develop your thinking and publish. Even if it is only on your own website.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Can’t describe how CO2 is supposed to drive climate? I’ve already explained in past conversations the simplified and basic components of CO2 physics with citations. You are free to revisit them. It’s your turn to step up to the plate.

          • Robert
          • Woodfords Frog

            So, no you can’t explain in your own words how CO2 is suppose to drive climate. Got it.

            And you don’t understand CO2 as the driver of climate is only a theoretical theory? Why don’t you show any peer-review paper with empirical evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 drives climate?

            Because none of those links you supplied do so. They are either articles or blogs about Climate Change, models, M. Mann showing climate science has become politicized, and a letter written by Cicerone, (who by the way states clearly
            that one must include the water vapor feedback and “While some
            scientists continue to propose that water-vapor changes due
            to greenhouse forcing might not amplify the original warming,”).

            Did yo know you linked to an article that explains the primary tool for studying climate change is General Circulation Models (GCMs) and “the accuracy of GCMs in simulating present climatic conditions has
            steady improved, although there are still significant errors for some
            features, such as cloud cover. While this lends increasing confidence in
            the results, models can only be rigorously tested against recent
            climatic conditions. Their accuracy in simulating future climate can
            never be fully tested.” and only estimations can be given….?
            Which of course what the political agenda report, the IPCC uses (your last link).

            So, come on Bobby, I asked you to explain in your own words how CO2 drives climate. Tell me.

          • Robert
          • Woodfords Frog

            So, that’s a no, again, you can’t explain it in your own words.
            And yes, CO2 as the driver of climate is only a theoretical theory.

          • Robert
          • Woodfords Frog

            So, again, another no, you can’t explain anything in your own words…. got it.

          • Robert

            Not sure why ‘my words’ hold more weight in this discussion than the combined expertise of the scientists whose research is noted in the links I’ve provided. But if you feel you have a useful contribution to make to the science, perhaps you should develop whatever your hypothesis is and get it published in one of the many journals focused on that particular science. Or here, unencumbered by any review process beyond your spellchecker.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Do you know what those “combined expertise of the scientists” are saying? And what the plethora of skeptical scientists are saying? Come on Bobby, just like you are always asking me to cite my sources and “critical thinking” (which I repeatedly do-but you ignore) I’m asking you to describe a bit in your own words. I want to see if you understand what is being argued.

            What do you know of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? What is the IPCC assuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?

            What aspects do scientists know little about earth’s hydrologic cycle? In theory vs. real world?

            What has Aiguo Dai (climate scientist who focuses on earth’s hydrologic cycle) current project of analyzing continental water discharge over the past 50 years, noticed?

            Which way did the IPCC AR5 revise their water vapor feedback assumption?

            You post links to articles and blogs about modeling projections, or opinions by government paid employees. Non have empirical evidence.

            Peer-review papers from scientists with empirical evidence that CO2 is not the driver of climate/and or lack of positive feedbacks, but natural variables are driving climate.

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-009-0117-x
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2186/pdf
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2787.1
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO270001/full
            http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.263
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/abstract
            http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
            https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119893
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/717.abstract
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/322
            http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/E1406.abstract
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026389/abstract
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790986/
            http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Nature%20controls%20CO2%20levels.pdf
            Empirical evidence that CO2 is dynamic and was higher than the IPCC claimed before the Industrial revolution.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Holocene_CO2_stomata_Wagner_etal_2004.pdf
            http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/Kouwenberg_2005_Geology.pdf
            http://hol.sagepub.com/content/9/5/509.short
            http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
            http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
            Article: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

          • Robert

            Yup. Read IPCC for a clue.

            “Do you know what those “combined expertise of the scientists” are saying?”

          • Woodfords Frog

            So no, you don’t know what the “combined expertise of the scientists” are saying. Got it. Little Bobby can’t discuss the science. You haven’t got a clue. You can’t even summarize it in your own words. You can’t answer any of these simple questions….

            What do you know of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? What is the IPCCassuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?

            What aspects do scientists know about earth’s hydrologic cycle? In theory vs. real world?

            What has Aiguo Dai (climate scientist who focuses on earth’s hydrologic cycle) current project of analyzing continental water discharge over thepast 50 years, noticed?

            Which way did the IPCC AR5 revise their water vapor feedback assumption?

          • Robert

            That was funny. Esp.the part after “What do…”

          • Woodfords Frog

            “Funny”…. as in funny, little bobby can’t answer any of the questions.

          • Robert

            Funny as in here we are on a random comment thread.

            Blow us away. Give us your best.
            Link to where you’ve published a critique, an analysis.
            Tell us why we should be using your thinking, analysis, writing, to inform our knowledge of the science.

          • Woodfords Frog

            I’ve been asking you all along to “give it your best” Bobby. I’ve been
            trying to engage you to describe in your own words how CO2 is supposed
            to drive climate. Yet…. you can’t. That’s why you have to keep using the “publish your own paper” rhetoric. So pathetic.

          • Robert

            “Bobby” So sciencey…..

          • maltow

            Ohhhh! But he’s a hard one to reach isn’t he, this ‘Special-Needs’ Booby.
            Kudos for your continuing efforts though WF.

            Now if it was JUST Booby who required such exhaustive one-to-one attention daily you ‘might’ fair better, but the ‘Special-Needs’ group is just so jam-packed with other incoherent reality and fact deniers, (in denial of their denial too, making their sad condition almost impossible to aid), I’m very much afraid that those who fell by realities wayside are doomed to simply rot there.

            In the end we mustn’t forget they are notionally adults answerable to themselves after all.
            To paraphrase some sage Radiohead lyrics;
            “They do it themselves they do, just them and no one else”.

          • Robert

            “Indeed, 2009-Trump might have said it best: Climate change is “scientifically irrefutable.” ”
            http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/trump-climate-change-new-york-times-letter-ad/486335/#article-comments

          • Robert

            If you are so cocksure your science is correct, why are you here on a random comment thread trying to claim expertise? Perhaps you could prove it by writing – or at least co-authoring – a paper for a journal.
            There are a few other ‘experts’ posting. Plenty of alternative hypotheses floating around. Seems a good time to either put up
            Or shut up.

            ” I want to see if you understand what is being argued.”

          • jmac
          • Woodfords Frog

            “If you are so cocksure your science is correct, why are you here on a random comment thread trying to claim expertise?” lol! Ah yes… “the why don’t you write you’re own science paper” meme? Because little Bobby can’t discuss the science, he evades. Newsflash Bobby, It’s “not my science”.
            It’s what’s missing in AGW alarmists scientists theory, it’s what skeptical scientists are showing with empirical evidence. Do you know what that is? Do you have any understanding what you are supporting?

            Yes, Bobby what’s me to “shut-up” because he hates that he is being challenged to answer a few questions he can’t. Come on Bobby let’s discuss. What general knowledge do you have about CO2 and it’s effect on climate.

            What do you know of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? What is the IPCC assuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?

            What aspects do scientists know about earth’s hydrologic cycle? In theory vs. real world?

            What has Aiguo Dai (climate scientist who focuses on earth’s hydrologic cycle) current project of analyzing continental water discharge over the past 50 years, noticed?

            Which way did the IPCC AR5 revise their water vapor feedback assumption?

            (Oh and I love this….. “why are you here on a random comment thread trying…” Oh the irony. So now it’s just a random comment thread, when according to you, I must cite and reference formally using “c.r.a.p.” or academic standards to write a comment on an informal discussion platform. Watch little Bobby post the “c.r.a.p.” reference again!)

          • Robert

            So . Let us see if we’ve got this right: You think that the global science is corrupt because some papers-a few outlier papers – point in a direction that is opposite the nearly two hundreds of years of research.

            Multiple lines of evidence – http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
            V
            A small handful of outlier papers.

            Science published, reviewed. Data reviewed, analyzed. Papers written critiquing previous work, reviewed and analyzed.

            Observations taken, reviewed, analyzed, updated, compared.

            V
            Your whinging on about
            “What is the IPCC assuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?” And no evidence brought forward….

            If you want to argue science, do it . In the literature. Make your contribution.
            Or, tell us why you would rather attempot to do so here. Where it doesn’t effect the published science.

          • Woodfords Frog

            “So . Let us see if we’ve got this right: You think that the global
            science is corrupt because some papers-a few outlier papers – point in a
            direction that is opposite the nearly two hundreds of years of
            research…… A small handful of outlier papers…..” No. You got it wrong. They don’t refute that CO2 can absorb some longer wavelengths of outgoing infrared radiation. Have you even looked at them? I bet not. Because you can’t discuss the science.

            “Observations taken”… yes observations, empirical evidence. That’s what I’m trying to get you to discuss. I’m trying to see what you understand and what is being discussed. Yet, epic fail on your end. You refuse to discuss in your own words.

            “”What is the IPCC assuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?” And no evidence brought forward….” I want you to answer that. I want to see if you understand and know what is missing. I already know. I have been citing such with empirical evidence for the past year. I’m trying to engage you Bobby! My prediction of you failing to do so is becoming obviously true.

            So, one more time can you answer any of those questions I asked you? Can you discuss the science?

          • Robert

            “one more time ” yey! No more of you trying to pretend you know something.

          • Woodfords Frog

            I’ve proven that you can’t answer my questions, you can’t discuss the science.

          • Robert

            There is no reason to be ‘discussing the science’ on some comment thread. We have consilience – multiple lines of evidence all pointing to one in as capable conclusion. And that science has been researched for nearly two centuries. It has this long history partly because as early as the turn of the 20 century it was posited that we could influence the climate through our burning of fossil fuels.

            What you are attempting to do is being a good little foot soldier in the denialist army. Most likely as an unpaid camp follower since you are not publishing a blog like morano or watt or writing editorials for little backwater newspapers like tom h.

            You have an interesting stichkt, but not one worth debating. If there were the conclusions in the research supporting your claims, you could quote them and cite them. Instead what we are getting is vague references to a scientist and then being told to go look it up. If you knew how basic research – much less real science publishing – works, you know all you are doing is attempting to play with rhetorical and semantic techniques.

          • Woodfords Frog

            ” If there were the conclusions in the research supporting your claims, you could quote them and cite them” ….. I have repeatedly, throughout my comment history, in replies to you, and in replies to others cited my statements with peer-review papers containing empirical evidence. Yet you ignore them, claim I don’t offer cites, ask for them again, hence creating a cycle of pointless interaction with you.

            “We have consilience – multiple lines of evidence all pointing to one in as capable conclusion” …. No. Absolutely not true. What is lacking? Empirical evidence shows something is amiss in regards to what is assumed by some climate scientists and the IPCC.

            There are still too many unknowns in climate, instead, assumptions are
            made. Any scientist or academic body making claims they know everything
            about our climate system is not a true scientist.

            “In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.” F. Dyson

          • Robert

            Love the total lack of examples. Not one citation. Not one link.
            “It’s what’s missing in AGW alarmists scientists theory, it’s what skeptical scientists are showing with empirical evidence.”

            Don’t forget to change out the tinfoil. It eventually develops pinholes from chemtrails and cosmic rays and magnetism ( and whatever else is the denialist claim de jour….)

          • Woodfords Frog

            Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…. you forget, I was asking you to describe, in your own words how CO2 is supposed to drive climate. I was asking you some questions to give you hints of what is lacking. Yet it goes completely over your head. I have, in past comments, given you too many citations to count. You ignore them, repeatedly. I was asking you questions to see what you know and how much you understand. I want to see if you can discuss the science in your own words. It’s quite evidence you can’t! You deflect with your standard “provide citations” rhetoric meme.

            Epic Fail Bobby. So, can you answer any of those questions I asked you? Can you discuss the science?

            P.S. ….. “Love the total lack of examples. Not one citation. Not one link.” Again, you totally ignore them.
            http://disq.us/p/19hh09v

          • Robert

            The attempted insulting, the diminutives,; both really help you seem like you have somehing to contribute – on the playground.
            Out by the back fence.

            Let us know when your paper is published!
            And don’t forget the link!

          • Woodfords Frog

            lol! Hypocrisy!… “The attempted insulting, the diminutives,; both really help you seem like you have somehing to contribute – on the playground. Out by the back fence.”

            Can you answer those questions I asked you? Can you discuss the science?
            Here they are again:

            What do you know of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? What is the IPCC assuming about it that empirical evidence is showing something else?

            What aspects do scientists know little about earth’s hydrologic cycle? In theory vs. real world?

            What has Aiguo Dai (climate scientist who focuses on earth’s hydrologic cycle) current project of analyzing continental water discharge over the past 50 years, noticed?

            Which way did the IPCC AR5 revise their water vapor feedback assumption?

            Tsk, Tsk. little Bobby. Now maybe, yes, diminutives, but where are my insults in the last comment to you? Hmmmm? Please point them out before you describe in your own words how CO2 is supposed to drive climate.

          • Robert

            The attempted insulting, the diminutives,; both really help you seem like you have somehing to contribute – on the playground. Out by the back fence.

          • Woodfords Frog

            You’ve already stated that. I’ve pointed out your Hypocrisy. And notice the lack of explanation of how I insulted you. Instead of repeating your attempted insults, can you answer those questions I asked you? Can you discuss the science?

          • Robert

            “Bobby”
            “Watch little Bobby..”
            “little Bobby”

            And this is good: I wrote-“There are a few other ‘experts’ posting. Plenty of alternative hypotheses floating around. Seems a good time to either put up
            Or shut up.”
            Your reply: “Yes, Bobby wants me to “shut-up” …”

            I’ll stick with the combined demonstrated expertise shown in the following “simplified and basic” explanations:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
            http://www.universetoday.com/77842/mann-a-changing-climate-doesnt-have-a-political-agenda/
            http://www.nationalacademies.org/OCGA/111Session2/testimonies/OCGA_147143
            https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
            http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_40768.pdf
            https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
            http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/10/the-physics-of-global-warming/
            https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-behind-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Climatechange2013.org

            Please point us to where you’ve done something cohesive and cited.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Yes, I confessed to using diminutives… but those are not insults. I already explained that to you.

            “I’ll stick with the combined demonstrated expertise shown in the following “simplified and basic” explanations:”…. But what is lacking with those blog posts and articles? Oh, lots of empirical evidence that’s for sure. Explain it in your own words. Why can’t you do that?

          • Robert

            OK, tell us. What has Aiguo Dai written that upsets the generally held -IPCC, for example – position on ACC.

            Quote and cite, of course.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Little Bobby, that question was for you to answer. I already know the answer. I was trying to engage you into discussing the science. So can you?

          • Robert

            So. You don’t know how Aiguo Dia’s work aligns to IPCC findings.

          • Woodfords Frog

            I do, I was hoping you would take the initiative to find out for yourself, and then discuss it with me. His findings support empirical evidence that I have posted in the past. P.S. Aiguo Dia is a climate scientist at NCAR, who is an AGW believer, so to speak.

            I’m trying to get you to THINK Robert. Can you?

          • Robert

            No need to. Yet. You didn’t cite anything.
            “Watch little Bobby post the “c.r.a.p.” reference again!)”

          • Woodfords Frog

            And here you are distracting and doing anything but actually describing
            how CO2 is supposed to drive climate in your own words. How many replies
            have you formed over my one comment? 5. Why 5? I’ll repeat my answer…..
            “Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…. you forget, I was asking
            you
            to describe, in your own words how CO2, (according to
            the IPCC and AGW scientists) is supposed to drive climate. I was
            asking you some questions to give you hints
            of what is lacking. Yet it goes completely over your head. I have, in
            past comments to you, given you too many citations to count. You ignore
            them, repeatedly. I was asking you
            questions to see what you know and how much you understand. I want to see if you can discuss the science in your own words. It’s quite
            evidence you can’t! You deflect with your standard “provide
            citations” rhetoric meme.”

          • Robert

            And, inevitably; “… political agenda report…” We get to the tinfoil wearing phase of the effort to ‘disprove’ ACC…..

          • Robert
          • Robert
          • BBQman

            As I said, you got nothing but unmeasurable links that read like flowery cruise ship travel brochures.

          • Robert

            “…unmeasurable links that read like flowery cruise…”
            In the real world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Ipcc.ch
            Climatechange2013.org

          • BBQman

            Still nothing measurable, please revise and resubmit

          • Robert

            I’ll go with nearly 200 years of research ( https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ) showing that our profligate burning of fossil fuels ( http://climate.nasa.gov/) ( http://climatechange2013.org/ ) is causing the observable changes we are doing to our atmosphere ( http://ipcc.ch/ ) rather than the nitwittery of unsupported claims that gassous planets is. Especially when the claimant is also arguing that Obama is a muslim.

            And especially because you’ve spent a fair amount of time in an effort to not bring forward any evidence of either asertions beyond a badly edited video that has been on record for its inaccuracy.
            And, oddly, you were quicker to argue the Obama claim than supporting your fake science.

          • BBQman

            Watching Obama say he is of the Muslim Faith was not a mathematical solution, it is what it is and can never be unsaid. You are trying to compare Apples to Crescent wrenches.

          • Mensch59

            Believe my “argumentative points”, opinions, assertions, propositions without any supporting evidence. It’s not delusional! It’s no!! It’s Not!!! IT’S NOT!!!!
            My original opinions are the logical equivalent of the painstaking work of naturalistic methodologies.
            {end sarcasm, ridicule}

          • Robert

            Well roasted! But then, he’s toast….

          • BBQman

            Go away crybaby.

          • Mensch59

            No thanks.
            Those who deny scientific knowledge and who deny the reality of empirical evidence deserve to be ridiculed and treated with sarcasm… especially those who are reduced to childish name-calling.

          • Robert

            Robert BBQman
            3 hours ago
            In the real world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            https://www.aip.org/history/cl
            Ipcc.ch
            Climatechange2013.org
            1 Edit Reply

            Avatar
            BBQman Robert
            2 hours ago
            Your links contain no information.

          • BBQman

            Please, tell me In your words, plus those links do not contain measurable facts.

          • Robert

            None so blind……..

          • BBQman

            I expected this type of nonsensical reply from you, we are done…you are dismissed..run along now.

          • Robert

            Best run off, as did Woodfords Frog, rather than bringing any evidence.
            That you have spent hours unwilling to cite a single source says all that needs be noted.

          • Robert

            So, how about bringing some facts supporting ” [t]he forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

          • BBQman

            Does this mean that you concede, that you can not show the simple math that tells the world what percentage of a climate driver man made CO2 is?

          • Robert

            Do you think making nonsensical claims disprove the actual science? Your asinine efforts are duly noted.
            No facts support your claims about magnetic jupiter or whatever you are positing or you would have shown us your work.

          • BBQman

            So far, there have been no facts to back up the false theory that CO2 is a climate driver.

          • Robert

            Really need an animated gif of a multiple facepalm.”….the false theory that CO2 is a climate driver”

          • BBQman

            Magnetism is the primary climate driver which controls all the secondary climate drivers such as our sun and moon which control our molten core, which influences our oceans conveyance and jet stream.
            It is our moon and the gaseous planets such as Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus with their own magnetic fields, which have and do on a daily basis effect our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt, thus impacting our own magnetic field which ultimately controls our jet stream and ocean conveyance.
            You need to understand the order of this multileveled order of climate drivers if you want answers.

          • Robert

            That you have spent hours unwilling to cite a single source says all that needs be noted.

            But, it seems the only sources of your claims are :
            1 – you
            2 links from wuwt

            Good show!

          • BBQman

            My purpose was to open your mind, Seems like I have a ways to go, such is life.

          • Robert

            I’d say nearly fifty years of reading published science says that when someone on a comment thread says something and then spends hours avoiding providing a single resource that they should be dismissed out of hand.

          • BBQman

            What you do next, is going to be very interesting. But on, or very close to October 7th of this year, expect higher earthquake activity as a result of Ceres’s pull and interference with the magnetic confluence between earth and Uranus, It will not be a good from Mexico City to California as our tectonic plates centrifugal forces are shocked into opposing directions, imho.

          • Robert

            Tin Foil Hats Actually Make it Easier for the Government to Track Your Thoughts
            “While the underlying concept is good, the typical foil helmet fails in design and execution. An effective Faraday cage fully encloses whatever it’s shielding, but a helmet that doesn’t fully cover the head doesn’t fully protect it. If the helmet is designed or worn with a loose fit, radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation can still get up underneath the brim from below and reveal your innermost thoughts to the reptilian humanoids or the Bilderberg Group.”
            http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/

            OR
            some real science:

            In the real world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Ipcc.ch
            Climatechange2013.org

          • BBQman

            And all this time I thought it was the Bohemian Grove group.

          • Dale Anderson

            Will an aluminum helmet work?

          • Robert

            Ups the required tech a bit…. make a mold of the wearers head, melt the aluminum, …..
            But it would add some gravitas…..

          • Robert

            You do understand that there is more than the last 4 letters difference between astronomy and astrology, right?

          • BBQman

            I imagine, that one way or another you will look for me around October 7th, I would put money on it.

          • Robert

            If the astrologers can tell me what my horoscope is for that day, seems the astronomers could nail down a major earthquake to an hour or so…
            I mean, only 4 letters different….

            OR
            Show us the science behind your claims.

          • BBQman

            Try and be patient, only less then 4 months to go. Then I will not have to filter out your sarcasm any longer, time is money you know.

          • Robert

            Ah… two “money” posts.
            EoW…
            Sounds like you have a scam in play…
            Sure don’t have any science….

          • BBQman

            Be patient.

          • OWilson

            But you are still here seeking answers? LOL

            Which is it, Einstein? :)

          • Robert

            Asking bbqman to source his reading. Interested in what talk radio show is claiming gaseous planets effect our climate.

            Guess he was too embarrassed. But if you can help him, perhaps your snark will take you far down the research path.

          • Robert

            So. Teach us. Help us to “…understand the order of this multileveled order of climate drivers if you want answers. “

          • BBQman

            I don’t need answers.

          • Robert

            That was you saying that. That’s why the quote make are there as part of the reply.

            Show us how you got to the answers.

          • Robert

            So, are you some Hawking level physicist whose work doesn’t need a bibliography?
            Oops, that doesn’t work, he has citations in his papers….
            Yet. Here we are on some backwater comment thread with you unwilling to show your work.

          • BBQman

            I keep showing you, you just refuse to see.

          • Robert

            You are offering an unsupported word salad.

          • evenminded

            Why is it that you and your friends think that the earths axis will increase in tilt by 0.7 degrees in 30 years when a) the tilt is currently decreasing, and b) it takes about 600 years for the earths axis to change in tilt by 0.7 degrees?

            Why physical equations have you used to make such a calculation?

          • Robert

            “except that magnetic pulls and pushing’s exerted by our gaseous planets Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus are causing our geographical Arctic pole to . . . . gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

            Sounds like cosy.com

            facepalm….

          • BBQman

            So you can’t rebutt my points, if I’m going to fast for you, let me know.

          • Robert

            Expound as you wish. Love reading crank physics….

          • BBQman

            Crank physics = MMCO2 as a climate driver

          • Robert
          • Robert

            mikefromwichita
            5 hours ago
            So WHY are any of these animals allowed into America?
            14 Reply

            Avatar
            BBQman mikefromwichita
            5 hours ago
            Because obumnuts is one of them.

          • BBQman

            Do you deny that Obama is a Muslim?

          • Robert

            1)Please post the best resources that informed your thinking.
            B) just pointing out that you seem to have a great range of areas you like to pontificate on ; none w any attribution.
            ♤) facepalm
            4) wow, just wow….

          • BBQman

            No Christian in the history of mankind has ever said what Obama does in this video.
            http://youtu.be/bMUgNg7aD8M

          • Robert

            That is a classic,
            Classic example of cherypicking, editing, ..?..

          • BBQman

            You hate the truth, go bury your head back in the sand.

          • Robert

            Claptrap since 09, yet….

            “A widely viewed video seems to show President Obama stating that he is a Muslim. It is false, and the product of dishonest editing.
            Although it is titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim,” the president in fact has admitted no such thing. The video edits and twists his actual words, sometimes turning what were denials into false confessions. For example, it edits out the words “I’m a Christian” from one quote and “my Christian faith” from another. It shows him quoting from the Quran, but snips out his quotes from the Bible and the Talmud.
            Although the video gives no citations and no dates, we have tracked down the full quotes from the various appearances. In the Analysis section that follows, we take the video section by section, comparing the edited quotes and graphics with the full reality of what Obama actually said.
            We doubt many will take this nasty bit of misrepresentation seriously. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting case study of malicious editing.”
            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

          • BBQman

            Over ruled, diatribe.

          • OWilson

            Yeah, we get it!

            It all depends on what “IS” is.

            Orwell’s Newspeak :)

          • Robert

            Perhaps reading the full article would have helped you make an informed comment.

          • Robert

            This has been shown to be claptrap since 09, yet….

            “A widely viewed video seems to show President Obama stating that he is a Muslim. It is false, and the product of dishonest editing.
            Although it is titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim,” the president in fact has admitted no such thing. The video edits and twists his actual words, sometimes turning what were denials into false confessions. For example, it edits out the words “I’m a Christian” from one quote and “my Christian faith” from another. It shows him quoting from the Quran, but snips out his quotes from the Bible and the Talmud.
            Although the video gives no citations and no dates, we have tracked down the full quotes from the various appearances. In the Analysis section that follows, we take the video section by section, comparing the edited quotes and graphics with the full reality of what Obama actually said.
            We doubt many will take this nasty bit of misrepresentation seriously. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting case study of malicious editing.”
            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

          • BBQman

            Spew all the diatribe you wish, but those were Obama’s own words, you are calling your leader a liar now.
            Never in the history of mankind, has a Christian EVER accidentally said “of my Muslim faith “, Never.

          • Robert

            “A widely viewed video seems to show President Obama stating that he is a Muslim. It is false, and the product of dishonest editing.
            Although it is titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim,” the president in fact has admitted no such thing. The video edits and twists his actual words, sometimes turning what were denials into false confessions. For example, it edits out the words “I’m a Christian” from one quote and “my Christian faith” from another. It shows him quoting from the Quran, but snips out his quotes from the Bible and the Talmud.
            Although the video gives no citations and no dates, we have tracked down the full quotes from the various appearances. In the Analysis section that follows, we take the video section by section, comparing the edited quotes and graphics with the full reality of what Obama actually said.
            We doubt many will take this nasty bit of misrepresentation seriously. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting case study of malicious editing.”
            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

          • BBQman

            You reply with pure diatribe.

          • jmac
          • BBQman

            I’m stealing this one.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Oh and now you see all you get from #facepalm jmac is #facepalm!

          • BBQman

            He is very talented, where can I buy one just like him, but with a few more verbal skills?

          • Woodfords Frog

            lol! Well, I’m off to do more constructive things with my time for the moment, but I did ask Little Bobby to explain how CO2 can drive climate in his own words. I won’t hold my breath. He has evaded before.

          • BBQman

            Have a good weekend!

          • Woodfords Frog

            Thanks! You too!

          • Woodfords Frog

            Five and dime store? lol! I just aged myself bigtime! Rather, the 99¢ store.

          • Robert

            Funny, using the word ‘diatribe’ when the best , and basically only, resource you’ve brought forward is a video of suspect origin that has been thoughtfully dispelled 7 years ago.

            And from someone who can’t support their claim about how Jupiter is going to shift our climate…..

          • BBQman

            Jupiter along with the other gaseous planets like Uranus, effect our orbital eccentricities, which effect how the northern hemisphere receives solar radiance

          • Robert

            “Website Evaluation

            Use the C.R.A.P. TEST to evaluate the credibility and usefulness of websites!
            Click through the slides below to see what each word means:”
            http://sb.ccsd.ws/webpages/KBaker1/website.cfm

          • BBQman

            I stand by my statement, no Christian has ever made a mistake like that, but it was not a mistake with Obama, when he said it, you could see the conviction in his face. Run and bury your head, because you can’t handle the truth, communists have the same mindset as you.

          • Robert

            This has been shown to be claptrap since 09, yet….

            “A widely viewed video seems to show President Obama stating that he is a Muslim. It is false, and the product of dishonest editing.
            Although it is titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim,” the president in fact has admitted no such thing. The video edits and twists his actual words, sometimes turning what were denials into false confessions. For example, it edits out the words “I’m a Christian” from one quote and “my Christian faith” from another. It shows him quoting from the Quran, but snips out his quotes from the Bible and the Talmud.
            Although the video gives no citations and no dates, we have tracked down the full quotes from the various appearances. In the Analysis section that follows, we take the video section by section, comparing the edited quotes and graphics with the full reality of what Obama actually said.
            We doubt many will take this nasty bit of misrepresentation seriously. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting case study of malicious editing.”
            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

          • BBQman

            I rest my case.

          • jmac
          • Woodfords Frog

            Yep… here he goes, little Bobby asking you to source your thinking!

          • BBQman

            There seems to be, a kind of group think Borg like atmosphere on this site with those who believe that man made co2 is a bad thing and actually effects our climate.

            I wonder how people who lived though severe weather events from 5,000 BC to 1880AD would have received what these folks had to say about climate drivers?

          • Woodfords Frog

            Yes, little drones! Why, maybe they would get along. They both have their faith to explain what they don’t understand!

          • Robert

            No need to fast for me, eat as you wish…
            “…going to fast..”

          • BBQman

            Weak!

          • jmac
          • BBQman

            Oh, that is so cute, can you do any other off topic tricks?

          • jmac
          • jmac
          • Robert

            You are spending your time better finding those than I am in trying to reason with a guy who thinks Obama is a muslim and that Jupiter is affecting, our climate.

          • BBQman

            LOL, you even do your own home movies!

          • jmac

            Most climate change deniers are at least a well-known joke. You look like a pure idiot compared to them.

          • BBQman

            Hear comes the childish communist name calling, check mate!

          • Woodfords Frog

            Little Bobby doesn’t care about what the science says… He just wants you to cite your critical thinking and facts. He’ll then post his “crap” standards, while pointing out typo’s. He contributes nothing to the discussion of science.

          • BBQman

            He’s a peach ain’t he.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Rotten peach!

          • BBQman

            LOL, your killing me Small.:)

          • Robert

            Here is bbqman’s “…critical thinking and facts. ”
            “The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

            Picking on the typos is just added fun, Certainly not the thrust of the discussion. Think of those barbs as the flake in your 99.

          • Robert

            Hmmm, a need to go diminutive… “Little Bobby “. So playgroundy. But not so adult or sciency.

          • Woodfords Frog

            “a need to go diminutive”….. because it’s fitting for you. Yet still not offensive. I’ve been called all sorts of foul things when alarmists get angry at facts I cite, but don’t find the need to specifically comment to the offender each time they commit the crime.

          • Robert

            So you think trying insults on me is OK because someone else did it to you?
            At what grade level does that work?

          • Woodfords Frog

            It’s a pet name… that’s not insulting. As I explained.

          • Robert

            So, how about bringing some ” facts I cite” supporting ” [t]he forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

          • Woodfords Frog

            Sorry, don’t know much about the earth’s magnetism and gravity. I do know that scientists are now realizing that earths magnetism can have significant bearing on climate change, and further study is needed. Earth’s magnetic field also has an influence on Cosmic-Rays. I have cited how the effects of cosmic-rays/clouds and/or earth’s magnetic field can effect weather before in our past conversations. You must of forgotten, ignored, or said they were too much work to read
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007606

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.html
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001471

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000769

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433811090027

            http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/9/2012/angeo-30-9-2012.html

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850212000559

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/3595/2012/acpd-12-3595-2012.html

            http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867

          • BBQman

            This is good information, thanks!

          • Woodfords Frog

            I know that changes in Earth’s magnetic field alters the amount of cosmic-rays entering our atmosphere, which in turn effects could formation. CERN Cloud currently conducts in lab experiments in this theory. They show cosmic rays may effect climate through clouds.
            They have several studies that show higher magnetic activity (which we were experiencing) which can result in fewer cosmic rays, thus less clouds formed resulting in more warming.
            http://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
            http://e360.yale.edu/feature/jasper_kirkby_cern_creates_cloud_in_lab_to_understand_climat_change/2601/
            http://home.cern/about/updates/2014/05/cern-experiment-sheds-new-light-cloud-formation
            http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/09/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation

            Though Jasper Kirkby is very careful in reporting on such studies as not to offend AGW theories! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

          • BBQman

            Thanks, I will read.

          • Robert

            You would need to take the numbers in those papers and do an analysis of their relative strength to bbqman’s magnetism theory. Though , first he needs to bring forward his work.
            And then compare his 99.999x % attributed power and compare it to your synthesized numbers.
            And then offer up a reasonable explanation of why everyone else in the field agree pretty closely on a range based on fossil derived CO2.

            OR
            just tell us why we should believe you two -who basically can’t offer up a cogent argument- rather than what 97 +% of the papers say.

          • Woodfords Frog

            ” rather than what 97 +% of the papers say”…. Oh, so your scientific method is by consensus then?

            “You would need to take the numbers in those papers and do an analysis of their relative strength to bbqman’s magnetism theory” …… no I wouldn’t. I can sum it up in one simple sentence. Without our geomagnetic field and gravity we would loose our atmosphere and water which would affect climate 99.999%. (or whatever % BBQ stated)

            More evidence of geomagnetic effects on climate though GCR connections with cloud formation.
            Cnossen et al 2014
            Dr. Ingrid Cnossen shows that changes in the Earth’s magnetic field can match or cause larger changes than CO2, like warming of the upper atmosphere of up to 12 degrees over Antarctica.

          • Robert

            You would need to take the numbers in those papers and do an analysis of their relative strength to bbqman’s magnetism theory. Though , first he needs to bring forward his work.
            And then compare his 99.999x % attributed power and compare it to your synthesized numbers.
            And then offer up a reasonable explanation of why everyone else in the field agree pretty closely on a range based on fossil derived CO2.

            OR
            just tell us why we should believe you two -who basically can’t offer up a cogent argument- rather than what 97 +% of the papers say.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Gee Bobby, can’t read what I responded the first time. Here it is again:
            “No I wouldn’t. I can sum it up in one simple sentence. Without our
            geomagnetic field and gravity we would loose our atmosphere and water
            which would affect climate 99.999%. (or whatever % BBQ stated)”

            You confirmed a second time your scientific method is by consensus.

          • Robert

            So, how about bringing some ” facts I cite” supporting ” [t]he forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”

          • Woodfords Frog

            Why would you ask me to cite a
            statement someone else made?

          • Robert

            Because you jumped in with your attempts at insulting in support of an uninformed person claiming some gaseous planets’ magnatism (or something, it is sorta confusing) was changing our climate. You bring sources, so it seemed fair for you to ask you to help him.

          • Woodfords Frog

            No. I did not. I offered an observation to BBQman about your behavior here on these threads.

            Little Bobby doesn’t care about what the science says… He just wants
            you to cite your critical thinking and facts. He’ll then post his “crap”
            standards, while pointing out typo’s. He contributes nothing to the
            discussion of science.

            So, am I wrong, that you don’t post citations about c.r.a.p. and such????
            http://disq.us/p/19a5bcc
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2737910291

            And that still doesn’t explain why you would ask me to cite evidence on a statement
            that I did not make. I have already mentioned to you I do not know much
            about earths geomagnetic field. So, why would you ask me to do such a thing?

            Well, regardless, I did answer BBQman’s statement of how the forces of gravity and magnetism make up 99.999% of all climate drivers for you, didn’t I? Do you need citations for that? What would happen if earth lost it’s geomagnetic field and gravity? I’m sure you can google that information on your own. Seeing as it was never my statement to provide such evidence to support it in the first place.

          • Robert

            Yup, I link to learning resources about how to evaluate information sources. And usually those learning resources are geared to the average 11 yr old . As a somewhat snide way of pointing out :

            1) that most denialists don’t have a firm grasp on the quality of ‘information’ they cite.

            2) that a modicum of critical thinking shows that what passes for a denialist argument is generally based on terciary sources w dubious analysis or are talking points formated by the various front groups – see Brulle ( http://drexel.edu/now/experts/Overview/brulle-robert/ ) and Mayer’s Dark Money .

            3) that denialists who can’t or won’t cite souces are performing – in public – with a level of intellectual rigor and or intellectual honesty that would not be given a passing grade by the teachers of their kids or grandkids.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Like I told you before…. you’re pointless. You can’t discuss the science. That’s why you refuse to explain in your own words how CO2 is supposed to drive climate. Instead you cite “c.r.a.p” standards while ignoring countless cites I offered along with my statements.

          • Robert

            C.R.A.A.P is a simple system to evaluate the resources being used. Especially handy to :
            1- help understand the quality and or bias of a resource
            2- help learners understand that that variability is important to check for before learning about a new topic.

            Evaluation Criteria
            C urrency: The timeliness of the information.
             When was the information published or posted?
             Has the information been revised or updated?
             Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
            Are the links functional?

            R elevance: The importance of the information for your needs.
             Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
             Who is the intended audience?
             Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
             Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
             Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?

            A uthority: The source of the information.
             Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
             What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations?
             Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
             Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
            Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source? examples: .com .edu .gov .org .net

            A ccuracy: The reliability, truthfulness and correctness of the content.
             Where does the information come from?
             Is the information supported by evidence?
             Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
             Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
             Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
             Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?

            P urpose: The reason the information exists.
             What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?  Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
             Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
             Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
             Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?

            https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf

          • Woodfords Frog

            lol! And Little Bobby post stuff about “c.r.a.p.” again, instead of engaging in a discussion related to the science/subject. Pointless!

          • Robert

            Try it. 11 Yr olds know.it works..

          • BBQman

            Why do you keep reposting the same stuff all the time, have you run out of original thoughts?

          • Robert

            Because your denialist claims are rw funded.

          • BBQman

            If that’s true, I wish the check would get here.

          • Robert

            I’m sure your free work is appreciated.

          • Woodfords Frog

            He lacks any original thoughts.

          • BBQman

            You would think these guys would show just a little gratitude for our pointing out the flaws in their data collection methods and whatnot, they are like ungrateful spoiled children.

            I know on my jobs, when someone points out a mistake, it usually saves me money and time and I am very grateful.

          • Robert

            Here’s a more comprehensive list of evaluation points:
            http://hersheyhslib-amackley.weebly.com/resource-evaluation.html
            But it is high school, rather than the Middle school level I usually offer up

            Of course, when neither of you can bring any science resources supporting how “[t]he forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2737813001

          • Gallilao

            I tell you BBQ, Dale and CB are from the same church group and you can’t reason with religious zealots.

          • BBQman

            I know, they probably meet in the forest on weekends for tree hugging events!

          • BBQman

            Now we can add Robert to the list of climate driver deniers!

          • Maia

            All this may be so, because EVERYTHING varies. But when you add the melting ice to the other dozens of indicators that human fossil fuel burning has gone over the edge into global negative effects such as pollution of water (fracking), pollution of air (smog, particulates from coal), pollution of soil and food and thus bodies (via petrochemicals of all kinds), carbon release due to ice melt, ocean accidification harming corals, phytoplankton, dissolving ocean-creature’s shells, and more….
            you get the BIG picture, not the pinpoint picture which, as I said, does vary. It’s the overall (and I have not listed them all!) additive and synergistics effects that are pointing to a very strong message: we have to cut( by 2/3 or more) burning fossil fuels
            NOW, by deincentivizing those fuels: in the monetary system,via taxing, fines, and suits.
            Global warming is one part of the whole FF driven list of disasters. And underneath that is a wildfire of human greed and tragic lack of concern for the health and well-being of the whole planet.

          • BBQman

            I agree that some people create pollution, and they should be stopped and punished. I do not agree that Man Made CO2 is a climate driver, we only increase the atmospheric levels by around 0.08 ppm a year more then each previous year.

          • Dale Anderson

            I didn’t suggest we would prefer an atmospheric CO2 level of 250ppm Wako… I said plants did fine with an atmospheric CO2 level of 250ppm and 270 to 300ppm would be just fine.
            I was replying to the fool who says CO2 the more the better. Idiotic.

          • BBQman

            That’s rich, did you know that commercial green houses strive for CO2 levels up to 1,500 ppm by using CO2 generators. Office buildings are designed not to exceed 1,000 ppm of CO2 with factory installed makeup air dampers.

            I would hate to be one of your plants…

          • Dale Anderson

            Well in the 1800s and prior for the previous 800,000 plus years the tropical forests around the globe were very healthy with an atmospheric CO2 level of 280ppm…
            A squirrel could travel from the east coast of North America to the west coast and never touch the ground…
            In the Tucson AZ biosphere plants thrived with an atmospheric CO2 level of 290ppm.
            Your contention that atmospheric CO2 levels above 300ppm is desirable for plant life is childish nonsense.
            In a prior post you acknowledged that a low level of atmospheric CO2 would cause a cooler planet so at least you agree atmospheric CO2 does control the planet’s surface temperature…. Keep learning.

          • Dale Anderson

            (IF if if if if………….”)…. What IF’s are you referring to?

            Btw; are you denying what is written in this article about the rapid melting of Greenland’s ice?

          • Gallilao

            If you had anything intelligent say, I would.

          • CB

            “God bless CO2, the more the better!”

            Stick your head in a plastic bag and prove it!

            Make sure you tie it around your neck tightly!

            “Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

          • Gallilao

            What’s the matter CB? All your fear mongering no working?
            There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas, so Come On CO2!

        • CB

          Methane is a huge problem:

          “Global Warming Feedback Loop Caused by Methane, Scientists Say”

          news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060829-methane-warming.html

          … and Mr. Lao is profoundly mentally disordered, moreso than your average Climate Denier… but I must give him credit for bringing me this reference:

          “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

          http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          I had no idea Ms. Foote existed until then. It goes to show you can learn something from absolutely anyone! Welcome back, BTW.

          • Dale Anderson

            O-o.. Just below your reply to me it says (“One other person is typing”)…. LOL….. Thank you for the Welcome back..

          • CB

            “This clown is one of the socks using the name One other person is typing…”

            At times, I think Mr. Lao is actually Paul Merrifield of MeMeMine fame! Some of the phrasing is quite similar.

            I do not think he is OOPIT. That guy is much brighter (and much more dishonest).

            No, Gallilao is your standard low-wattage crazy person.

            “Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, and 105 times more potent on a 20-year timescale”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130610.html

          • Dale Anderson

            Hi CB… Here is what transpired.. You posted your reply and in very small print just below your post it stated, > Another Person Is Typing. A few seconds later Gallileo’s reply comment posted, none by APIT.
            It is well established that several different people use the APIT name. No one person can post comments 24 hours a day, almost every day. Some of them are smarter than others, none are intelligent or honest… 😉

          • Gallilao

            There is no greenhouse effect CB. You are just a fear mongering shill.

          • Gallilao

            So tell us CB, what huge problem do you think Methane is causing and how does that relate to your religious beliefs?

        • OWilson

          I’m still trying to figure how anyone can “create doubt” about “Settled Science”.

          How much doubt would I create if I said jump out of the window and you’ll fall upwards? :)

          There is skepticism about the projections of doom and gloom. We have had hundreds of doomsday predictions, from Famine, Population Bombs, Envoronmental disasters, Great Extinction Events and at least for major Climate Tipping Points in the last 25 years, or so.

          Without skepticism, folks would just max out their credit cards, (like your government is doing) and pray to Al Gore and the U.N. to deliver them from the evil.

          Without skepticism, their is no Science.

          Without toleration and free exchange of views, their is only totalitarianism.

          • Dale Anderson

            If you cannot comprehend that people such as Anthony Watts and those who write his lies about the AGW issue cannot cause doubt about the subject in the minds of people who are not well educated on the subject then you are not very intelligent.
            The fossil fuel industry has paid out millions to public relation firms’ to hire writers to write lies about settled science. Most people are not scientists, especially climatologist scientists so it is not difficult for a writer to write lies about how our atmosphere works and create doubt about AGW in the minds of millions.
            A lie can circle the globe in an hour the computer age, it can take years for the truth ot be recognized. Many still say Al Gore’s film is a hoax for example and Dr. Wadhams and Shakova are not sane and so on.
            You are a perfect example of those who create doubt about the most important issue humanity has ever faced…. You are a despicable liar and unfit to be termed a member of the human race. A brown rat’s fleas should ganrner more respect than you should be awarded.

          • OWilson

            Why does a free and open exchange of views frighten you dogmatists so much?

            ONLY with a free and open exchange of views can the truth ever emerge.

            The rest is dogma, and has been responsible for killing more people than the weather can ever do. :)

          • Gallilao

            So,… that was a rhetorical question then?

          • Dale Anderson

            LOL… The garbage you post does not frighten me in any manner.

          • Gallilao

            We get it, you’re not afraid of the truth or a free and open exchange of views. That doesn’t scare you.

            Your mind is made up and you’re Not, going to be confused with the facts! And that is,…. as they say,…… that! >>;);)

          • Dale Anderson

            I’m not going to be confused with facts you say…. You mean like the “facts” you write, such as, {atmospheric CO2 has no impact on our climate}.
            You should not use big words like (facts) that you do not understand.

          • Gallilao

            There, there, don’t be afraid! I keep telling you guys not to tell yourselves scary stories. You’re only scaring yourself.

            I get it!…

            You guys thought you were going to scare a bunch of people and when everything fell apart, you and your ilk, would come to the rescue and be their spiritual and physical salvation and you would be the benign, rulers of those lost sheep!

            Tat-Ta-Dahh!…………………

            Problem is……….. everything’s just fine!…..

            Oouch!!

          • Dale Anderson

            More “FACTS” from the village idiot Gabbelguts Gallilio AKA One other person is typing.

          • Gallilao

            Ooohh, that gets me right where it hurts! >>;);)
            Please ,please Stop!…. You’re killing me!… ;( ;(.. ;);)…….

          • Dale Anderson

            You wrote, > (“You’re killing me!… “)…. Good idea.

          • Gallilao

            I thought you’d like that. 😉
            Go ahead, don’t stop your fear mongering now. We are all enjoy a good laugh!

          • jmac

            #facepalm

          • Robert

            Well said! This needs to be said and resaid on these venues.

          • Gallilao

            Heyyyy!……… What’s the Big Idea?

            You tryin’ t’ have a rational discussion or some such?

            You have an objective and rational mind, could be fun.

          • Mike Richardson

            You’re still exchanging your ideas, right? We’re just free to exchange ours, and point out the errors in your reasoning. Isn’t free speech great? 😉

          • OWilson

            You lie so easily, Mike.

            You agree with those here who denigrate opposing opinion, with the worst kinds of lies and name calling. Your record is public!

            Your personal choice for President is committed to “Bringing climate deniers to justice”

            That includes me.

            That’s why I have far, far more respect for a true Marxist, than fellow travelers like you who Lenin referred to as the “useful idiots”.

          • Mike Richardson

            Wilson, you’ve demonstrated little respect for anyone else who disagrees with you, so why does it surprise you that you get little in return? No, pointing out that you are a liar is like stating the sky is blue, but true to form, you project on others your own deplorable behavior. And, when losing, you cry and play victim. That’s why have far more respect for true conservatives that take responsibility for their own actions, even occasionally own up to mistakes, and don’t attack others while playing martyr when called on it. And I couldn’t give two flips if you know who I am, since I don’t post anonymously.

          • OWilson

            You called me a liar?

            Prove it!

          • Mike Richardson

            Where to start? “Global Warming is a scam,” “Arctic sea ice is not in decline,” and pretty much all of your political rants. I know you can write off some of that as being entitled to you own opinion, but when those opinions are based on gross distortions of facts, then they’re pretty dishonest as well. Hey, I’m just returning the favor, since you’re so quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying. You can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it, can you?

          • OWilson

            Lame :)

        • BBQman

          Why did you say that the CH4 levels are at 1,900 ppb, when you could have said that the CH4 levels are at 1.9 ppm. Is that another example of embellishing and flowery words that are supposed to get people to believe your hyperventilating?

          • Dale Anderson

            Thank you for displaying your utter ignorance… NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, CDIAC scientists measure CH4 in Parts Per Billion, (ppb), … Read the articles I posted links for and attempt to understand what they say.

          • BBQman

            I could care less what NOAA, NASA or those other feather nesters do, it is still 1.9 ppm, totally insignificant.

          • Dale Anderson

            Again you prove that you have no idea of what you are babbling about. An atmospheric CH4 level of 1900ppb and steadily rising is very dangerous for life on Earth….
            Your type of ignorance is not bliss.. Ignorance is acceptable unless a person refuses to correct it and tries to discuss an issue they are totally ignorant about and you refuse to correct your ignorance..

          • Bart_R

            Way to get lost in the tone trolling weeds.

            Quibble on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Dale Anderson

            Why do you say the atmospheric CH4 level is at 1.9ppm when you could have said they are at 1,900ppb like all of the scientific community states it?

          • BBQman

            For the same reason I don’t fill up my truck with ounces of gasoline instead of gallons, for the same reason I would say 7/8th of an inch instead of 6,993/7,992th of an inch, please stop being obtuse.

          • Dale Anderson

            Ha haa haa….. Gasoline doesn’t come in parts per billion goofy.

          • CB

            “Gasoline doesn’t come in parts per billion goofy.”

            It does not!

            …and Barbie is goofy.

            I don’t see the point in quibbling over units. A measurement is a measurement is a measurement… The measurement you cited was correct.

            “The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since preindustrial times, reaching approximately 1,800 ppb in recent years”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html

    • Gallilao

      Grow up and quit telling yourself scary stories!
      You have nothing to fear but your ignorance.

    • BBQman

      The premise of your statement is false, sea ice was within the same boundaries during the years 1816 & 1817, it has melted before and it will melt again, CO2 is not a climate driver.

      • CB

        “The premise of your statement is false, sea ice was within the same boundaries during the years 1816 & 1817”

        Not talking about sea ice, sweet pea.

        Talking about all ice.

        If you understand that each and every previous time CO₂ went so high, complete polar meltdown followed, how likely is it there will be a different outcome this time around?

        “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

        earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

        • BBQman

          Tell me something, in your opinion, what is the best way for us to determine what the atmospheric CO2 levels were for the last 800 thousand years, ice cores correct?

          • CB

            “in your opinion, what is the best way for us to determine what the atmospheric CO2 levels were for the last 800 thousand years, ice cores correct?”

            Yuuup. Those cores were drilled all the way to the bottom, and represent some of the oldest ice on Earth.

            If polar ice sheets can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t the polar ice sheets record a single instant of CO₂ so high?

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

          • BBQman

            Then take all those ice core results and multiple them x 2.137 to see what the true CO2 values are that will make up for the missing CO2 from the cores, due to the fact that 60% of the earths global jet stream never mixes with the rest of the jet stream within 30 degrees of either pole, and what does enter is subjected to temperature changes that cause degradation to the CO2 in the atmosphere before it has a chance to be trapped in the water vapor, and that is true of our surface winds all the way to about 34 miles up.

            At this point you will figure out that atmospheric CO2 levels are over twice as high historically as everyone on your side believes today.

          • CB

            “take all those ice core results and multiple them x 2.137”

            You have given me precisely zero reason to do such a thing, and in fact every reason not to!

            Define the word “credibility”, Barbie.

            What do you think that word means?

            “The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the primary driver of recent climate change – has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.”

            climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes

          • BBQman

            Study the jet stream, why do you have to be so lazy.

            As I have already told you, during the times at night only, that sampling is being gathered at Mauna Loa, when the atmospheric temperature is lower then the surface of the ocean, the convection is increased, thus bringing up to the sensors a corrupting unwanted source of CO2, thus corrupting the samples with non-atmospheric contamination.

            You have been told this already, am I going a little to fast for you sweetie?

          • Gallilao

            Try to understand BBQ, CB doesn’t care about the truth or the facts, she just wants to try to scar people because she is recruiting for a End Times, Doomsday Cult. She doesn’t care if it is true or not, just as long as it sounds scary!

          • BBQman

            Oh, so CB is a sales person in the cap and trade industry for carbon credits to control our money….I mean pollutants.

          • Gallilao

            I doubt that she cares about any of this stuff. It seems she is either, irrationally fear mongering or trying to make sure she can always get enough guns. I don’t know, what do you think?

          • BBQman

            I don’t know, her claim to fame seems to be some correlation between melting ice sheets and CO2 levels. I have given her evidence that the same thing happened in 1816 and 1817, I think she does a lot of cut and paste, has she ever mentioned to you about that footie women from the 19th century who had no idea what she was doing with glass tubes and unknown quantities of CO2 in her backyard.

          • Gallilao

            Yes, as I said, she doesn’t care if it has anything to do with facts, she just makes things up and thinks everyone else is as ignorant as she is, so no one will know. She doesn’t care what it is, if she thinks it will scar people, she cuts and pastes. She is a religious nut, scrounging around for other filberts. I’m sure she thinks she’s going to be High Priestess.

          • Gallilao

            Oh and Eunice Foote, who demonstrated that CO2 absorbs solar radiation.

          • BBQman

            I wonder how old Eunice knew what her CO2 levels were back then, and how much water vapor did she allow in those samples as well, CB swears by her!

          • Gallilao

            CB doesn’t know anything about anything, she wants to scare people.

          • CB

            “CB doesn’t know anything about anything”

            You’re talking about someone very close to you Mr. Lao!

            Who is the know-nothing you’re talking about?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • CB

            “Study the jet stream”

            When I ask you to define credibility and you say “study the jet stream”, that loses you credibility.

            It indicates to people that you are not someone who should be taken seriously.

            Was that your intention?

            Do you want people to think you’re a joke?

            “Mauna Loa Observatory is located on the Island of Hawaii at an elevation of 3397 m on the northern flank of Mauna Loa volcano at 200 north. Established in 1957, Mauna Loa Observatory has grown to become the premier long-term atmospheric monitoring facility on earth and is the site where the ever-increasing concentrations of global atmospheric carbon dioxide were determined. The observatory consists of 10 buildings from which up to 250 different atmospheric parameters are measured by a complement of 12 NOAA/ESRL and other agency scientists and engineers.”

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/summary.html

          • BBQman

            You should advise them to raise the sensors up to about 4,850 meters and do not count any sampling when the atmosphere is cooler then the oceans surface temperature.

          • Robert

            Amazing that BBQ thinks his expertise is so obvious that he need not link to any evidence supporting his claims…..

            But then again…https://disqus.com/home/discussion/americanthinker/obama_brings_massive_carbon_footprint_for_his_visit_to_yosemite_to_hector_us_over_global_warming/#comment-2743341650

          • Gallilao

            Are you a member of the coven too?

          • Robert

            I guess in some world there is some meaning in your question.

          • Gallilao

            Oh…… the Dumb Treartment eh!

            Well that’s OK, it suites you!

          • Robert

            Improving your orthography would make attempted insults less humorous.

            “Dumb Treartment eh!
            Well that’s OK, it suites you!”

          • Gallilao

            So what, CO2 has been as high as 2800 ppm and everything was just fine, so who cares?

            Now don’t stay up late telling yourself those scary stories, you know they only make you wet the bed.

          • Robert

            Maybe it has something to do with the “60%”, or the elevation. Or something else. Who knows? No evidence, no citations, we’re just supposed to believe the internet comentor who also claim expertise in bbq

          • BBQman

            Please study our jet stream, it’s not that hard to do.

          • Robert

            Said wo evidence.
            Something the average 11 year old would know wouldn’t pass muster as basic scholarship – yet here we are, on a ostensibly adult board, being shown that denialists think they don’t nèd to meet that basic level of intellectual rigor.

          • BBQman

            If only you would provide me with the all important keystone, the answer I seek, what is the optimum average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 level supposed to be for a lush healthy earth, how could you not know the answer, being that you know what it should not be, 107 days to go.

          • Robert

            The answer you are seeking is not grounded in the scientific debate. It is, however, a too clever by half denialist bit of rhetorical flourish.

            Just like your insistence – brought forward wo a shred of supporting research – that there is a story hidden somewhere in the jetstreams.

          • BBQman

            Study jet streams and you will see that less then 40% of the atmospheric winds never cross the 30 degree latitude marks before the poles, let me know if you have any meat smoking questions as well, I’m here to help and barbecuing is my passion.

          • Robert

            So, you have such a level of expertise that you don’t think you need to bring a shred of evidence forward that supports your cĺaims…….
            /s

          • BBQman

            I only know what I know.

          • Robert

            For those wondering about the cryptic “…107 days to go.”
            Start digging your bunker /s

            ” We are currently on track to remain normal as far as the climate is concerned, except that magnetic pulls and pushing’s exerted by our gaseous planets Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus are causing our geographical Arctic pole to shift from the current tilt of 23.4 degree angle from the sun to 24.1 degrees over the next 30 plus years, in effect, our ice caps will increase back to the width at the outer limits of known boundaries. The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2737813001

            “But on, or very close to October 7th of this year, expect higher earthquake activity as a result of Ceres’s pull and interference with the magnetic confluence between earth and Uranus, It will not be good from Mexico City to California as our tectonic plates centrifugal forces are shocked into opposing directions, imho.
            “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2738115897

          • BBQman

            You want a good smoked chicken recipe?

          • Robert

            After a quick perusal of all the areas you pontificate on wo any evidence -including evidence of any expertise – no.
            But still waiting for a citation of what informed your thinking about :

            ” We are currently on track to remain normal as far as the climate is concerned, except that magnetic pulls and pushing’s exerted by our gaseous planets Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus are causing our geographical Arctic pole to shift from the current tilt of 23.4 degree angle from the sun to 24.1 degrees over the next 30 plus years, in effect, our ice caps will increase back to the width at the outer limits of known boundaries. The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2737813001

            “But on, or very close to October 7th of this year, expect higher earthquake activity as a result of Ceres’s pull and interference with the magnetic confluence between earth and Uranus, It will not be good from Mexico City to California as our tectonic plates centrifugal forces are shocked into opposing directions, imho.
            “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2738115897

          • jmac

            lol

          • BBQman

            Just in case you change your mind, the day before cooking, take your free range chicken and split the backbone and open up chicken like a book, then for about 12 hours soak in an iced sea salt brim, salty like the sea, don’t over do it with salt, after the 12 hours, remove, pat dry, rub on a little olive oil, shake on some lemon pepper and brown sugar, put on pit, skin side up, never wrap in foil, that would cause the nature gelatin to wick out, smoke for about 3 hours at 225 or 250f, it’s ready to pull off pit when a leg gets lose. Do not open the pit doors for a peak at least for the first 2 hours, your internal meat temp measured in the leg/thigh joint should be around 160f, do not over cook cause that will dry out meat and apple wood is a mild smoke which works well.

            Have you looked at the mechanics of our jet stream yet?

          • Robert

            Thanks for the rather uninspired recipe

          • Soosoos

            Oh my goodness. He’s a lunatic.

          • BBQman

            I see that you are a climate driver denier, I will do my best to bring you along, but after reading your profile, I’m afraid we will have to proceed with baby steps while you catch up.:)

          • Soosoos

            It’s cute that you have many pets to upvote your non-physical pseudoscientific bullshit.

            What else do you believe in? Homeopathy? Creationism?

          • BBQman

            I don’t understand you now, I upvote you.

            I believe in God and Jesus as my savior, what do you believe, do you believe that there is a all knowing power that creates all?

          • Soosoos

            No, I do not believe in God. The concept is faintly ridiculous: if there was a divine creator, His/Her/Its role ended at the moment of the Big Bang.

          • BBQman

            God gave you the agency to not believe in Him if you so choose, good luck with all that..

          • Soosoos

            I think I’ll do just fine, thanks.

            Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?

          • BBQman

            I believe that God hopes we evolve, so in that vein, yes I believe in Evolution as a continuation of our growth and development.

          • Soosoos

            But doesn’t the Bible claim we were created in his image? That’s clearly not true. We evolved from lower organisms.

            Anyway, this really isn’t the place for a tedious discussion on religion. You’re welcome to your views, and I am welcome to mine. Let’s leave it at that!

          • BBQman

            The Bible needs to be taken as a whole for proper understanding, it is a wonderful story of past events and a moral guidance vehicle, BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

          • BBQman

            Just what part of my observations do you find untrue?

          • Robert

            I’m pointing out that you made multiple assertions. No supporting evidence.

            So, tell us how you know :

            ♤ “multiple them x 2.137″

            ● ” CO2 levels are over twice as high historically ”

            ⊙ “missing CO2 from the cores, ”

            ▪ “cause degradation to the CO2″

            ◇ and, of course, anything that was published in some sort of anything but some blog somewhere that says there is some science behind your earthquake scenerio:

            ” We are currently on track to remain normal as far as the climate is concerned, except that magnetic pulls and pushing’s exerted by our gaseous planets Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus are causing our geographical Arctic pole to shift from the current tilt of 23.4 degree angle from the sun to 24.1 degrees over the next 30 plus years, in effect, our ice caps will increase back to the width at the outer limits of known boundaries. The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2737813001

            “But on, or very close to October 7th of this year, expect higher earthquake activity as a result of Ceres’s pull and interference with the magnetic confluence between earth and Uranus, It will not be good from Mexico City to California as our tectonic plates centrifugal forces are shocked into opposing directions, imho.
            “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/surface_melting_of_snow_and_ice_in_greenland_explodes_as_temperatures_soar_to_record_levels/#comment-2738115897

          • BBQman

            Answer my questions, then we can move forward.

          • Robert

            So, tell us how you know :

            ♤ “multiple them x 2.137″

            ● ” CO2 levels are over twice as high historically ”

            ⊙ “missing CO2 from the cores, ”

            ▪ “cause degradation to the CO2”

          • Soosoos

            “The forces of gravity and magnetism in conjunction with our gaseous planets make up 99.999999% of all climate drivers”

            Lol. I’m still laughing at this pseudoscientific bullshit.

          • Soosoos

            “Then take all those ice core results and multiple them x 2.137 to see what the true CO2 values are that will make up for the missing CO2 from the cores”

            Lol. You ignoramus. CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, it varies by only a few percent across the globe.

          • BBQman

            If you would take time to really study the jet stream, you would see that only around 40% of the middle 2/3 of our atmosphere enters the polar regions to be captured in the ice cores.

          • Pumpkin Pie

            I enjoy your posts bro :)

          • BBQman

            Thank you, but I don’t think the Settled science guys do.:)

          • Soosoos

            No, we tend to prefer robust science over evidence-free pontificating.

          • BBQman

            Climate Science needs a foundation, tell me what the optimum average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth according to the 97% concurring settled science guys. Those 97% seem to know what it should not be, so what should our temperature and CO2 levels be?

          • Soosoos

            Anyone who demands what an ‘optimal’ temperature and pCO2 is not worth engaging.

            But as a simple answer, how about the temperature and pCO2 of the Holocene that allowed human civilisation to develop and flourish?

          • BBQman

            It’s such an easy question, please answer it. I already know the answer, I just need to see if you are an honest person by your answer, this is not going well for you right now, your credibility is in danger of being lost.

            What is the optimum average Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels for a lush healthy earth?

            And I know that I’m probably pushing my luck here……..but was there any particular year in earths history when this optimum event happened?

          • van ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

            Great posts, BBQman! You are seriously educating me. 👍

          • BBQman

            I am glad you enjoy them, tell a friend!!

          • Soosoos

            Some gentle, well-meaning advice: look to scientists and textbooks for education, not someone who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. Even if what he claims is comforting, it does not make it correct.

          • Robert

            Well said! Easy to note that those making claims that are dispelled in basic science texts aren’t briNing forward supporting evidence.

          • ROO2

            We love your idiocy. You do realise that Scripps have been measuring CO2 at the South Pole since the 50s? Obviously not.

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/South_Pole_CO2.jpg

            I’d stick to flipping burgers BBQman, this science stuff is way out of your league.

          • BBQman

            NASA has measured sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide and determined that MMCO2 contributed only 3.57% of the total CO2 in our atmosphere. If we stopped using fossil fuel and reverted back to the Stone Age, atmospheric CO2 would rise annually by 1.72 ppm rather than 1.74 ppm, “It’s beyond mans control.”

            The most abundant green house gas is water vapor, in the first 30′ above the surface, 80% of reflected solar energy is absorbed by water vapor. CO2 absorbs only 0.08% – 1/1000th of the effect of water.

          • ROO2

            Good grief, you really are quire spectacularly dim. Human emissions of carbon are occurring at a rate twice that of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, that alone tells what is causing the rise in atmospheric concentrations. Then there are many other lines of evidence including equally reducing atmospheric oxygen concentrations that shows that the source is from combustion. Isotope ratio changes that tell is the source is old carbon from fossil fuels.

            This is settled science.

            The most abundant green house gas is water vapor

            Which exists as a result of the CO2 in the atmosphere and increases in concentration as a feedback to warming caused by CO2.

            Do at least try to better your poor education, there’s a good chap.

          • BBQman

            You can not just declare the “theory” of CO2 as a climate driver or any other theories as settled science, that is not science.

            It would be an improvement to earths chlorophyll production if our atmospheric levels of CO2 came up to 500 to 600ppm, again, 96.47% of all atmospheric CO2 is a byproduct of a warming planet, not the cause of the warming.

            Please learn to put things in the proper sequence from now on, thank you.

          • Soosoos

            More silliness.
            CO2 fertilisation is not free: it comes with climate change! People far smarter than you have actually bothered to look at this in more detail and the consensus is that yields or at least nutritional content of many crops will decrease.

            CO2 is the proximate cause of modern warming. It’s physics, of which you appear to be curiously ignorant.

          • BBQman

            Did you know that commercial greenhouses buy CO2 generators that can produce up to 1,500 ppm of CO2 to help with plant production?

            We have much work to do, you are a certified anvil head, but I believe there is hope for you.

          • Soosoos

            Good heavens.

            Did you know that commercial greenhouses are sealed against climate change? That fertilisers and water availability are carefully controlled? And pests are absent.
            They are not the real world. CO2 fertilisation in the real world comes with climate change, which for many crops is very likely to more than offset any enhancement of photosynthesis.

          • BBQman

            Also, for at least the last 50 years commercial roof top units (RTUs) for building HVAC have come with factory make up air dampers that help keep CO2 levels below 1,000ppm.

          • ROO2

            The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is solely due to man.

            That is settled science.

            Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations results in global warming.

            That is settled science.

            Do try at least to get a grip on reality in your bizarre science free void.

          • BBQman

            No, magnetism is the primary climate driver, CO2 is only a byproduct of a secondary climate driver.

          • ROO2

            magnetism is the primary climate driver

            Your evidence free assertions are quite tiresome. But hey, you claim something that has been overlooked by the body of scientific opinion for the last 200 years. Has Nature accepted your paper yet?

          • BBQman

            I am here to educate people like you, awards and accolades are not necessary.

            When will you be answering my original question about optimum temperature and CO2 levels for a lush healthy earth?

          • ROO2

            I am here to educate people like you

            All you have taught me is that you are a lunatic and crank, spouting nonsense, none of which is backed up by any science.

          • TempusProTem

            Exactly ‘BBQ’. It is no coincidence(clue ~for narrow-minded ‘climatologist’ 97% community) for actual scientists, that the reduction of the outer Magnetosphere is a primary cause for the increasing anomalies in Climate Change near Earth. Far more pressing than modification of activity by humans or animal husbandry practices. CO2, of course is a very friendly gas and instrumental in our breathable atmosphere. I would correct you slightly ‘BBQ’… by my lights, CO2 is a tertiary climate driver below the force of our inner-core engine of the Earth itself with the primary climate driver being the Sun within our Solar System. At the current rate(it of course can change from events) of reduction of the ‘magnetic field’… it will diminish to perceived catastrophic levels in approximately one thousand years and counting. And as added dig ‘climatologist’s are the least equipped ‘scientists’ to change anything that aids life. Followers of Cook and Mann… Ppffft. What say you as to my impudence?

          • BBQman

            You make excellent points, today’s scientists need to focus on the sequence of climate drivers, figure that out, then just maybe we could predict climate patterns and make the necessary adjustments to how we live or where we might grow our crops years in advance, but I believe the gaseous planets are one of the cogs in the wheel.

          • ROO2

            today’s scientists need to focus on the sequence of climate drivers, figure that out

            Done.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2010/Fig10-06.jpg

          • BBQman

            Please look me up when you are finally ready to evolve.

          • ROO2

            So you accept the theory of evolution.

            It’s a start at least.

            So, it’s just basic physics and chemistry that your are evidently really struggling with.

          • BBQman

            No, I don’t accept the theory of evolution, I accept my theory of evolution, big difference.

          • ROO2

            Don’t tell me. Is it caused by the magnetism of celestial bodies?

            I’d stick to your colouring in pens and dot-to-dot if I were you.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Careful, I mentioned his affinity for playing with felt tips and he blocked me. 😉

          • ROO2

            Crayons seems far more likely.

          • Soosoos

            CO2 absorbs only 0.08% – 1/1000th of the effect of water.

            Wrong. The direct contribution of CO2 to the Earth’s total greenhouse effect is in fact ~20%. So you’re only out by 250-fold. Oh dear.
            And humans are responsible for >40% of atmospheric CO2, not 3.57%. Better this time: you’re only out by one order of magnitude (lol).

            Moreover, the existence of water vapour depends upon the GHE scaffold provided by CO2! If you were to remove all CO2, the atmosphere would cool, causing water vapour to rapidly drop (it’s a condensing greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifetime of just days. You have rain, right?). The earth would cool further, water vapour content would crash even further (to ~10% of present values) and the Earth would freeze. Snowball Earth. Look it up.

            Again, scientists far smarter than you have bothered to run the maths:

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la06400p.html

            By arguing for the essential role of water vapour you are – quite cluelessly – arguing that CO2 is essential. Arf.

          • BBQman

            I have my facts, you have your projections and word salads, life goes on.

            When are you going to tell me what the optimum average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy planet earth?

          • Soosoos

            Your ‘facts’ are blatantly false assertions. Did you bother to read the scientific paper I linked to that exposes them as such? Nope. Of course you didn’t.

          • BBQman

            I read your information, it lacked any way to verify the conclusions, tyour links read like some kind of flowery cruise ship travel brochure’s.

          • Soosoos

            This is quite special. A peer-reviewed scientific paper that happens to utterly refute your uninformed nonsense ‘reads like a travel brochure’?

            Erm. I have to ask. Do you have the capacity and ability to understand the subject you’re pontificating on?

          • BBQman

            I only know what I know, I have spent the last 40 years proof reading massive reams of specifications and assembly plans, most often tasked with finding mistakes, missing information and erroneous information before they are used for bidding or building/fabrication.

            I have used countless red and green ink pens over the years to connect the dots and keep projects moving, people pay me quite handsomely to review things and find mistakes.

            But this climate driver thing is just something I do for relaxation and better understanding of what actually controls our climate.

          • Soosoos

            OK, so you don’t have the appropriate expertise.

            Is this why you’re reduced to conspiracy theories in your retirement?

            Such a shame.

          • BBQman

            When are you going to tell me what the optimum average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth?

          • Pedro zappa

            whats a nice guy like you doing in a place like this?

            did you happen to see this today?
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKasUm77D0U

            I checked it out on he earth site, he’s legit- but I can’t make heads or tails out of this one.

          • BBQman

            That’s interesting, I will be back tomorrow to our site.

          • Pedro zappa

            Yeah, I have been watching it for off and on tonight and I think it’s starting to make sense…
            ..if you set the controls to precipitation and at 250 it appears the entire equator is giving it up and pumping moisture south all around the world- look off the west coast of Africa.

            The question is why now?..
            I’m puzzling on it.

            ..catch you at the carnival- I’ll be the one at the Bubba’s Original Crawdad taco stand..

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            LOL

            After all this we discover that the person claiming to have turned the entire scientific understanding of climate on its head is a retired proof reader with a set of felt tips.

            hahahaha!

          • Soosoos

            This is just silly.

            The troposphere is turbulent and well mixed, which is trivial to demonstrate by comparing data from CO2 stations across the globe. Stations in Antarctica easily resolve the secular rising trend in CO2 from CO2 emissions. They even resolve the annual signal from changes in NH photosynthesis (though it’s more muted):

            http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg
            I’d love to hear your proposed mechanism for why CO2 is so much higher in the jet stream. Also, some empirical evidence would be lovely.
            Not that we’ll see any, because the jet stream is one of the mechanisms that makes CO2 a well-mixed gas. Lol.

          • Soosoos

            Not that BBQman is going to read it, but here’s a paper that measures the CO2 concentration profile in the atmosphere:

            http://www.caribic-atmospheric.com/elib/rev/Foucher_2011.pdf

            Figure 7.

            CO2 varies by about 3% in its vertical profile. It’s well mixed.

          • BBQman

            I will advise you one more time, study the jet stream from the surface up to 24,000 meters and every 1,000 meters in between, you will see that over 60% of the global Atmospheric CO2 never gets within 30 degrees of the poles, the ice cores have to be multipled X 2.1734 to reflect reality.

          • Soosoos

            I’ve given you clear empirical evidence that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. It varies by ~3% from the surface to the stratosphere.

            You clearly don’t understand the first thing about data sampling, do you?

            “the ice core results have to be multipled X 2.1734 to reflect reality.”

            Bullshit. This is pseudoscientific, ignorant bullshit.

            For goodness sake. If someone takes a blood sample from your median cubital vein, do they have to multiply the analyte’s concentration by 3000% ‘to reflect reality’ because most of the blood doesn’t drain through this vein? LOL.

          • BBQman

            Then please explain why the trapped CO2 in the ice cores representing the last 30 years is almost twice as low as the sampling taken from the Mauna Loa for the last 30 years?

            Study the jet stream yourself and stop reading the word salad links that you have no way to verify for accuracy.

          • Soosoos

            “Then please explain why the trapped CO2 in the ice cores representing the last 30 years is almost twice as low as the sampling taken from the Mauna Loa for the last 30 years?”

            I’d love a link to a scientific source for this claim, please. You’re not going to be able to provide one, are you…?

            My question remains: if someone measures a blood analyte (say, insulin level) in a blood sample taken from the median cubital vein in your inner elbow, do they have to multiply it by 3000% ‘to reflect reality’ because the vast majority of blood pumped by your hear does not drain through this vein?

            Think about it…

          • BBQman

            Please stay on topic, you know full well that your side has seen this anomaly as related to the lack of CO2 in the Icecores verses the sampling at Manua Loa and have been attempting to keep it out of the public domain….it’s time to come clean and start studying the actual climate drivers and put the CO2 boogerman to rest!

          • Soosoos

            It’s absolutely on topic: it’s a question of sampling. You think that ice core data doesn’t reflect true atmospheric CO2 despite having provided NO evidence (of even understanding the topic).

            Your maths is hopelessly wrong. CO2 is a well-mixed gas, varying by only ~3% in its vertical profile – that includes over the jet stream.

            I think it’s hilarious that you think scientists are trying to keep some supposed anomaly [which doesn’t exist] out of the public domain. No, the truth is far more mundane: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • BBQman

            Please, you know full well that the study of ice cores for atmospheric CO2 from the last 30 years has been covered up, you can only fool some of the people some of the time!

          • Soosoos

            ROFL.

            You lunatic conspiracy theorist. This is bollocks.

            You’re pathetic.

          • BBQman

            Pathetic is calling CO2 a climate driver.

          • Soosoos

            You’re making yourself look like a fool, going so far as to deny physics that was established in the nineteenth century.

            I note your continuing failure to provide evidence of your stupid conspiracy that the study of ice cores has been suppressed.

            The true answer is that you are simply a clueless clot.

          • BBQman

            Does name calling actually make you feel better?
            When are you going to answer my question concerning the optimum temperature and CO2 levels on earth?

          • Soosoos

            Hah. Your evasion at having to provide evidence for you loudly asserted scientific conspiracy is telling. As is your continuing failure to provide evidence that CO2 is a poorly-mixed gas in the atmosphere (actually: you don’t understand how sampling works).

            You might fool some of your ignorant rightwing nutjob/racist followers with your pseudoscience, but you have a problem with me because I don’t have the intelligence of a dishcloth. I know my stuff.

            And if you’ll recall my answer to your question yesterday, I pointed out that it’s illogical nonsense but – if you want to define an ‘optimum’ climate – it’s surely the stability of the Holocene in which modern agriculture and civilisation developed and adapted to?

          • BBQman

            Sorry, but the Holocene is not an answer, I need temperature and CO2 ppm counts.

          • Soosoos

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a climate driver, one of many.

            A scientifically illiterate nobody who believes in conspiracy theories isn’t going to change that.

          • Robert

            And there it is. Pure conspiracy! Two hundred years nearly, global, thousands of participants, and only ‘proven’ by some random Internet commentors….
            “…has been covered up….”

            If you’d started with that, we could have suggested washing the sauce off the tinfoil before fashioning the necessary headgear.

          • BBQman

            Robert, I must say that your sense of humor is developing quite nicely. Now just learn to understand what the true climate drivers are and you will be much better off. Hint….CO2 is not a climate driver!

          • Robert

            Hint – making a claim that runs counter to nearly two centuries of research wo a single piece of evidence is like claiming there is a whole hog in the pit and then not serving the results.

            Note that even here – https://www.cookscountry.com/recipes/8817-tennessee-pulled-turkey-sandwiches – they give taster feedback.

          • BBQman

            I’m sure many people enjoy their pulled turkey sandwiches, but I have given you plenty of information about climate drivers now, if you don’t take advantage of the information, someone else will beat you to that Nobel peace prize.
            100 days to go.

          • Robert

            Funny how in the nearly two hundred years of research pointing to the simple fact that our profligate burning of fossil fuels is causing the observable climate changes we have been seeing, there has been virtually no substantive body of data pointing to any alternative hypothesis.
            With a scant tablespoon of ( seven papers in the 70s) actual scientists who wrote about coming ice ages , a pinch claiming clouds or water vapor, a cutting board scrapings worth claiming cosmic rays or orbit, and a few twists of the grinder claiming some other causes, the water for this stone soup has been carried by the internet comentors:

            Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort

            The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes. “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

            http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

          • BBQman

            I could not find you on the other site so I brought us back here.

            BBQman Robert 3 minutes ago
            The soup impacts our own magnetic field which effects our molten core which is the main gear that influences our oceans conveyance and jet stream, along with its impact on volcanic and tectonic movements as centrifugal forces are redistributed.
            Tell you what, write down every significant climate event for the last 800 thousand years after making adjustments to all icecore records that were taken within 30 degrees of the poles depicting CO2 levels by multiplying those results by 2.1734 to reflect what the true atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past, I have already explained why they are light, no need to go though that again, then just look at the planetary arrangements and processions in a real time model for about 30 years before each climate anomaly and understand how the magnetic forcings of our gaseous outer planets effect the soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.
            EditView in discussion

            BBQman Robert 23 minutes ago
            It would be very difficult for me to link together all the years of observations, reading, dot connecting, planetary precessions and their relationship to past climate anomalies, solar influences and other forms of information absorption that not only show that CO2 as a global climate driver is not true, but that within our universal soup of magnetic pushing’s and pulls how our orbital eccentricities are controlled along with our own magnetic fields within the soup of forcings that also impact out Equatorial tilt which dictates how much direct solar radiance we receive from the sun during our winter months.
            1 EditView in discussion

            BBQman Robert 44 minutes ago
            Magnetic forcings which will impact our molten core which will effect our oceans conveyance which is tied to and controls our jet stream.
            1 EditView in discussion

            BBQman Robert an hour ago

          • Robert

            So. No science. Got it.

            So, not a single paper showing this. We have a barbecue expert claiming his own research beats out all the research that’s been done over the past nearly two centuies….
            ” I just don’t believe in doing links, everyone should do their own research and write out in their own words the conclusions drawn from the research”

          • BBQman

            I only claim that I read many things and connect dots that I see.

            You want my brisket recipe?

          • Robert

            So. No science. Got it.

            So, not a single paper showing this. We have a barbecue expert claiming his own research beats out all the research that’s been done over the past nearly two centuies….
            ” I just don’t believe in doing links, everyone should do their own research and write out in their own words the conclusions drawn from the research”
            0 Edit Reply

          • BBQman

            Here’s my brisket recipe:
            Ok, get a whole untrimmed brisket the day before smoking, cut brisket in half, skinny end from fat end, trim off all but about 1/4″ to 5/16″ of the outer fat, then put on a good store bought brisket rub and massage into the meat, not too heavy, wrap meat tight into plastic wrap and put in fridge, take out of fridge around 10pm and wrap up both half’s in a couple of beach towels, set on kitchen counter to acclimate to room temperature all night, put on smoker (use hickory) at 200f for 6 hours, then crank smoker temperature up to 250f to drive through the internal meat temp stall and continue smoking for another 3 hours, don’t open the smoker door to take a peek …ever…, now, at this 9 hour point the internal temp should be around 193 to 200 and will have broken down the Collagen and kept much of the natural gelatinous flavors inside, it should be jiggly when you remove it to the kitchen to rest uncovered!!!!, for about 45 minutes before cutting, I would have taken the small thin half off about an hour before the big end. “Never, Never, Never wrap meat in foil while cooking or cooling”, that action would create an unwanted convection which would cause most of the delicious juice to wick out into the bottom of foil, not good. You should end up with a brisket that is crispy on the outside and a juicy tender chew on the inside, always cut against the grain which is perpendicular to the half cut you made.

            If I were you, I would check into my climate driver theory concerning magnetic forcings and understand it better before retreating back into the last 200 years of old science.

          • Robert

            “…store bought brisket rub …”

            What research informed the development of your line of thinking about gaseous planet magetism tilting us in 91 days?

          • Robert

            Perhaps you should point us to the most relevant texts; my search only points to

            ◇Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense – Scientific American
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
            ♤ Heartland
            “. climate driver theory concerning magnetic forcings..”

            Oh, another person who thinks you are wrong: Bob armstrong. He thinks it’s gravity .. cosy.com/Science/NPR_Censors_Science.html

          • Robert

            No thanks, I prefer to use the knowledge of those who have demonstrated their expertise through solid research and analysis.
            “You want my brisket recipe?”

          • BBQman

            Yes, please send me your brisket recipe!

          • Dale Anderson

            Insanity is usually not curable. BBMan is nuts.

          • Robert

            Interesting history, that one. Fits to many of the studies about denialist’s psych profile and etc…….

          • Robert
          • Robert

            Great, now you can demonstrate to us in two threads what exactly informs your thinking.

            What research informed the development of your line of thinking about gaseous planet magetism tilting us in 91 days?

          • jmac

            #facepalm
            Conspiracy nuts have it easy. They can say whatever stupid shyt they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”. “Evidence” is one of those Wingnut Kryptonite words, which is banned from all discussions within their ranks because it stinks up their conspiracy BS.

          • BBQman

            Talk to the hand, the hand don’t speak. Please let me know when you come up with some debatable points, the links that your friends have provided thus far, do not prove that CO2 is a significant climate driver.

          • jmac

            #faceplam your fuking citations sources and evidence have gone missing again dumbazz.

          • BBQman

            Checkmate.

          • jmac

            #facepalm You haven’t even started the game yet, you are just talking pre game BS. Like most loudmouths before the game starts.

          • Robert

            He’s had “Icecores verses the sampling at Manua Loa” on the slow cooker for awhile, actually. But he’s not been able to show off his skilz. He just tells us how good the claims are but not citing anything . Dinner will never get to the table.

          • ROO2

            What small hands you have.

          • Mike Richardson

            Lol! That is probably one of the most succinct and accurate descriptions I’ve seen in a while.

          • BBQman

            Well, let’s take sampling sites one at a time, how about Mauna Loa, they only sample during the night 13 hours a day because of daytime updrafts that corrupt the sampling with regional CO2 from the land and sea, then during the times at night, now the sampling is being gathered when the atmospheric temperature is lower then the surface of the ocean, when convection is increased, thus bringing up to the sensors a corrupting unwanted source of regional CO2, thus corrupting the samples with non-atmospheric contamination. Recommendations: Raise the sensors up to 4,835 m above sea level at Mauna Loa.

          • Soosoos

            You’re entire thesis is specious, ignorant nonsense.

            CO2 is a well-mixed gas, as evidenced by the incredibly tight correlation measured at stations across the globe, and by measurements of CO2’s vertical profile in the atmosphere. You have failed to demonstrate the existence of the mysterious extra CO2 that you claim exists, let alone offer a plausible mechanism.

            Basically, you’re talking out of your bumhole (where, by coincidence, pCO2 does indeed happen to be higher than background atmospheric)

            I LOVE how you’re objecting to the incredibly careful quality-controlled measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa. You’re being very silly indeed.

          • BBQman

            The Hadley cell is one of the major ways air is moved around the planet. Existing in both hemispheres, it starts when air in the tropics, which is heated at the surface by intense sunlight, warms and rises. At high altitudes it is pushed away from the equator towards the mid-latitudes to the north and south, then it begins to sink back to Earth’s surface, closing the loop.

            As I have already stated, only around 40% of the total atmospheric jet stream, including clouds and the water vapor that holds the CO2 ever reaches the clouds that deposit snow and ice from 30 degrees in to the poles. All Ice Core records on file are missing over half of the the atmospheric CO2 for the sampling time frames for the last 800 thousand years.

          • Soosoos

            You have NEVER demonstrated that CO2 isn’t well mixed in the atmosphere. Because it is.

            This is why CO2 records at Mauna Loa, the Arctic, and the Antarctic, and Samoa all match each other so beautifully. You are an ignorant twit.

          • BBQman

            I can’t make you study the jet stream, if you would do that, instead of depending on the work of others from your links, that give no foundation to prove their assumptions. Have you noticed that ice core samples are not used to decide atmospheric CO2 levels since the testing stations you mentioned above have come on line?

            Check the CO2 levels in some ice that is 30 years old and it will show levels at around 280 ppm, while sampling from 30 years ago at Mauna Loa will be much higher, around 400ppm.

            If you don’t understand how to analyze information, that does not give you a license to insult people, if you can not connect the dots, you may not be in the right field, we do need more HVAC technicians though, about $18 bucks an hour.

          • Cold Miser

            “Check the CO2 levels in some ice that is 30 years old and it will show
            levels at around 280 ppm, while sampling from 30 years ago at Mauna Loa
            will be much higher, around 400ppm.”
            Curious where you found this data, can you direct me to it?

          • BBQman

            Sorry, but the problem is that I can’t find where anyone has checked the co2 levels in the ice core history for the last 30 years worth of CO2 deposits, maybe those tests have been conducted, but I can not find them.

            I believe because of the ways the jet stream mechanics function, which turns away around 60% of the heavily CO2 laden winds from the equatorial regions up to and at about the 30 degree marks before the poles, compounded by the fact that the polar winds produce almost zero CO2, that the methods used to determine atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 800 thousand years produce results that are light by over half, the other factor not allowed for is degradation of the atmospheric CO2 as a result being exposed to extreme atmospheric temperatures before eventually being trapped in the ice cores taken inside the 30 degree marks.

            I do not support or supply links, these are my observations from reading and studying the jet stream and other information that I find interesting, I believe people should stop with their obsessive reliance on links that more often then not do not supply any measureable information and read like Cruise ship travel brochures full of flowery words and zero meat on the bones.

          • Cold Miser

            If only there was reference to such, ice cores are low resolution proxies, and I wanted to compare modern Ice core sampling to levels of CO2. Since the 1850’s through 1960’s use of direct chemical methods has provided reliable atmospheric CO2 gas measurements, often showing levels above 380 and as high as 450 ppm. I find the IPCC has predetermined a false low for CO2.

            You might be interested in Zbigniew Jaworowski work which concludes ice cores do not have much validity as proxies for CO2. Or perhaps your are already familiar with such.

            I appreciate your explanation for not citing links.

          • BBQman

            Thanks, I will add Jaworowski to my reading list.

        • Gallilao

          You not talking about anything really, CB. You don’t know anything. You just want to frighten people. Go back to your End Time Cult.

          There is nothing to fear here!

      • Robert
    • Gallilao

      Never before in history have the ice sheets withstood your BS either.

      I’m betting they survive even your Hot Air.

  • Gallilao

    Sure wish it would warm up around here a little more! Those lucky guys!

  • Bart_R

    If we plot the rate at which records are set and fall, then there are about fourteen years before the normal progression of sea ice decline exceed the exceptional sea ice loss of 2012.

    2012’s ‘perfect storm’ of conditions for ice loss is a rare type of event, perhaps happening one year in ten.

    By 2030, the average sea ice loss pattern will exceed that perfect storm extreme, at current trends.

    By 2031, blue sea is an inevitability, on simple linear patterns. Simulations suggest this blue sea date is likely earlier.

  • zlop
  • BBQman

    Critical thinkers realize that CO2 is not a climate driver, the true climate drivers are magnetic forcings from Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus, our moon and Sun, with some influence from other heavenly bodies as well, which impact our orbital eccentricities and equatorial tilt which impacts our molten core, that controls our oceans conveyance and jet stream, which drives our weather and climate patterns.

    Also, another reason why the climate models never work is because 60% of the Equatorial jet stream which carries almost 100% of the atmospheric CO2 around, does not cross the 30 degrees mark from each pole into the polar regions, meaning that the polar ice cores for CO2 sampling are missing over 50% of the available CO2 in the atmosphere. Just take whatever results are available on record and multiple them X 2.137 and then, everything you ever thought you knew about climate study will make more sense.

    “The Hadley cell is one of the major ways air is moved around the planet. Existing in both hemispheres, it starts when air in the tropics, which is heated at the surface by intense sunlight, warms and rises. At high altitudes it is pushed away from the equator towards the mid-latitudes to the north and south, then it begins to sink back to Earth’s surface, closing the loop.”

    Just a short review of history will show the quantity of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 38th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.
    Just over the course of a few hundred years, many regional climate variations take place, grapes grown in Stockholm around 35 CE, Vikings found Greenland “green” around 1,000 CE, needless to say, a few degrees of warming in Antarctic means less then nothing where the temperature is below -75 f, see “Garnier” for more details.

    We at “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” are happy to report that an enlightenment to bring people out of fog of the false theory that Man Made CO2 is some type of climate driver can and will answer any logical questions submitted.

    • Woodfords Frog

      because 60% of the Equatorial jet stream which carries almost 100% of
      the atmospheric CO2 around, does not cross the 30 degrees mark from each
      pole into the polar regions, meaning that the polar ice cores for CO2
      sampling are missing over 50% of the available CO2 in the atmosphere”

      THIS!

      I have always wondered why 280 ppm was considered “optimum” by the IPCC when historical and empirical evidence shows CO2 levels are much more dynamic than claimed.

      • BBQman

        I figured that one out by watching the jet stream at 1,000 meter increments up to 24,000 meters and then added that to how high different types of clouds go up that trap the available CO2, also temperatures past 6,000 meters can get to -95 degrees Fahrenheit which also causes substantial degradation to the CO2 that I don’t believe the computer models allow for either.

        • CB

          “I figured that one out by watching the jet stream”

          You “figured out” scientists are wrong about the rise in CO₂ by “watching the jet stream”?

          o_O

          Barbie, have you been formally diagnosed with a mental illness?

          “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

          news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • BBQman

            The Earths atmosphere will do quite well with CO2 levels up to around 600ppm, that will make for a lush healthy planet. And no, your scientists do not understand how CO2 is distributed by the jet stream in the atmosphere.

    • Anaussieinswitzerland

      This is a joke……….. please tell me this is a joke.

  • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

    Why would anyone want to reduce CO2 when it is so beneficial?

    • Woodfords Frog

      Well, instead, ask this: Why wouldn’t the governments want to tax carbon, generating more income for themselves?

      • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

        (Waving hand in back of room) “Ooh, ooh, I know this one!”

        Because government never met a tax it didn’t like, and,
        globalists never met a method to control everyone they didn’t like.

        • BBQman

          Good points.

          • CB

            “Good points.”

            Why would you think that?

            The very first person to discover that CO₂ warms the planet was someone named Eunice Foote, and she did so in 1856.

            Is it likely she had some taxation scheme in mind that wouldn’t be put in place until over a century after her death?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • BBQman

            Which does not prove that CO2 is a climate driver. CO2 is a byproduct of natural vegetation decay.

          • CB

            “Which does not prove that CO2 is a climate driver.”

            It actually does, Barbie. Anything that warms the planet drives the planet’s climate.

            If you don’t even know that, why should anyone bother taking you seriously?

            vimeo.com/34099316

          • TempusProTem

            Your collage, yes… that might be best reasoning not to bother.

          • CB

            “Your collage, yes… that might be best reasoning not to bother.”

            o_O

            Um… What does that word salad mean, sweet pea?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147e2c9db47cb45e06ced1ef3b9926e243c177958a672d8adb1e722a0900242e.png

          • BBQman

            It’s too bad that the Ice cores are missing over half the available atmospheric CO2 due to the fact that 60% of the middle earth jet stream never enters the polar regions, also there exists much degradation of CO2 because of extreme low temperatures in the upper atmosphere. If we want to know what the actual CO2 content of polar ice cores are, multiple the current results X 2.1734.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “It’s too bad that the Ice cores are missing over half the available atmospheric CO2 due to the fact that 60% of the middle earth jet stream never enters the polar regions”

            Let’s face it, you’ve just made this up, haven’t you.

          • BBQman

            I unblocked you thinking that you would add to the discussion…sigh..

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            So you can give an independent reference that supports your claim or did you just make it up?

          • BBQman

            Unfortunately we live in a society where scientists are not going to jump through hoops to publish their mistakes, that’s where people like myself come in and point out the mistakes so that the scientific community can hopefully get back on track and forget about this CO2 boogerman nonsense.

            It’s not my job to demean anyone, I just call balls and strikes.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            So that’s a big, fat nobody?
            Not one single, solitary independent source that backs your theories?

            Gosh, what a surprise. It’s almost as if you are just typing pseudo scientific word salads with the intention of deceiving the gullible.
            Have you ever come across a poster called AlecM on these pages?

          • BBQman

            No, I’m not familiar with AlecM.

            Please try to understand human nature, the scientific community whose very livelihood depends on tax payer funded grants, will never do anything to upset their own apple cart by saying anything that would make it harder for the governments to justify a carbon tax on the Populist.

            But have no fear,
            President Trump is near,
            As to those silly climate study grants,
            From that time forward they shall become scant,
            The AGW settled science shall disappear,
            As will the CO2 false narrative you hold so dear.
            BBQman

          • CB

            “The AGW settled science shall disappear”

            In order for that to happen, someone would need to prove greenhouse gasses are transparent to infrared radiation.

            Has anyone done that, Barbie?

            “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

            missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

          • TempusProTem

            Eunice Foote… one reason why do refer to CO₂ as ‘Greenhouse Gas’ in todays vernacular. I can see you talking right past us.

          • CB

            “one reason why do refer to CO₂ as ‘Greenhouse Gas’ in todays vernacular.”

            …is because it’s a greenhouse gas?

            What are you trying to say?

            “Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

          • TempusProTem

            I did leave out a single word and edited to reflect your confusion.
            ‘BBQ’s point to you will suffice as my like-minded answer to you.
            He was able to infer correctly what I was stating in-advance.

          • TempusProTem

            My, my… it’s a feisty day for Climate Change and gay ‘rights’ hyper-activists!

          • Cold Miser

            Foote’s experiments also tried the heating effect of the sun’s rays on oxygen and concluded it was susceptible to such. The difference being, Foote never made the assumption that CO2 was the driver of climate. Whether she directly stated there was potential for atmospheric warming due to rising CO2 levels, or if it was David A. Wells liberties of his interpretation of her work is unknown, since Foote never had her paper published. In addition, Foote’s experiments also tried the heating effect of the sun’s rays on oxygen and concluded it was susceptible to such.

          • Red47

            I think you are a great person to ask this question of:
            As I read this it occurred to me that all of this water being freed up and flowing could positively affect places suffering from drought like California and maybe even places that are usually desert. Is this how it works?

          • BBQman

            Sorry, but I don’t understand the question?:)

          • Red47

            I should have rewritten it! Does the melting of the ice somehow help relieve drought in places like Texas it California? Maybe I don’t even know enough to properly ask the question.

          • BBQman

            If the melt water can be easily diverted to the drought area, I suppose so. Which ice are you referring to?

          • Red47

            Oh I am embarrassed now. My friend, I just wondered if since a) the globe is warming b) more water is available because of the melted ice caps will there not be more rain activity and could drought areas be alleviated?

          • BBQman

            It’s warming right now, but in my opinion, the next 30 plus years will be colder, the northern hemisphere will experience another smaller version of the Little Ice Age, this will be a result of several factors, outer planetary influence such as Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus being the primary drivers which will effect our orbital eccentricities and equatorial tilt which will stir up volcanic activitie and earthquakes. Also changes in solar radiance that impact our earth, imho.

          • Red47

            I see that as a solid conclusion. The earth will simply keep melting and freezing as it always has and all the bleating, wrist-flapping and hand-wringing won’t change a thing.

          • BBQman

            Pretty much.:)

    • Doc Farmer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Two reasons – money and power…

      • CB

        “Two reasons – money and power…”

        Here’s one that isn’t imaginary: self-preservation.

        If it’s so likely polar ice sheets will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of them doing so?

        “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

        climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

    • Bart_R

      You jump out of dark alleys and ‘benefit’ people from behind against their will, and see how long before you’re in maximum security.

      What gave you the right to ‘benefit’ people against their express consent, with your waste byproducts?

      If you want us to take your ‘benefits’, offer the ‘benefits’ on the Market and see how much we’ll demand you pay for any of us to accept the ‘benefits’ you confer.

      • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

        Why don’t you yourself reduce those “benefits” you despise so much, by halting your exhalation of your 40,000ppm breath.

        Do the world a favor and put your money where your mouth is. Do something about CO2 yourself.
        Go on, be an example for the rest of us.

        • Bart_R

          Your Tu Quoque logical fallacy is mistaken on every account.

          1. CO2 already in the carbon cycle isn’t the issue; moving fossil carbon out of the ground and into the carbon cycle is what raises the level of CO2 in the air. It’s the only thing that significantly and lastingly initiates this change.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f4c9bcb88a3f6700be3f850b14d9321b7990380f6768aa1f990768c85ad523.png

          2. You didn’t answer the original issue: who sold you the right to ‘benefit’ us all against our will? When did you make the purchase? Where’s your receipt?

          3. I’ve already gotten out of fossil debt, and it was easy and saves me money because renewables are cheaper.

          Pay what you owe.

          And if you live in the US Southeast, buy stilts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsA-_oQwhA4

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            Oh, I am doing my part. Don’t you worry yourself about that.

            I bought a SodaStream to add more CO2 to our CO2 starved environment.

          • Bart_R

            Drink on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            All my time is my own.
            I owe nothing.

          • Bart_R

            Unemployed debtors ought be looking for work.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste you dump.

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            I owe nothing.
            Right now, I’m going to crank up the BarB and burn some propane.
            I’m doing my part to help the environment.

          • Bart_R

            Assert backwardness on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            I have. I slow cooked a side of ribs for you.
            Not because slow cooking is better, which it is, but because it burns more propane.
            Come on over and enjoy some ribs. You can enjoy my collection of dirt bikes and ATVs. They all have internal combustion engines. You will get a kick out of it.

          • Bart_R

            Slow?

            That’s nowhere near long enough to slow cook ribs.

            So, no thanks.

            As long as you pay your debts, why should I care what you collect?

            And I’m sure the collectors will find some use for your stuff if you don’t pay what you owe.

          • CB

            “Slow?”

            YOAC isn’t slow, he’s a professional liar.

            I would suggest he needs to provide some evidence that CO₂ is not warming the planet and causing the meltdown of Greenland… since he thinks it’s so beneficial.

            “The Greenland ice sheet has been one of the largest contributors to global sea-level rise over the past 20 years, accounting for 0.5 mm yr-1 of a total of 3.2 mm yr-1.”

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2161.html

          • Bart_R

            I don’t care what evidence he does or doesn’t present for or against benefit.

            Benefit isn’t the issue. Trespass is.

            I never ordered ‘benefit’ with a side of undercooked ribs.

            He wants me to dispose of his ‘benefit’ and trichonosis for him he’s being charged Market rent for the service, and a premium for the insulting manner he tried to force it on me by deception.

            You have to stop thinking this is a science question. It hasn’t been a science question for almost six decades. It’s an economic question.

            He’s taking what isn’t his, and he isn’t paying.

            No more free ride for fossil Free Riders.

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • CB

            “You have to stop thinking this is a science question. It hasn’t been a science question for almost six decades. It’s an economic question.”

            I would agree that there is no debate about the science, and I would agree that the question of how to solve the problem is economic in nature.

            …but you’re talking with someone who’s pretending the problem doesn’t exist. There’s no point in discussing solutions with a person like that, and the question of why he hasn’t identified that problem when it’s so blindingly obvious is a psychological question.

            He can screech “CO₂ is beneficial!” all day! If he can’t explain why he thinks so, there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to take him seriously.

            “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

            berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

          • Bart_R

            Of course there’s a point working the solution with people who deny the problem.

            You know that most diet products are bought by people who deny they’re fat, right?

            Drunk drivers deliberately drive slower and pop breath mints, even while denying they’re drunk.

            Cheaters buy crib sheets even while thinking they deserve a passing grade.

            This isn’t a psychological problem. This is a moral problem. You’re dealing with people who are simply evil.

            But simply evil people can be made to pay. That’s what collection agencies are for.

          • CB

            “You’re dealing with people who are simply evil.”

            lol! That may be! …though you know I don’t like the e-word. It makes it seem like they cannot change, and they can!

            They can be moral people any time they want to, by simply admitting they were mistaken.

            It is definitely a moral question as well, I would agree with you there.

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

          • Bart_R

            Of course evil people can be redeemed.

            No one is beyond hope.

            Evil isn’t generally an innate quality.

            But then, the evil of bandwagon jumping is as much an obstacle to solution as denial, so far as I can tell. Have you ever tried to shake a vegan from the climate change bandwagon? A malthusian? A social justice activist? Those people who won’t act and won’t let you act until their issue is fixed first, holding the world hostage by their refusals and obstruction?

          • CB

            “the evil of bandwagon jumping is as much an obstacle to solution as denial”

            They are very similar phenomena, I think. Would YOAC post his delusional nonsense if he didn’t have a little band of North Korean happy clappers promoting it?

            I’m not so sure. If any of them had any shame at all, they would cease and desist immediately, but instead they’re all jumping on the bandwagon as it heads off the cliff.

            Now that’s fine if they want to keep that suicide pact between each other.

            They have no right to include the rest of us in it… and again, they are welcome to join reality whenever they want! Refusing to do that is a choice they make.

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • Bart_R

            So, would you rather be effective, or be correct?

          • CB

            “would you rather be effective, or be correct?”

            I would rather be both.

            😉

            “A new study published in Nature yesterday that used the photographs found that the Greenland ice sheet lost about 9,000 gigatons of ice between 1900 and 2010 and that the rate has accelerated in recent years. The reduction in the ice mass has contributed to global average sea-level rise of 25 millimeters.”

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenland-ice-loss-accelerates-110-year-old-record-reveals

          • Bart_R

            While I’m not suggesting you should be wrong on fact, what’s the good of being exactly what the propagandists expect you to be?

            The medium is the message, and their message is DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.

            Call to effective action with every comment. Make your message ACT NOW, ACT NOW, ACT NOW.

            When I go through most comments by the well-meaningly correct, the message I see isn’t that.

            It’s usually, “I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG. PLEASE READ EVERYTHING I’VE WRITTEN AND REPLY COGENTLY WITHIN THREE TO TEN DAYS EXPLAINING IN DETAIL YOUR AGREEMENT AND HOW YOU CAME TO BE SO WRONG. TAKE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD.”

            And when has that message ever led to anything but delay?

            No more free ride for fossil Free Riders as of today.

            Collect what you’re owed now.

          • CB

            “what’s the good of being exactly what the propagandists expect you to be?”

            lol! Polite and patient?

            I can see that being a drawback. I can see long posts being a drawback as well.

            If you can call a liar out on her dishonesty, though, I think that’s effective both in terms of how she’s perceived by the general public and perhaps even how she perceives herself.

            I think perhaps you are unaware of just how ignorant the general public is about this issue. People haven’t totally moved on to solutions just yet, they are still holding out hope all scientists on Earth are wrong.

            I’m all for frame-shifting if you want! It gets a bit boring when we’re in agreement, though. My solution is a carbon tax and sequestration credit, slowly-increasing and globally-negotiated, as you already know.

            “A carbon tax is a fee based on the carbon content of fuels.”

            http://www.carbontax.org

          • Bart_R

            See, this is the thing. It’s not that I mind the mechanism of carbon tax, per se.

            It’s the mischief done by the precept that you can tax something but avoid privatizing it.

            Return of fossil to the land is a fruit of the land. It’s a property innate in land and sea. For the portion of the seas and lands no individual owns, it is right and just and proper for governments to charge a royalty fee, a license fee, for rent of the land or sea to obtain said fruit of fossil return. For the rest, for private lands, for private air — that air each of us manifestly and inalienably own by virtue of lungs — that privatization ought deliver payment directly to individuals.

            Governments so far have treated it all as Commons, and we obtain Tragedy.

            Why not privatize fossil return, and call it that, and deliver that value from revenues of Market rents at a price so high as the Market will bear, and then tax that revenue directly, at the same rate as income taxes, to go to the general revenues of governments to be spent as governments deem?

            Why the charade of a carbon tax?

          • CB

            “Why the charade of a carbon tax?”

            I’m not sure what else you’re proposing!

            If the privatised fossil return you’re talking about isn’t sequestration, what is it?

            If you don’t plan on paying for it with a tax, how do you plan on paying for it?

          • Dale Anderson

            You say > (” I don’t like the e-word. It makes it seem like they cannot change, and they can!”).

            Not when they are insane or have suicidal tendencies. Ya know CB, like Miss Graves or One other person and all of the rest of em. They are doing evil work too.

          • CB

            “Not when they are insane or have suicidal tendencies.”

            Think about what you’re saying, though. Do you really believe someone who is suicidal cannot rethink their behaviour?

            There are any number of examples of people doing just that…

            What we are asking them to do is nowhere near as complex as they pretend! They just have to tell the truth. That’s all!

            It’s the easiest thing in the world.

            “Greenland Ice Loss May Be Worse Than Predicted”

            news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/greenland-ice-loss-may-be-worse-than-predicted-141216.htm

          • Dale Anderson

            My reply was all in jest CB,, how often do you tell one of em they are insane or suicidal? lighten up a bit.

          • CB

            “how often do you tell em they are insane or suicidal? And you’re right.”

            Frequently… and I hope to be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

            I only do it because it’s important to their recovery. It’s not possible to cure an illness without diagnosing it, right?

            “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

          • Dale Anderson

            you aren’t gong to help cure any of the corrupt,,, lying,,, obnoxious,,, hired assassins of the fossil fuel industry, unless you pay them more than the fossil fuel industry pays them.
            But I do love how you kick their buts. ;-D

          • CB

            “you aren’t going to help cure any of the corrupt,,, lying,,, obnoxious,,, hired assassins of the fossil fuel industry, unless you pay them more than the fossil fuel industry pays them.”

            lol!

            Excellent point. Well-presented.

            YOAC is one of the few people I suspect of being a paid liar; part of the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation campaign… but he’s nothing without his band of happy clappers.

            …and they are all volunteers.

            Watching him squirm under really basic interrogation should wake them up to how crazy they would have to be to believe someone like that… or that’s the theory, anyhow.

            “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

          • Doc Farmer ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey, put another Bard Owl on the fire! I’ll be over in a bit with some baby seal steaks, and if you want seafood I’ve still got some snail darters in the freezer…

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            Always welcome, Doc!

          • CB

            “Always welcome”

            …and you are always welcome to support your claim with evidence.

            You said CO₂ was “beneficial”, did you not?

            How could the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet possibly be beneficial?

            “Greenland’s ice mass loss has been accelerating”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818115000521

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            That’s actually great news!
            Soon the Vikings can return and start growing barley, .. again.

          • Red47

            And grapes. They loved their grapes.

          • BBQman

            Prepare yourself’s to be diagnosed suicidal and mentally unfit by CB very soon!

          • Red47

            I’m sure I will be reduced to sucking my thumb in a corner asking for my blankie.
            Or not.

          • Red47

            Wait…do I have to pay for the diagnosis? That’s different altogether. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70d05268316d0b3b8bd8337f3e2369a174e9964efb1a4ec2983a5c23e7120859.jpg

          • CB

            “do I have to pay for the diagnosis?”

            lol! Do you want someone else to pay it for you?

            Curious…

            Greenland hasn’t been ice-free in 3 million years.

            If you understand that, why would you think Vikings farmed it?

            “Researchers Find 3-million-year-old Landscape Beneath Greenland Ice Sheet”

            http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/researchers-find-3-million-year-old-landscape-beneath-greenland-ice-sheet

          • Red47

            Don’t want to pay for a fake diagnosis.

          • CB

            “Don’t want to pay for a fake diagnosis.”

            Uh huh, and where did you get the idea that Vikings farmed Greenland?

            Would you like to take a guess?

            “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

            If you know your sources of information are misleading you about threats to your well-being, why would you continue to rely on them?

            Are you suicidal?

          • S Graves

            —Uh huh, and where did you get the idea that Vikings farmed Greenland?—
            If it wasn’t the Vikings, who was it?

          • CB

            “If it wasn’t the Vikings, who was it?”

            Leafcutter ants?

            I dunno sweetheart, there was no farming going on 3 million years ago.

            Do you have a point?

            “Melt extent in Greenland was above average in 2015, ranking 11th highest in the 37 year record from satellite data.”

            nsidc.org/greenland-today/2015/11/2015-melt-season-in-review

          • Dale Anderson

            OMG.. Miss Graves showed up to be stupid.

          • CB

            “Miss Graves showed up to be stupid.”

            Surprise!!!

            What’s even more surprising is that she isn’t actually stupid, though obviously, she appears to be.

            She has quote-mined any number of scientific papers, pretending they say what they do not say in an attempt to support her claims.

            That takes a certain amount of intelligence, I believe.

            I do not believe she is paid to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel, but that leaves the question of why she bothers to post her dishonesty.

            The only answer I can come up with is that this is the only way she knows how to get attention… Sad!

            This is one of her references, which I used just today!:

            “The early Oligocene world was, nevertheless, warmer than today, with no evidence for sustained continental ice caps in the northern hemisphere, and possibly West Antarctica, until much later”

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/26807829_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_through_the_Eocene-Oligocene_climate_transition

          • Dale Anderson

            she is a liar too.

          • S Graves

            —Uh huh, and where did you get the idea that Vikings farmed Greenland?—
            But he wasn’t talking about 3 mmy…you just grabbed that out of the air…as usual.
            Where did you get the idea that Vikings didn’t farm Greenland? To funny…but FUN!!

          • CB

            “he wasn’t talking about 3 mmy”

            I know, sweetie.

            I know.

            “To figure out what is likely to happen to Earth’s climate this century, scientists are looking 3 million years into the past… Greenland, now covered in melting glaciers, had forests growing on its northern slope.”

            usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/15/11209341-climate-change-scientists-look-back-3-million-years-to-look-to-future

          • S Graves

            Why the inane effort at misdirection? The issue was whether the Vikings farmed in Greenland. Your question is simply nonsense now, isn’t it?

            Did the Vikings farm while in Greenland or not?

            —Uh huh, and where did you get the idea that Vikings farmed Greenland?—
            Do you have the idea that they didn’t as your inane question implies?

          • Dale Anderson

            You self diagnose pig?

            The Vikings did have small gardens but they were not good enough to sustain them.

            Farming? No, no farming. They like the natives mostly ate seafood.

            They also left wen the Medieval Warm Period ended.
            In addition; most of the Vikings who went to “Greenlad” departed long before the end of the MWP.

          • Red47’s angel–the good one

            Too many people took that comment literally.
            I’m not sure many poodle would have liked Vikings as neighbors.

          • CB

            “I’m not sure many poodle would have liked Vikings as neighbors.”

            Sweetheart, that’s word salad.

            Are you a sentence generator?

            …or Sarah Palin?

            You fail the Turing test.

            “Greenland’s ice loss has accelerated by 31 gigatons of ice per year every year since 2004”

            climate.nasa.gov/news/2328/warming-seas-and-melting-ice-sheets

          • BBQman

            Have you had a chance to find out what the optimum average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth? Just the average, no need to dwell on any regional micro climates.

            I hate to bother you about this, but I have asked you this same question around 12 times now, I know the answer, I just need to test your knowledge and honestly, ok sweetie, I’m not going to fast for you now am I….

          • CB

            “Have you had a chance to find out what the optimum average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels should be”

            For you, yes… and it’s an answer you’ve been given multiple times now: about a degree cooler and 280PPM.

            Now point to a reliable source of information.

            If you cannot or will not, why should anyone take you seriously?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            Do you realize that your desired temperature of 1 degree cooler and 280 ppm CO2 levels would put us back into a small Ice Age, that would create much famine and disease like we had from 1,300 AD to 1,850 AD, why do you want to harm the human race in this manner?

            The answer you should have given is a temperature of 1 degree warmer and CO2 levels at 600 ppm for a lush healthy earth.

          • Mike Richardson

            Except at 600 ppm we’ll shoot right past 1 degree warmer, and melt down the polar caps in a few centuries. That might give enough time to evacuate the coasts, which we’ll need to do, since every coastal city will be submerged under a couple hundred feet of ocean. What you are saying is counter to all credible scientific knowledge, and quite insane. The “small Ice Age” was a regional, not global phenomenon, and resulted in far less suffering than the results of uncontrolled warming will — drought, flooding, killer heat waves, mass extinctions, the spread of tropical diseases, and population displacement on an epic scale, for starters. You’ve been given an answer based on the best current research and science of climatology, and replied with nonsense.

          • RubyMontana

            Yes.
            Yes you are.
            With this one.

          • BBQman

            CB is a special project, I have to bring her along at a little slower pace, poor thing!

          • RubyMontana

            Good luck with that!
            But admire your patience.
            :)

          • Red47’s angel–the good one

            Idiot, it’s a typo. A person of a reasonable IQ figures out the meaning of things. Petty poodles bark about petty things.

          • S Graves

            It’s not good to pretend to know $hit when you don’t. Vikings were primarily farmers and ranchers in the early period of settlement with less than a third of their diets from the sea. They only turned mostly to the sea when things began to cool off.

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html

          • Dale Anderson

            Well hello Miss. Graves, how are you this fine day, still stupid I see.

            From th earticl you linked whichmost certainly doe snot saywha tIhad written wa wrong we see that the Vikings had a very hard time with farming and livestock there.

            A few quotes from your chosen article. > (“When settlement began in the early 11th century, only between 20 and 30 percent of their diet came from the sea. But seal hunting played a growing role in the ensuing centuries. ”

            “The bone analyses show that they rarely ate meat from their own herds of livestock. The climate had become harsher on the island starting in the mid-13th century..
            Summer temperatures fell, violent storms raged around the houses and the winters were bone-chillingly cold>” That was 250 years before the MW Period began to ebb.
            “For the cattle that had been brought to Greenland, there was less and less to eat in the pastures and meadows along the fjords. Perhaps they were just sick and tired of living at the ends of the earth and having almost nothing but seals to eat,” < End quotes.
            Settlers were falsely enticed to migrate to the newly named "Greenland", because they were told it was a green paradise. That of course was a lie. There was almost no lumber, no iron ore, no preious metals, just rocks, driftwood, whale bones and walrus teeth to use for tools. Farming was very poor.

          • S Graves

            —Farming? No, no farming.—

            So says Dim Dale. The science says;

            “When settlement began in the early 11th century, only between 20 and 30 percent of their diet came from the sea.”
            You even quoted the article I provided. So you believe that 70-80% of food coming from farming is the equivalent to “no farming”. Fun…and funny. But at least you make it clear that your understanding of the language is pathetic. It’s clear why you post the dreck you do.
            The rest…fine but irrelevant to the point. Just your inane effort to attempt baffle ’em with BS.
            The fact are that Vikings farmed and produced 70-80% of their food from farming until the climate began to cool and the poor soil play out. “No, no farming” is simply wrong…or a lie. Which was it, Dale?

          • Dale Anderson

            Yes I quoted what was written in the article …. The Vikings began trying to farm and that lasted for a brief time and they ended up mostly eating seals, for hundreds of years as stated in the article you linked and that was long before the MW Period ended.

          • S Graves

            How long is a “brief time”?
            Now you say, “The Vikings began trying to farm and that lasted for a brief time ” Formerly you stated;
            —Farming? No, no farming.—

            So you admit this was a lie. Your veracity is improving, Dale.

            And of course, you were supporting a challenge to CB’s nonsense “Greenland hasn’t been ice-free in 3 million years.

            If you understand that, why would you think Vikings farmed it?”

            So you believe that a body of land must be “ice free” to farm at least some portion of it? I’m asking seriously because you are stupid enough to actually believe such a thing.

          • Dale Anderson

            How much is a brief time? ___ Brief. Look up the word ( brief ) in good dictionary.
            I grew up on a dairy farm in Michigan Missy and we had 22 to 24 cows… We used 220 acres of land to raise the feed for those cow, any claves, a bull, two horses and over a 100 chickens and ourselves.
            We seldom bought any food supplies from a store, except for beef, pork , yeast, candy, citrus fruit, peanut oil, olive oil, not much.
            We raised two types of hay, oats, corn, soybeans, barley, wheat and had a large garden and orchard for our food. We had a mill to grind grain, for chicken feed and flour. We churned our own butter and had apple cider. We had apples, pears, peaches, apricots and cherry trees.
            80 acres of land was planted with inoculated soybeans, red clover and alfalfa every spring and then plowed in during early summer for green manure and left the land fallow for a year. In the winter the livestock stayed in the barn during severe weather conditions.
            Greenland for the Viking settlers was not Michigan or Northern, Maine … Greenland was a cold place with short summer months, low average rainfall, and long dark winters with freezing cold and howling winds and frozen soil.
            They had almost no lumber they had no barns they lived in mud huts. They raised cattle? Ha ha haa, __Not for long. They farmed? NO; they grew enough in patchy gardens to keep them selves from starving during winter months.
            Scientist have excavated the Viking garbage pits… They discovered at the very bottoms of the pits or the Viking’s early years on Greenland that they managed to raise barley…
            The cattle would have had to have food, grain, hay and shelter during the long dark bitterly cold fall, winter, and early spring months….
            What scientists discovered is the Vikings ate mostly seal meat for most of the year.
            From the evidence from garbage pits the scientists believe they raised some cattle for maybe 20 years at the most, not the 500 years they had lived on Greenland. The Nordic tribes lived a miserable life there. Farming? Not really, surviving, yes.

          • S Graves

            Do you have the science to support your statement;

            —Farming? No, no farming.—

            Thanks for the autobiographical fable about your childhood. I lived on a farm too…and trudged through 5 miles through 3 feet of snow to school each day…summer and winter. All irrelevant to the topic…but your typical effort at obfuscation and misdirection.

            You will note in Figure 3 that indications of high ocean based dietary habits reaching 50% don’t appear until about 1200 AD. Significant consumption of seafood and seals exceeding 50% from both the Eastern and Western settlements comes later or about half way through the period of settlement

            http://pure01.kb.dk/ws/files/7443814/Arneborg_et_al_1999_RadioCarbon.pdf

            You claimed; “Vikings began trying to farm and that lasted for a brief time”
            You refused to temporarily define “brief time”. It is apparent that you believe “brief time” is 50% of the period of habitation, though you have provided nothing but your own opinions. But, if 50% is a “brief time” then they ate mostly terrestrial foods for a brief time and then a majority of sea based foods for a brief time. You ARE fun, Dale.
            According to the science I have cited…vs. NONE from you…CB’s claim and your support of her bogus claim are both…well, BOGUS!!
            I see CB gave you a like here. Maybe she can jump in and help you. That would be fun…but don’t count on it.

          • Dale Anderson

            (“autobiographical fable)…. No Miss. Graves.. I am not a pathological liar like you are.

            I told that life of growing up on a dairy farm to explain that I understand farming and how it is on a dairy farm…. Greenland is not anything like that.

            You ask (” Do you have the science to support your statement; —Farming? No, no farming.— “)… That is not all of my statement Missy and I wrote a lot more than just that.

            Yes I have some here is one article that backs up my arguments.

            http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

            Quotes from the article > (“The researchers found rubbish heaps close to the Vikings’ farms. Barley at the bottom of the heap.”) .

            That would hae been the first few years the Vikings were on Greenland. Farming didn’tl last very long, just a BRIEF period of time duing the 500 years they stayed on Greenland.

            Quotes continued > (“We excavated the rubbish heaps down to the bottom layers, which date from the time the settlers arrived,” says Henriksen, whose team took 300 kg of samples for further analysis.

            “The sample we took from the bottom layer of a heap contained grains of corn. The grains had been close to a fire and were charred, which preserved them.”

            Researchers believe the Vikings probably grew barley in small quantities, compared with the large, billowing cornfields we have today, and sowed barley in small enclosures that were no bigger than their ability to irrigate the corn and keep hungry animals out.

            The Vikings also tried to grow other agricultural crops. Their attempts to grow these crops and barley did not last long however, as the climate cooled over the next couple of centuries until the Little Ice Age started in the 13th century.

            The Vikings couldn’t cultivate very much in the last decades they were in Greenland because the climate was too bad,” says Henriksen. “Corn needs a long growing season, and if that season is too short you can’t harvest seed for the next season.”). < End quotes .

            Your sorry attempts to try and discredit me Missy are again a wasted of your un-precious time.

          • S Graves

            Actually, you article doesn’t say ANYTHING about the percentage of the dietary needs came from farming. Sea based food isn’t even mentioned. As far as backing up your assertions…nope.

            —That would hae (sic) been the first few years the Vikings were on Greenland. Farming didn’tl (sic) last very long, just a BRIEF period of time duing (sic) the 500 years they stayed on Greenland.—

            That’s NOT what the science says. Farming provided more than 50% of the colony’s needs for the first half of the period of occupation and eventually fell to 20% near the end of occupation due to the cooling climate beginning in the 13th century. The papers I cited above explain it for you.

            Your desperate attempt to pin history on a few grains of barley are humorous. But after all, you ARE fun…and FUNNY!

            Your nonsense is discredited. Just read the science dummy.

            How long is “not very long”? Your scientific terms are those of a CAGW fanatic. Keep thing uncertain…right Snail? By your terms, the period during which the inhabitants ate mostly food from the sea “didn’t last very long”.

          • Dale Anderson

            You wrote > (“Sea based food isn’t even mentioned. As far as backing up your assertions…nope.”)….. You lied again Missy Graves.
            No the scientists said they only farmed for a short time and grew barley in small enclosed plots… They only found barley seed at the very bottom of their garbage dumps in several different locations. They weren’t farming they were trying to survive…. The article says they also mostly ate seals for hundreds of years.

          • S Graves

            No Dale. The question isn’t whether they ate some seal meat. As the article I cited above states clearly, sea based food accounted for 20% of their early diets rising to 80% as the climate cooled. Why are you lying about what I said?
            Do you believe because barley is mentioned in one article that it was the only crop? You ARE fun, Dale. But dishonest.

          • Dale Anderson

            The Vikings eating mostly sea food, seals was in the article you linked and I also quoted and another article I posted a link for in a reply to you.

            Here was your link and a quote for the article > (“From then on, the settlers focused their efforts on hunting the seals that appeared in large numbers off the coasts of Greenland during their annual migrations.”).

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html

          • S Graves

            Oh Dale…you are just such a lying SOS. But you flailing efforts are humorous! Let’s quote the rest of what was said about their diets, shall we? I mean just to be honest. I know that’s hard for you.

            —From Farmers to Seal Hunters

            The bone analyses prove that, when the warm period came to an end, the Greenlandic farmers and ranchers switched to a seafood-based diet with surprising rapidity. From then on, the settlers focused their efforts on hunting the seals that appeared in large numbers off the coasts of Greenland during their annual migrations.

            When settlement began in the early 11th century, only between 20 and 30 percent of their diet came from the sea.—

            This was your lie; —Farming? No, no farming.—

            You posted it in support of CB’s nonsense;

            “Greenland hasn’t been ice-free in 3 million years.

            If you understand that, why would you think Vikings farmed it?”

            Even YOU admit she was incorrect. And don’t try the inane “she asked a questions”. Her position is clear from her inane rhetorical question. You have provided NOTHING to support —Farming? No, no farming.— Just drivel.

            At first I thought you were just stupid. Now I know that you are a liar…or simply can’t read the peer reviewed work.

          • Red47

            The good part about the shills like CB is that they barf out their nonsense and the rest of us get the chance to present reality. It is a big part of why reasonable people are finally recognizing the lies from the AGW crowd.

          • Cold Miser

            I confess, I too, am a fan of carbonated drinks.

          • CB

            “I too, am a fan of carbonated drinks.”

            What you guys seem to be fans of is changing the subject…

            If you refuse to talk about a problem, does that mean it doesn’t exist?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147e2c9db47cb45e06ced1ef3b9926e243c177958a672d8adb1e722a0900242e.png

          • Cold Miser

            I am not allowed to confess my passion for carbonated drinks?

            What problem am I refusing to talk about?

    • TempusProTem

      ‘Yeah, Obama;s a Communist’… why must,
      you ruin perfectly good squabbles with more perfect logic?
      I’ve seen this impudence in other places too!
      Stop that, it drives them up the friggin’ wall!

      • CB

        “why must, you ruin perfectly good squabbles with more perfect logic?”

        lol! It’s “logical” that water is beneficial too… unless you’re under 75 meters of it:

        “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

        earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

        If we haven’t triggered the complete collapse of the polar ice sheets, just with the CO₂ we’ve already emitted, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high?

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    According to deniers on these pages the whole AGW theory is a global scam involving all the world’s governments in order to provide a pretext to raise taxes.
    If that was the case why would India and China be delaying ratification of the Paris accord?
    Aren’t they in on the conspiracy after all?
    If they aren’t, why aren’t they telling the world about the hoax?
    If they are they would surely want to ratify as soon as possible.
    That’s the trouble with conspiracy theory nut jobs, they just can’t see the logical floors in their own positions.

    • BBQman

      You don’t see it, ha ha, why is China and India delaying ratification of the Paris accord, ha ha, I give up on you guys. It makes perfect sense for those two countries to encourage the demise of American economic output, look who’s filling the gap with their slave labor for the next, what is it 30 years before China and India stop using coal fired power plants, just look at China’s projections for building new coal fired power plants over the next 15 years, you have a little catching up to do, ha ha ha ha ha….can’t stop laughing, you owe me a new keyboard….ha ha ha, talk about naïve …

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        More ignorant, evidence free, misinformation from the retired proof reader.

        “The long-suffering global coal industry just got another dose of bad news. China’s government this week said it is banning construction of new coal-fired power plants in areas with surplus power supplies……..

        The commission also said that in regions that face a shortage of electricity supplies, the government will prioritize renewable energy projects such as solar and wind farms, and develop energy transmission networks across provincial borders. Chinese officials last week vowed to lead the world on green energy development during a signing ceremony for the Paris climate change agreement in New York.”

        http://www.ibtimes.com/china-bans-some-new-coal-power-plants-spelling-more-bad-news-troubled-industry-2359636

        • BBQman

          You seem to like misinformation, keep on drinking the kool-aid, it’s your life, enjoy.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            It seems to a trait with you that, when faced with researched links to credible sources of information, your response is dismiss with an evidence free assertion.
            I am sure that the balanced, reasonable observer will draw their own conclusions from the fact that in all your posts you have been completely unable to reference a solitary independent source that agrees with you.

            It’s your life,enjoy.

          • BBQman

            You only assume that the diatribe you post is researched and accurate, pity.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Are you suggesting that the International Business Times is not a credible source?
            ROFL.

            How about this?

            “Coal-burning in China is in significant decline, according to official figures released on Tuesday, signalling a major turnaround for the world’s biggest polluter.

            The new data is good news for the fight against climate change but bad for the struggling global coal industry.

            China saw a huge increase in coal-burning for power and industry in the last two decades but has suffered serious air pollution as a result. However in recent years there has been a surge in low-carbon energy and a slowdown in the economy – GDP growth fell in 2015 to its lowest in 25 years – as China moves away from manufacturing.

            The result is that global carbon emissions are set to continue the fall seen in 2015 for the first time outside of worldwide recessions, potentially for many years.”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/19/chinas-coal-burning-in-significant-decline-figures-show

          • BBQman

            Yes, and now I will block you, your silliness is so yesterday, and there is nothing to be learned from your diatribe and leftist propaganda, ESAD, good day.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            WOW!

            The truth really hurts, eh BBQ?

            Never mind, it doesn’t matter if you block me, I will still point out the stupidity of your position, everybody else will see it and you’ll have no chance to respond.

            LOL

          • Pumpkin Pie

            Where do you find these people. Lol :)

          • BBQman

            I don’t know, I’m starting to feel like the Pied Piper of Hamelin for Trolls.

    • Robert

      Maybe WoodfordsFrog should compare notes w:

      BBQman- https://disqus.com/by/disqus_sRoSd74zZZ/
      Tom Harris https://disqus.com/by/TomHarrisICSC/
      Stephen WV – https://disqus.com/by/StephenWV/
      Poptech – https://disqus.com/by/Poptech/
      Isk1956- https://disqus.com/by/lsk1956/

      All disagree with IPCC , but for different reasons…….

      I’d really like to see WF and bbq discuss the science… what with the theory of magnets, gaseous planets, and the coming ice age starting in eighty some days……

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    “BBQman Soosoos • 17 hours ago
    I only know what I know, I have spent the last 40 years proof reading massive reams of specifications and assembly plans, most often tasked with finding mistakes, missing information and erroneous information before they are used for bidding or building/fabrication.
    I have used countless red and green ink pens over the years to connect the dots ……….”

    LOL

    After literally hundreds of posts we discover that the person claiming to have turned the entire scientific understanding of climate on its head is a retired proof reader with a penchant for felt tips.

    hahahaha!

  • Red47

    How wonderful! The Earth’s temperature is finally normalizing.

  • SeeThroughYou

    Around 1000AD Greenland was a thriving AGRICULTURAL COLONY..

    That’s why there is evidence of habitation there…

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+