Re: IPCC throws in the towel on AGW! New Eco-scare created!

[Sam Wormley]

Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:

> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm


Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:44:05 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
>
>> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
>> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
>
>
> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

Get with the program. The IPCC is changing the Newspeak. You're on the
OLD program.

[bjacoby]

Yeah, Marvin, just like the memo that the Ice age is over or the one
that the USSR crashed and burned, Wormley is still laughably working
hard at the old story of global warming!

Wormley is an incompetent idiot, so he's no serious worry, but now, with
AGW thrown under the bus, the threat will switch to more real problems
like blatant destruction of natural resources of all kinds. And this is
truly dangerous as the plan is to put the same people who destroyed them
in charge of fixing the problem! It's like putting the fox in charge of
investigating the disappearance of chickens.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/12 6:02 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/time-for-next-eco-scare-obama-follows-lead-
> of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming.html

> It is not surprising that President Obama is steering clear of any talk or action on global warming. The entire man-made global warming movement lay in shambles as the United Nations attempts to shift to the new environmental cause of biodiversity/species at the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio in June.

Marvin is so gullible as to think that global warming is not
accelerating and is becoming the biggest challenge that humans
have ever faced!

Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/12 5:06 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> Wormley is an incompetent idiot, so he's no serious worry, but now, with
> AGW thrown under the bus, the threat will switch to more real problems
> like blatant destruction of natural resources of all kinds.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apocalypse-soon-has-civilization-passed-the-environmental-point-of-no-return

> Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year
based on a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers
think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of
socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century
may be on target

> "We're in for a period of sustained chaos whose magnitude we are
unable to foresee," Meadows warns. He no longer spends time trying to
persuade humanity of the limits to growth. Instead, he says, "I'm trying
to understand how communities and cities can buffer themselves" against
the inevitable hard landing.

[Marvin the Martian]

I can sort of get behind the species thing, as long as we're really
talking species and not claiming that the "red wolf" (which is a cross
between the gray wolf and a coyote) is an endangered species.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:07:43 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/25/12 6:02 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/time-for-next-eco-scare-obama-follows-lead-
>> of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming.html
>
>> It is not surprising that President Obama is steering clear of any talk
>> or action on global warming. The entire man-made global warming
>> movement lay in shambles as the United Nations attempts to shift to the
>> new environmental cause of biodiversity/species at the upcoming Earth
>> Summit in Rio in June.
>
> Marvin is so gullible as to think that global warming is not
> accelerating and is becoming the biggest challenge that humans have
> ever faced!

The GISS and harcut graphs had a trend of "flat", and that is with the
58% of bad data sites that should show UHI.

Jones admits there's no warming over the last 15 years.

Only you claim that global warming is accelerating.

> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >

So, is that in a sig file or something?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/12 6:31 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
>> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>>
>> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>> >
>> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
>> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>> >
>
> So, is that in a sig file or something?

You want it to be? Because you surely need to learn how greenhouse

gasses work and why human activity is causing rapid warming of
the planet.

Marvin, you claim education in science and engineering, yet you
you are really seriously fooling yourself when it comes to
climate science. The warming of the earth (the sum of oceans,
ice, land, and atmosphere) continue to warm and will do so as
long as there is the current imbalance in radiation. This is an
*observable*. The cause is primarily greenhouse gasses, although
deforestation and cement production are definitely contributing
factors.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:43:52 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/25/12 6:31 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
>>> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>>>
>>> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>>> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>> >
>>> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
>>> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>>> >
>>> >
>> So, is that in a sig file or something?
>
> You want it to be? Because you surely need to learn how greenhouse
> gasses work and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the
> planet.

As we found out, I understand the "greenhouse gas" effect far, far better
than you. You can pretend otherwise, but making statements about how the
sun warms the atmosphere which warms the ocean reveals your ignorance.

> Marvin, you claim education in science and engineering, yet you you
> are really seriously fooling yourself when it comes to climate
> science. The warming of the earth (the sum of oceans, ice, land, and
> atmosphere) continue to warm and will do so as long as there is the
> current imbalance in radiation. This is an *observable*. The cause is
> primarily greenhouse gasses, although deforestation and cement
> production are definitely contributing factors.

So, being a haughty windbag and talking down to people, is that how
you've gotten by with less than a undergrad's understanding of physics?

Your "what's wrong with this picture" thread, that was funny... and a
massive blunder in High School physics.

[Sam Wormley]

I try to steer you to relevant article relating to the issue, in this
case, the evidence that GW *was preceded by increasing carbon dioxide*
concentrations during the last deglaciation.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf

For heavens sake, Marvin, get your blinders off!

[Will Janoschka]

Ben. You much, much, understate the problem! The AGW folk have
indeed lost in the scientific realm. However, they have gobs of
believers
and lots, lots, lots, of money. Where they go next, unknown!

The message remains clear. Get the peons to pay for our profit.

The AGW stuff needs no science, it has a life of its own!
>

[bjacoby]

On 5/25/2012 6:07 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Marvin is so gullible as to think that global warming is not
> accelerating and is becoming the biggest challenge that humans
> have ever faced!
>
> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
> and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

And Wormley is so ignorant he can't even view a graph that shows
temperature has been level for the last 12 years.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1zgdh1x.jpg

YOUR FAVORITE SON, NASA, PROVIDED THIS DATA, SAM!

Would you please "educate" us all again on how when CO2 levels rise
dramatically and rapidly, and temperature stays constant, it "proves"
that CO2 causes "anthropogenic global warming"?

Marvin and I REALLY need an "education" on that one.

Sam, you've now finally lost what little credibility you ever had here!

[bjacoby]

On 5/25/2012 8:37 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/25/12 7:16 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

>>>> So, is that in a sig file or something?

>> So, being a haughty windbag and talking down to people, is that how
>> you've gotten by with less than a undergrad's understanding of physics?
>>
>> Your "what's wrong with this picture" thread, that was funny... and a
>> massive blunder in High School physics.

> I try to steer you to relevant article relating to the issue, in this
> case, the evidence that GW *was preceded by increasing carbon dioxide*
> concentrations during the last deglaciation.
> http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf

> For heavens sake, Marvin, get your blinders off!

Marvin won't you PLEASE believe in Sam's fundamentalist religion? If he
could only make you BELIEVE, you might be saved! Get your blinders off,
Marvin. Eschew heresy! Do you want a taste of the stake once Sam and his
pals run the New World? Save yourself right now! All you have to do is
BELIEVE that if CO2 is rising and Temperature is not, that this means
that CO2 causes global warming. Simple. I know you can suspend your
scientific education and training long enough to get with the program!
So do it and Sam will kiss you!

[Androcles]

"bjacoby" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:ADZvr.1666$Bn....@newsfe12.iad...

What cred was that?

[bjacoby]

On 5/25/2012 7:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> I can sort of get behind the species thing, as long as we're really
> talking species and not claiming that the "red wolf" (which is a cross
> between the gray wolf and a coyote) is an endangered species.

And that is exactly the problem, isn't it. When those interested more in
fraud and political power and greed place themselves in charge of the
solution to even REAL problems, it always seems to end up with reality
twisted and real problems ignored while fake ones are pursued.

So now the IPCC and all the alamists are asking everyone to let them
solve some real problems now that the last ones they attempted to
"solve" were proved fake. After "climategate" I and II what can we
expect next? Speciesgate? Does a leopard change it's spots?

[bjacoby]

On 5/25/2012 9:30 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> Ben. You much, much, understate the problem! The AGW folk have
> indeed lost in the scientific realm. However, they have gobs of
> believers
> and lots, lots, lots, of money. Where they go next, unknown!
>
> The message remains clear. Get the peons to pay for our profit.
>
> The AGW stuff needs no science, it has a life of its own!

All you say is obviously correct. They have limitless money, they have
the major media in their pockets, they have governments in their pockets
and they can "hire" any expert willing to sell out for a fist full of
dollars to spin any clever lie for them. However, the bottom line still
remains. Honest people are many and they are few.

All that is needed is for the honest people to wake up and discover how
they are being robbed. And this is where the pen (keyboard) becomes
mightier than the sword.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:31:13 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Make up your mind, shit-bot. Pick a story and stick to it. A
couple of messages back, the fight was already over and you
wackjobs had won it. Now people have yet to Rise Up in their
Righteous Wrath.

So is the war over, or has it not started yet, or does that vary
from hour to hour in your Newspeak?


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Bill Ward]

You've already lost the science part and the political part will be
decided in Nov 2012.

[Dawlish]

On May 26, 8:13 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:37:54 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:

> decided in Nov 2012.  - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The delusion of this far right-wing nutter, bilbo, borders on denky
delusion. "You've" already lost the science part. <shakes head for the
second time this morning at bilbo>. Must be because "we" haven't got
Miskolczi on "our" side then.

It's just bizzarre.

[Marvin the Martian]

True enough. I recall one dam project being stopped over some tiny fish.
Seemed that this on river was their only habitat. The truth, though, was
that this fish existed in a number of different rivers, but this
"species" had a green tint rather than a blue tint (or was it the other
way around) thus it had to be protected. It wasn't a REAL separate
species. If that is their standard for species, than we have a whole mess
of human species!

And they will use that canard to depopulate a large area of the United
States.

But, unlike climate change, which occurs naturally and they were lying
about it being man made, there really are idiots in China, India and
Africa who threaten to exterminate entire species.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions because the cab driver
wants to take us to hell.

[Marvin the Martian]

Bullshit. The ice core data proved that CO2 lagged temperature by 800
years.

God damnit, worm. We did this one before. The rebuttal went WAY over you
head or you thought I forgot this paper. You're fucking wasting my time.

The paper says that their models only allowed for TWO causes of warming -
CO2 and solar variation - they started OUT with a black and white
fallacy. Cosmic rays and Milcovich cycles and all kinds of other possible
causes were left out.

Then they ruled out solar variation because the physics wasn't there.
Then, ignoring the contrary evidence of the ice core data and the fact
that there was no physics to explain how CO2 did the warming, they
concluded CO2 must have done it.

It is pure crap science.

Now, get off the soap box and go to sci.biology. Your masters realize how
stupid this AGW thing is, and they've demoted AGW from world ending
disaster to minor annoyance. You're supposed to be talking snail darters
and all that now. At least the new propaganda has some truth to it
instead of being a total line of bullshit that AGW is.

[Marvin the Martian]

I've looked at the plan, and Sam et all are dustbinned after the
takeover.

Of course, 6.5 billion people, 93% of the people, are marked for the
dustbin, so Sam need not feel TOO bad about it.

They want half a billion people to serve the masters and Sam is useful
for providing the excuse for a draconian government, but once the
government is draconian, they don't need him. They need USEFUL people -
engineers, real scientist, real workers and such. And if Sam buys this AGW
so completely, he's useless in those fields.

[Marvin the Martian]

The people who are behind this are the people who own half the world's
wealth and the central banks of the world.

Well, they don't own the central bank of Iran (war on the way) and they
didn't own the central bank of Libya (how'd that work out for Kaddaffi?
So much for his plan on an African economy based on the Gold standard!
Can't have that kinda talk!)

... But they almost own all the world's central banks. Soon to be all and
no matter who is elected president of the United States.

These folks are satanist. They believe their "magic" is the ability to
get people to believe what they want. Had the warming period not stopped
15 years ago they probably would have pulled off AGW. That AGW didn't
take probably really surprised them. Magic failed!

Not enough babies in the ovens, I guess.

[Marvin the Martian]

Uh... no.

Both Obama and Romney are solid AGW believers. Publicly, at least.

Romney says he won't do much about it. Probably because the shift has
been made to species.

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, that is it, isn't it. The graph looks flat. One may have a slight
trend to increase, but the other looks like a slight decrease.

Sam, who has a problem confusing T with dT/dt, is now saying d^2 T/dt^2
is large positive.

Really? With dT/dt = 0 after a period (1980-1998) where it was positive?

And Sam says I'm the one who isn't a scientist. He's either a bald faced
liar or profoundly stupid. I'm thinking stupid, because it doesn't take
much brains to see his laughably wrong.

[Marvin the Martian]

He tries to get cred by posting articles from pop-science blogs and
magazines - sometimes even from "Physics Today"!

Then he spends that cred being a shill for AGW.

[Bill Ward]

I was referring more to continuing the job started in 2010, sweeping most
of the rest of the Progressives/Marxists out of the House and Senate.
Watch what the candidates from Tea Parties do. Romney won't be able to
get away with as much as Obama did, IMHO.

The US political system is designed with long time constants. Good for
stability, but it makes for slow error correction. So far, so good.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 26, 5:09 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 06:25:10 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 02:13:09 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2012 00:37:54 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
>

> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:31:13 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>

Our government designed for compromise, something the tea party does
not understand, thats why the current house republican majority is not
safe during this upcoming election.

[Bill Ward]

We'll see, won't we? Just how much freedom do you want to compromise
away? What do we do when we have no more remaining?

If you think you desire security over freedom, you should be securely
locked away until you change your mind. Ask the folks who grew up in the
former Soviet Union and satellites what they think about the issue.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Post 9/11 that kind of talk is bs, as we have already sacrificed our
freedoms for security in a rash of bills supported by both parties, so
no you dont have any high ground in that argument. The red scare is
last centuries news, the old leaders of the old soviet union have
become the elite in that country, still manipulating the people as
before (putin is a great example).

The U.S. government is based on the premise of compromise, and to
assert that compromise ultimately means you are giving up freedom is
completely illogical, for our country became a world leader with by
two parties agreeing on certain issues, and working through the
disagreements on others. On the other hand the recent extreme right
wing movement in this county does not want to comprimise with the
left, and now they are going to pay the price in the poll booth.

[Uncle Ben]

On May 25, 6:06 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> Wormley is an incompetent idiot, ----

Not so, namesake. Sam is a professional physicist who takes GW
seriously.
Are you a professional physicist?

There is room for more than one opinion on this subject, and I differ
with Sam.
But under-rate him at your peril.

Uncle Ben

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 6:12 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Bullshit. The ice core data proved that CO2 lagged temperature by 800
> years.

Marvin, your misunderstanding about cause and effect is addressed
in these article. Please read them, Marvin, and gain insight!

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature
rises, disproving the link to global warming
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking
> http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/

‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags’–Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and
an effect of warming
> http://grist.org/climate-energy/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about
global warming?
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/langswitch_lang/sw

[Falcon]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Uncle Ben wrote...

>
> On May 25, 6:06 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On 5/25/2012 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > Wormley is an incompetent idiot, ----
>
> Not so, namesake. Sam is a professional physicist who takes GW
> seriously.

[..]

I doubt it, Ben. A professional physicist wouldn't cite eight year old
pre-Argo papers on sea levels when much more modern and reliable
research is available. At least, I bloody well hope they wouldn't. If
that's normal behaviour for physicists, science is more fucked than I
imagined.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/12 6:02 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> So, now they're using something else to scare people into allowing
> themselves to be controlled and taxed.
>
> Global warming, aka "climate change" is now officially off the list. The
> new propaganda is biodiversity and saving species is now "more powerful
> than climate change".
>
> In other words, they gave up but they're not going to admit that it was
> all a gigantic fraud.
>
> Nope, you're not going to read about it in the main stream media.
>
> <http://www.prisonplanet.com/time-for-next-eco-scare-obama-follows-lead-
> of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming.html>
>
> Score: Science 1, Useful idiots 0.

Quoting from: >
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/claims-of-deniers-wont-alter-the-facts-20120427-1xqh2.html

> If saying that the science is settled on human-caused climate change is a lie, then let's look at who those liars are: the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological Society, the European Geophysical Union, The Royal Society, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Scientists … the list goes on.

> Almost all scientific societies and academies on the planet have made statements noting the reality of human-induced climate change.

> The major climate data sets all show that 2010 and 2005 were the planet's hottest years, and all show the most recent decade as our warmest. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on climate change action (or indeed inaction), but not their own scientific facts. And that's no lie

[Last Post]

On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:44:05 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
>
> > IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
>
>

> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
> and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >

ø Two nonsense publications reposted by Sam the Worm.

40 years ago prominent Paleologist Genvieve Woillard
expressed dubious effect in the Greenhouse Effect and
as usual she was right.

[Androcles]

"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:06f7b35e-8927-402f...@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On May 25, 6:06 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> Wormley is an incompetent idiot, ----

Not so, namesake. Sam is a professional physicist who takes GW
seriously.

==================================
There ya go... Wormley is an incompetent idiot as you've
just proven.

Are you a professional physicist?

==================================
Jokaby can't be, he's incompetent but not a complete idiot.

There is room for more than one opinion on this subject, and I differ
with Sam.
But under-rate him at your peril.

====================================
Jokaby didn't underrate the wormlets incompetency and idiocy.

[Androcles]

"Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a2b01c82...@News.Individual.NET...

Take no notice of Bonehead, he's totally senile and can't read algebra.

[bjacoby]

On 5/26/2012 9:59 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

> Post 9/11 that kind of talk is bs, as we have already sacrificed our
> freedoms for security in a rash of bills supported by both parties, so
> no you dont have any high ground in that argument. The red scare is
> last centuries news, the old leaders of the old soviet union have
> become the elite in that country, still manipulating the people as
> before (putin is a great example).
>
> The U.S. government is based on the premise of compromise, and to
> assert that compromise ultimately means you are giving up freedom is
> completely illogical, for our country became a world leader with by
> two parties agreeing on certain issues, and working through the
> disagreements on others. On the other hand the recent extreme right
> wing movement in this county does not want to comprimise with the
> left, and now they are going to pay the price in the poll booth.

Well that's a wonderful advertisement for the premise of laying back and
enjoying the rape by those in power, but many of us know how they work.
They employ what is called Hegelian Dialectic.

In this method one decides what change one wishes to accomplish. And
then you create a false debate over the issue. You create, fund, and
support BOTH sides in the argument. One called "thesis" and the other
called "antithesis". Pro-gun, anti-gun; AGW, Deniers; Left wing, Right
wing; etc. And then through that fake "debate" one slowly works toward a
fake "compromise" that is EXACTLY the change one wanted to effect in the
first place! And that is termed "synthesis".

The bottom line being "compromise" is simply sold as an excuse to give
away what you already own. If you compromise with lies, you have already
lost it all. So if one has no morality or ethics, just how difficult do
you suppose it is to create a mass shooting, explode a building
(demolition) or crash some aircraft into one so that people like you
begin screaming for "compromise". Obviously if you choose to give away
all you own, including all the rights God gave you, you can do that. But
you then must lie in the bed you made. The problems is when you begin to
take the rest of us with you.

[bjacoby]

Hey, "uncle Ben" hows the rice going? Are YOU a "professional
physicist"? If you ARE you sure need to be fired for being so ignorant
as to characterize the internet entity known as "Wormley" as a
"professional" or "Physicist". If you'd said "professional propagandist"
or "professional politician", I think we'd have all agreed with you in a
heartbeat.

But this description of the Wormley-bot which as near as we can tell is
really an amalgamation of things of which only a part is a real person,
is so fawning as to be laughable.

AGW is over, "uncle Ben", time to start talking about saving endangered
species!

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The founding fathers did not unanimously agree on the constitution
without compromising, so your argument is not logical, and not
supported by the facts. In the time past since the constitution
written, our legislative and executive leaders have compromised or
accepted judgment the Supreme Court, with one exception the civil
war. I would hope people like you don't want to repeat mistake of a
civil war, a huge scar in our nation’s history. Just like the times
of the past, we make value judgments on how to use a scarce amount of
resources in an attempt to resolve issues based on the best available
information. The manner about which we choose to resolve those
issues, and sometimes what we consider the goal to be, may be in
dispute, but this country is strong because we are a diverse group
comprising a union of states. The act of compromise is not the goal,
but is necessary in such a union, and requires more work than making a
political stand simply on principles alone. The act of compromise
requires an honest attempt to understand differing views, so as to
best be able to arrive a mutually agreed upon decision that will have
the least amount of chances to fail, and best chances to improve our
country. The fake argument put forth by people like is meant to
polarize the political spectrum, making compromise harder to achieve,
simply based on the principle of a fake patriotism. People like you
use the term "freedom", in attempt to wrap yourselves in the flag, but
you seem to forget the flag represents a union of states that was
formed through compromise. So you have no point, other than to show
how easy it is to “poison the well” attempting to make comprise harder
to achieve.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 6:12 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Bullshit. The ice core data proved that CO2 lagged temperature by 800
> years.

CO2 Lags Temperature in the Ice-Core Record. Doesn’t that prove the IPCC
wrong?

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/
>
> “Skeptics” now arrive and claim to “debunk” the science of the IPCC by debunking Al Gore’s movie. They rely on the ignorance of their audience. Or demonstrate their own.
>
> CO2 is certainly very important in our atmosphere despite being a “trace gas”. Physics and the properties of “trace gases” cannot be deduced from our life experiences. Have a read of CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One to understand more about this subject.
>
> CO2 is both a cause and a consequence of temperature changes. That’s what makes climate science so fascinating.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 12:13 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> Would you please "educate" us all again on how when CO2 levels rise
> dramatically and rapidly, and temperature stays constant, it "proves"
> that CO2 causes "anthropogenic global warming"?

Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the
ocean has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over
the full surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003.

Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf

The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all
the warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.

The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part
of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
>

[Bill Ward]

Spot on, bj. I only wish I could have put it so clearly.

[Bill Ward]

From my experience with Wormley in the ng, I'd have to agree with bj.
But you don't seem like one likely to jump to conclusions. Are you aware
of something we don't know?

[Uncle Ben]

Some correspondence.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 07:27:13 -0700, Uncle Ben wrote:

> On May 25, 6:06 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 5/25/2012 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> Wormley is an incompetent idiot, ----
>
> Not so, namesake. Sam is a professional physicist who takes GW
> seriously.
> Are you a professional physicist?

Wow. An appeal to authority fallacy.

> There is room for more than one opinion on this subject, and I differ
> with Sam.

It is hard to underrate a physicist who rarely discusses the physics,
when he does do the physics he can't do Newton's law (his balloon is a
perpetual motion machine thread), and doesn't even know how the
"greenhouse gas effect works" (his claim that the air heats the surface,
not the surface heats the air).

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:34:56 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/25/12 6:02 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> So, now they're using something else to scare people into allowing
>> themselves to be controlled and taxed.
>>
>> Global warming, aka "climate change" is now officially off the list.
>> The new propaganda is biodiversity and saving species is now "more
>> powerful than climate change".
>>
>> In other words, they gave up but they're not going to admit that it was
>> all a gigantic fraud.
>>
>> Nope, you're not going to read about it in the main stream media.
>>
>> <http://www.prisonplanet.com/time-for-next-eco-scare-obama-follows-
lead-
>> of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming.html>
>>
>> Score: Science 1, Useful idiots 0.
>
> Quoting from: >
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/claims-of-deniers-wont-alter-the-
facts-20120427-1xqh2.html

That's funny that they claim that the Russian Academy of Science claims
that AGW is "settled science". The Russian Academy is saying we're going
into a cold period.

The "Federation of American Scientist" is a far left political propaganda
group that has very little to do with science.

Another appeal to authority + bandwagon fallacy, worm? It is understandble
that a Journalist doesn't know the difference between T and dT/dt but you
claim to be a physicist, and to prove that they are the same you're
quoting a journalist?

It's still wrong, Worm. wrong is wrong.

>> If saying that the science is settled on human-caused climate change is
>> a lie, then let's look at who those liars are: the Australian
>> Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the American Meteorological
>> Society, the European Geophysical Union, The Royal Society, the Russian
>> Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Scientists … the list
>> goes on.
>
>> Almost all scientific societies and academies on the planet have made
>> statements noting the reality of human-induced climate change.
>
>> The major climate data sets all show that 2010 and 2005 were the
>> planet's hottest years, and all show the most recent decade as our
>> warmest. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on climate change
>> action (or indeed inaction), but not their own scientific facts. And
>> that's no lie

So, Temperature and the first derivative of temperature is the same. And
you believe it because it was in the scientific journal, "Sydney Morning
Herald".

[Uncle Ben]

On May 26, 12:25 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 10:27 AM, Uncle Ben wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 6:06 pm, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net>  wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2012 11:39 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> >> Wormley is an incompetent idiot, ----
>
> > Not so, namesake.  Sam is a professional physicist who takes GW
> > seriously.
> > Are you a professional physicist?
>
> > There is room for more than one opinion on this subject, and I differ
> > with Sam.
> > But under-rate him at your peril.
>
> > Uncle Ben
>
> Hey, "uncle Ben" hows the rice going? Are YOU a "professional
> physicist"?

Johns Hopkins University, 1956
Former member Am. Physical Society

> But this description of the Wormley-bot which as near as we can tell is
> really an amalgamation of things of which only a part is a real person,
> is so fawning as to be laughable.

Sam is a real person, on a physics faculty in the mid-west, which he
will identify if he wishes.
>
> AGW is over, "uncle Ben".

I agree, but I respect those who debate constructively.

[Bill Ward]

That's what I suspected. I'd recommend being very, very careful. Look
at his posting history and see if you really think the leopard has
changed his spots. Some of the folks you ran across at sks also claim to
be professional physicists who take GW seriously. They play by different
rules than we do.

[Marvin the Martian]

So, after I debunk the paper itself, you trot out the idiot left wing
rags and blogs that are in the bag for the AGW scam who are quoting the
paper.

Way to go worm. You're proving it was the propaganda paper I said it was
and not science.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 2:35 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> It is hard to underrate a physicist who rarely discusses the physics,
> when he does do the physics he can't do Newton's law (his balloon is a
> perpetual motion machine thread), and doesn't even know how the
> "greenhouse gas effect works" (his claim that the air heats the surface,

<laughing> The non-scientists certainly like to attribute their
misunderstandings to me. Kooks and Cranks say I said this or said
that, when I didn't. It is all in the posting record.

To the subject of this thread:

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:03:24 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/26/12 12:13 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>> Would you please "educate" us all again on how when CO2 levels rise
>> dramatically and rapidly, and temperature stays constant, it "proves"
>> that CO2 causes "anthropogenic global warming"?
>
> Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the
> ocean has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over
> the full surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003.
>
> Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf
>
> The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
> and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all the
> warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
>
> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part of
> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

The part where the temperature is going up and the temperature is staying
the same is a bit confusing because it is contradictory.

[Sam Wormley]

You've debunked nothing, Marvin.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 2:43 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> That's funny that they claim that the Russian Academy of Science claims
> that AGW is "settled science". The Russian Academy is saying we're going
> into a cold period.

Can you confirm with a source from the Russian Academy of Science?
I doubt it.

Kind of Interesting that as the world warms up, Marvin, you would
claim that some agency that you can't quote from would claim the
warming is all but over.

How did you get to be such a nay-sayer, Marvin?

[kym horsell]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 6:09:30 AM UTC+10, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/26/12 2:35 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > It is hard to underrate a physicist who rarely discusses the physics,
> > when he does do the physics he can't do Newton's law (his balloon is a
> > perpetual motion machine thread), and doesn't even know how the
> > "greenhouse gas effect works" (his claim that the air heats the surface,
>
> <laughing> The non-scientists certainly like to attribute their
> misunderstandings to me. Kooks and Cranks say I said this or said
> that, when I didn't. It is all in the posting record.

...

It seems to be a common thing.

I also once posted an occasional news item to the net. Oftentimes people then
attributed what was clearly newspaper items (with appropriate attributions)
to me.

The only reason I can think of is some people can't accept someone might give airtime to things they don't actually literally believe themselves.

And, I guess, that is one of the signs of monomania & crankery.

--
Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate. They aren't
interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're
interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say
anything to try to bring this about. [O]nce you've shown that what
they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend
a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart.
-- Mark Hoofnagle, http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 3:10 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> The part where the temperature is going up and the temperature is staying
> the same is a bit confusing because it is contradictory.

Climatologists use 30-year trends, Marvin. You keep forgetting so
quickly. Here's something for you to dwell on, Marvin--the changing
temperature of the earth's oceans.

[Marvin the Martian]

That's nice if you're into doing physics by authority... and you believe
Sam to be an authority.

But Wormley's thread on "what's wrong with this picture" where he claims
a child on a skate board blowing up a balloon and using it for propulsion
is perpetual motion proves he doesn't understand even first year lower
division undergrad physics at the general ed physics level.

His claim that the Greenhouse gas theory works by the sun's energy
warming the atmosphere which then warms the surface shows that he doesn't
even understand AGW.

He almost never discusses the physics himself because when he does it
results in shameless debacles like the two I mention, and he doesn't
understand the articles he posts beyond the title. Which is why when I
point out the flaws in the papers he posts he never replies and he keeps
posting them.

Almost every posts he makes is full of logical fallacies. His favorite is
the post hoc fallacy.

To me, an authority doesn't need to mention his credentials, and he is
able to talk the subject and explain the physics without the use of
logical fallacies. I don't care if the guy has a Nobel prize, if he posts
physics blunders and uses many logical fallacies, I'm going to call him
on it.

[Marvin the Martian]

Now, that's a non-sequitor. If you disagree, please explain how the
compromises in the constitution (which were over things like slavery,
having a king and revolutionary debt) prove that his argument about the
Hegelian Dialectic is illogical. They don't even seem to be related
issues other than he's attacking the idea of compromise.

> and not supported
> by the facts. In the time past since the constitution written, our
> legislative and executive leaders have compromised or accepted judgment
> the Supreme Court, with one exception the civil war.

Actually, they trashed the constitution and the concept of limited
government that the constitution required. If that is what compromise
means...

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:17:35 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

I want to read more. Any book recommendations?

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah. Please get to the part where the temperature is increasing over
time and the second derivative of temperature wrt time is positive while
the temperature is staying the same on the measurements.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:14:43 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/26/12 2:43 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> That's funny that they claim that the Russian Academy of Science claims
>> that AGW is "settled science". The Russian Academy is saying we're
>> going into a cold period.
>
> Can you confirm with a source from the Russian Academy of Science? I
> doubt it.

http://german.ruvr.ru/2012_05_15/74737017/

> Kind of Interesting that as the world warms up, Marvin, you would
> claim that some agency that you can't quote from would claim the
> warming is all but over.

They showed you the temperature charts for the last 15 years.

Jones admitted it.

Don't you realize that by lying like this, you're making a bigger fool of
yourself? You don't need a lot of science background to spot your lies.

> How did you get to be such a nay-sayer, Marvin?

I guess I just don't like being lied to and people who don't know shit
giving science a bad name.

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't think you even read what I wrote, because things like logic are
all way above your head.

[Wally W.]

No paragraph breaks.

Possibly a cut-and-paste.

[Wally W.]

I generally value what you post, but "debate constructively" doesn't
seem to fit this case as often as the assessment implies.

Debating requires engagement of the opponent's views. Repetitively
spewing the same irrelevant links is not debating.

[gordo]

First no god gave me rights. People make stuff up . Secondly the
Merchants of Doubt do not want regulations to cut into their bottom
line so they can continue to pollute and take us all with them if
their greed allows runaway global warming.
Spot on Gordo. You put it very clearly.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Nope, my post is original, my logic is solid, and my reasoning sound.
On the other hand you seem more interested in illogical assertions, as
usual.

[gordo]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:14:43 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

He tells us the Russian academy says we are going into a cold period
but has no cite for this. The planet is going to get a hell of a lot
warmer before it ever gets colder. I have a wager of $10,000 Canadian
that within the next 4 years ( no longer the 5 ) that one year in the
next 4 the global temperatures will be warmer than at any time since
records have been taken.

The little greenie from mars talks a good streak but can he put his
money where his mouth is. The loser pays the lawyer fees for setting
it up.

[Wally W.]

If you have no God-given rights, why should anyone respect those which
are not found in either category below?

1. Defined and granted by the state, or

2. Gained and maintained by force?

>People make stuff up .

Indeed, "they" do.

>Secondly the
>Merchants of Doubt do not want regulations to cut into their bottom
>line

Who wants anyone to cut into their bottom line?

> so they can continue to pollute and take us all with them if
>their greed allows runaway global warming.

A world with no pollution is unattainable. How much is too much? There
are varying answers. Those who *have* jobs can be quite sanctimonious
about how much *others* should pollute.

> Spot on Gordo. You put it very clearly.

Someone is obviously quite pleased with himself.

[Sam Wormley]

Marvin, global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate
of 1.7 ą 0.5 mm/yr over the past 100 years, which is significantly
larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.

> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png


This increase is due mainly to *thermal expansion*, you know--heat
the water and it expands, Marvin.

> How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
>
> Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
>http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/increasing_rates_of_ice_mass_loss_from_the_greenland__and_antarctic_ice_sheets_revealed_by_grace.pdf
>

Cause and Effect:

o Greenhouse gassed trap IR radiation (observed)
o Oceans Warm (observed)
o Oceans Thermally Expand (observed)
o Sea Level Rises (observed)

All consistent with AGW

When (and if) you ever conclude that you were wrong about climate
science and human driven global climate change, I hope you will
consider me a friend, Marvin.

-Sam

[Sam Wormley]

Changes in Earth's Total Heat Content
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011.jpg


> http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=53&&n=1258

> Earth's energy budget is determined by measuring how much energy comes into the Earth system from the sun, how much is lost to space as heat, and accounting for the remainder on Earth. Very little of this Earthbound energy goes into warming the atmosphere and land because they have a limited capacity to store heat. Likewise the energy required to melt ice is comparatively small.
>
> The oceans, however, cover over 70% of the Earth's surface, are dark-coloured (meaning they absorb sunlight readily) and, due to their enormous heat capacity compared to that of the atmosphere and land, store over 90% of the excess energy from global warming. Quite obviously then, accurate measurements of ocean warming are crucial to balancing Earth's energy budget.

[Uncle Ben]

Translation of german quote about Russian opinion:

"Global Warming is coming to an end in a few years, according to
scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences.
.
"The general temperature decrease has already begun, according to
research. After a peak in 2005 the average temperature on earth has
decreased by 0.3 degrees to the level of 1996-1997. According to these
scientists the global temperature will sink further until 2015 by
about 0.15 degrees, which would correspond to the climate of the
1980's."

[Marvin the Martian]

Which pretty much proves that the RAS is not saying "AGW is settled
science".

As Gliever pointed out in his resignation letter to the AIP, there is no
such thing as "settled science". Even Newtonian mechanics was not
"settled science" and QM and SR highlighted that.

Now folks here have been showing the last decade's temperature charts
which show no warming, and Jones himself said there was no statistically
significant warming, and Wormley is still claiming warming and that it is
ACCELERATING.

Your support of Wormley is basically an appeal to his authority. Sorry,
Authority means he's supposed to address the science and make a sound and
valid argument, and that he has not done. He tells us to believe things
that are flat out not what the data says, he almost never addresses the
science and when he does he goofs it up (the greenhouse effect example
and his "what's wrong with this picture" thread), and when he's caught,
he just pretends it didn't happen.

I feel that he's been dishonest.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:10:24 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/26/12 4:06 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:14:43 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/12 2:43 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> That's funny that they claim that the Russian Academy of Science
>>>> claims that AGW is "settled science". The Russian Academy is saying
>>>> we're going into a cold period.
>>>
>>> Can you confirm with a source from the Russian Academy of Science?
>>> I doubt it.
>>
>> http://german.ruvr.ru/2012_05_15/74737017/
>>
>>> Kind of Interesting that as the world warms up, Marvin, you would
>>> claim that some agency that you can't quote from would claim the
>>> warming is all but over.
>>
>> They showed you the temperature charts for the last 15 years.
>>
>> Jones admitted it.
>>
>> Don't you realize that by lying like this, you're making a bigger fool
>> of yourself? You don't need a lot of science background to spot your
>> lies.
>>
>>> How did you get to be such a nay-sayer, Marvin?
>>
>> I guess I just don't like being lied to and people who don't know shit
>> giving science a bad name.
>
>
> Changes in Earth's Total Heat Content
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/
Total_Heat_Content_2011.jpg

Nice a political blog.

Now, why do I not find this chart credible? Because it claims that the
earth is increasing in heat content over the last 15 years, yet the GISS
data shows no temperature increase. The only way for there to be an
increase in heat without a temperature increase is if the earth was
undergoing a phase transition, like solid to liquid or liquid to gas.
Which is just not the case.

So once again I ask, how can temperature be the same while temperature
remains the same?

Look, I'm good with posting from a political website IF they make sound
and valid arguments. This is obviously a bullshit argument meant to
deceive folks with not much of an education in science. That you didn't
even give it a critical thought means that:

1) You hoped to fool people with non-science OR you didn't see the
problem yourself.

2) You don't mind damaging your reputation if you were caught with this.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:59:48 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/26/12 4:01 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:19:35 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/12 3:10 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> The part where the temperature is going up and the temperature is
>>>> staying the same is a bit confusing because it is contradictory.
>>>
>>> Climatologists use 30-year trends, Marvin. You keep forgetting so
>>> quickly. Here's something for you to dwell on, Marvin--the
>>> changing temperature of the earth's oceans.
>>
>> Yeah. Please get to the part where the temperature is increasing over
>> time and the second derivative of temperature wrt time is positive
>> while the temperature is staying the same on the measurements.
>>
>>
> Marvin, global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of

> 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/yr over the past 100 years, which is significantly

> larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.
>
>> http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/
uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
>
>
> This increase is due mainly to *thermal expansion*, you know--heat
> the water and it expands, Marvin.

How does that answer my question about temperature and the increasing
rate of increase that you're claiming?

Why do you change the subject every time I try and discuss the science
with you?

And to address your red-herring; you're making the claim that your own
GISS temperature data doesn't show warming and now you're trying to say
the temperature data is wrong and you are using sea level as a proxy?
What the hell, wormley.

>> How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
>>
>> Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice
>> sheets revealed by GRACE
> >http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/
increasing_rates_of_ice_mass_loss_from_the_greenland__and_antarctic_ice_sheets_revealed_by_grace.pdf
>>
>>
> Cause and Effect:
>
> o Greenhouse gassed trap IR radiation (observed) o Oceans Warm
> (observed)
> o Oceans Thermally Expand (observed)
> o Sea Level Rises (observed)
>
> All consistent with AGW

Again, a couple of post hoc fallacies and you're referencing an effect
that CANNOT explain the observed warming that happened in the 1980-2000
decades. Further, CO2 has increased while global temperatures have NOT. A
real scientist would say that your hypothesis has failed.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 7:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Now, why do I not find this chart credible? Because it claims that the
> earth is increasing in heat content over the last 15 years, yet the GISS
> data shows no temperature increase. The only way for there to be an
> increase in heat without a temperature increase is if the earth was
> undergoing a phase transition, like solid to liquid or liquid to gas.
> Which is just not the case.

Now Marvin, perhaps the reason is similar to why you don't believe
CO2 traps IR warming the planet, or that Einstein was a major
contributor to the quantum mechanics. There's pattern here.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 7:15 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Now folks here have been showing the last decade's temperature charts
> which show no warming, and Jones himself said there was no statistically
> significant warming, and Wormley is still claiming warming and that it is
> ACCELERATING.
>

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

Do you measure a deceleration from 1980 on, Marvin?

[Last Post]

On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:44:05 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
>
> > IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

ø ROTFLMAO — 4th IPCC assessment 100 %
absolutely useless.

> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
> and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

ø Greenhouse gasses have little or no thermal
effect
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

ø The "Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" has
zero thermal effect

ø Nonsense!!!

> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >
ø Nonsense.
Best if you withdraw from that Junior
College appointment. They will find
out your ignorance before long


On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:44:05 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
>
> > IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
>
>
> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
> and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 7:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> How does that answer my question about temperature and the increasing
> rate of increase that you're claiming?

For smooth curves through the data sets dRate/dt > 0 for

o CO2 Concentration
o Sea Level Rise
o Global temperature data:
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
o Hansen's Projections <smiling>
o Decreasing Ocean pH

Do you not see some consistency here, Marvin?

[kym horsell]

And just to correct the record again, Jones said there was statistically
significant warming, but "barely". I.e. at the 90% level.

--
[Melvin does philosophy:]
Logic and math are, when you get right down to it, are the same thing.
And science is nothing more than a logical analysis applied to the real world.
-- Melvin the Marvin@CO, 15 Apr 2012 00:02 -0500

[gordo]

Read the Merchants of Doubt and you will find it is mostly dirty coal
and oil, tar sands and now fracking that want no regulations of their
industry. Although the people involved are few in number their
political strength is more powerful than many governments. In the
third world they openly bribe governments hire para military to kill
opponents and pollute at will. In the US they bribe in secret and use
things like the Heritage Institute to do their work protecting their
bottom line.

>> so they can continue to pollute and take us all with them if
>>their greed allows runaway global warming.
>
>A world with no pollution is unattainable. How much is too much? There
>are varying answers. Those who *have* jobs can be quite sanctimonious
>about how much *others* should pollute.
>
>> Spot on Gordo. You put it very clearly.
>Someone is obviously quite pleased with himself.

Of course I was talking mostly about CO2 pollution which if we do not
control may well result in runaway global warming.
I am quite pleased with myself
Spot on Gordo.

[Bill Ward]

But you've got to admit he's consistent. Boring, even.

[Wally W.]

I disagree with much of what was said, but there is still something
inspiring about an "I did it!" moment.

https://plus.google.com/102600985854304447939/posts/AtLGz5TLqtT

[Marvin the Martian]

Please use complete sentences and don't cut and paste the same thing over
and over again.

[Marvin the Martian]

Your first statement is a straw dog. I have always said CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, I just pointed out that the 13-20 micrometer band is
already SATURATED and more CO2 will not cause more warming, which is
consistent with the data that shows CO2 levels rising and temperature
data remaining steady for the last 15 years.

The second statement is basically true: I did say that since Einstein
objected to the wildly successful theory of Quantum Mechanics, lost his
debate with Bohr about quantum mechanics, and came up with some silly
unphysical "hidden variable" theory as an alternative, that his
contributions were to QM were more negative than positive. The problem
is, I'm right and your only reply seems to be hero worship.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 20:06:31 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

P.S.

So, now you're reduced more wild red herrings and logical fallacies.
Humm.

What does this post have to do with the conflict between the temperature
data and your graph from the political blog claiming more heat?

[Marvin the Martian]

He is religiously consistent in changing the subject every time you ask
him a hard to answer question.

I asked him about his claim that heat was increasing and temperature was
staying consistent, and he starts talking about Einstein's contributions
to quantum mechanics.

One of his replies of which he seems to have pride for making only
contained one complete sentence, and that was a question.

I mean, what the hell! If I didn't suspect him of being a dishonest
propagandist, I would say there is something seriously wrong with that
fellow. That's just not right.

[Marvin the Martian]

That isn't temperature vs. year, Mr. Wormley. That's a ten year moving
average of temperature. Don't you even look at the stuff you're posting,
or wonder why the GISS & HadCRU graphs conflict with this graph you've
been using?

[Last Post]

On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:44:05 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
>
> > IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

ø A multi-million dollar document replete with woulda,
coulda, shoulda meaning nothing.

>
> Marvin, it is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
> and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

ø Indeed Wormley, greenhouse gasses have zero thermal
effect and human activity is not causing any warming

of the planet.
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

ø The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect is a
non sequitur

> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> >

ø More stupidity promoted by the junior high
sci teacher.

ø It is almost 1,700 years since the end of the
last Interglacial Period therefore we are
well into the next Ice Age.

Some jackass above refuses to recognize that
the new ice age is upon us.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:59:48, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/26/12 4:01 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:19:35 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/26/12 3:10 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>> The part where the temperature is going up and the temperature is
> >>> staying the same is a bit confusing because it is contradictory.
> >>
> >> Climatologists use 30-year trends, Marvin. You keep forgetting so
> >> quickly. Here's something for you to dwell on, Marvin--the changing
> >> temperature of the earth's oceans.
> >
> > Yeah. Please get to the part where the temperature is increasing over
> > time and the second derivative of temperature wrt time is positive while
> > the temperature is staying the same on the measurements.
> >
>
> Marvin, global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate
> of 1.7 ą 0.5 mm/yr over the past 100 years, which is significantly
> larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.
>
> > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
>
>
> This increase is due mainly to *thermal expansion*, you know--heat
> the water and it expands, Marvin.
>
> > How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
> > http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
> >
> > Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
> >http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/increasing_rates_of_ice_mass_loss_from_the_greenland__and_antarctic_ice_sheets_revealed_by_grace.pdf
> >
>
> Cause and Effect:
>
> o Greenhouse gassed trap IR radiation (observed)

No not observed, only theorized, by idiots!
> o Oceans Warm (observed)
No not observed, only theorized, by idiots!

> o Oceans Thermally Expand (observed)

No not observed, only theorized, by idiots!

> o Sea Level Rises (observed)

No not observed, only theorized, by idiots!
>
> All consistent with AGW
Only in theory, by AGW idiots, but never observed.

>
> When (and if) you ever conclude that you were wrong about climate
> science and human driven global climate change, I hope you will
> consider me a friend, Marvin.
>
> -Sam
>

For "you" Sam, because you are my special friend, a very good deal!
-will-
>

[bjacoby]

Ah. "illogical assertions, as usual". Clearly there is no desire to
"compromise" here. Just the usual political name-calling games. My
suggestion is that YOU compromise by agreeing with me that my position
on compromises is pretty much the correct one. That's the way I think
you actually want politics done, so please set the example for the rest
of us...

[Will Janoschka]

Huh! "Likewise the energy required to melt ice is comparatively
small." compared to what? Combined total energy of this and several
other universes?

> > The oceans, however, cover over 70% of the Earth's surface, are dark-coloured (meaning they absorb sunlight readily) and, due to their enormous heat capacity compared
> > to that of the atmosphere and land, store over 90% of the excess energy from global warming. Quite obviously then, accurate measurements of ocean warming are crucial
> >to balancing Earth's energy budget.

Of course the Ocean does exactly what the Ocean is supposed to do!

But "Quite obviously then, accurate measurements of ocean warming are
crucial to balancing Earth's energy budget." is total Bull Shit!
I doubt that the thermal control system of the earth, has or needs a
thermometer, to do a correct job!

Temperature is a silly (but handy) invention of stupid Anthropoids.

[bjacoby]

On 5/26/2012 3:28 PM, Uncle Ben wrote:
> On May 26, 12:25 pm, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>> AGW is over, "uncle Ben".
>
> I agree, but I respect those who debate constructively.
>
You can't be referring to "Wormley" and his minions as ones who "debate
constructively". Sam won't even acknowledge that NASA temperature GISS
has been flat for 12 years and that's the data HE QUOTES all the time!

Your statement is beyond laughable, Ben. It ranks up there with your
implication that Sam is some kind of professor "on a physics faculty" in
the midwest. You insult our intelligence with your fawning prevarications.

[kym horsell]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:06:04 PM UTC+10, Last Post wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 10:44:05 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Here's what the IPCC really says, Marvin:
> >
> > > IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> > > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
>
> ø A multi-million dollar document replete with woulda,
> coulda, shoulda meaning nothing.

...

Well at least Lenny looked at the first word of the first para of the
executive summary.

--
Accentuating the positive:
The Great Plague of London (1664-1666) was an outbreak of bubonic
plague that struck London and was particularly virulent during the hot
months of August and September of 1665. In one week, 7,165 people died
of the plague. The total number of deaths was about 70,000. The
disease was carried by fleas that lived on black rats. It was
generally incurable, and its effects were terrible -- fever and chills,
swelling of the lymph glands, eventual madness and death.
People had no idea what caused the disease or how to control its rapid course.
Victims were buried in large pits. Many people left London.
Among those fleeing was a young Isaac Newton.
The plague and subsequent Great Fire gave him the break he needed to
do some much-needed analysis of the Bible at his country estate. He
also invented calculus and looked at some pretty colored lights.

[bjacoby]

On 5/26/2012 6:59 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Cause and Effect:
>
> o Greenhouse gassed trap IR radiation (observed)

And CO2 is a minor effect compared to total even including bogus
"positive feedback" theories.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img18.html

Plus as CO2 is measured to rise, temperature has remained constant for
12 years. Moving the goal posts to 30 years is just arm waving. NO
correlation let along causality.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1zgdh1x.jpg

> o Oceans Warm (observed)

Oceans not observed to warm. This statement is fabrication.

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/

> o Oceans Thermally Expand (observed)

You mean WATER is observed to thermally expand. IF there is NO warming,
then obviously there is NO expansion. QED. Dismissed.

> o Sea Level Rises (observed)

Your claims of alarming and dramatic sea level rises are all false. ALL
are PROJECTIONS AND GUESSES. Actual sea level is indeed rising, but at
the couple of mm a year that has been going on post-glaciation. Old
folks running for high ground in Florida or billions to be paid to
island nations to say we are "sorry" for flooding them by driving our
SUVs are simple idiocy... but is consistent with AGW theory.

And wait. Now we see that a good chunk of that "normal" sea rise is due
to ground water pumping!

http://sciencealert.com.au/features/20122305-23410.html

Which makes all your thermal arguments even MORE bogus than they were to
begin with!

> All consistent with AGW

You mean all consistent with the strange thermal religion you have going
in your head. Sam, you actually COULD read the above links and then
"constuctively debate" the scientific points by pointing out what you
feel are the errors in the papers just as Marvin and others and I have
done over and over with the links you repetitively post. You have
debated NONE of our criticism. We are greeted with either total silence,
or a mindless reposting of your AGW dogma.

> When (and if) you ever conclude that you were wrong about climate
> science and human driven global climate change, I hope you will
> consider me a friend, Marvin.

Oh here we go. Science is all about social values, Marvin. If only you
will abandon your ethics and sell out to the AGW fraud, Sam will "like
you" again!

Sorry Sam, Marvin has much too much integrity to sell out to the likes
of you! But hey, you've seen my work here. I'm pretty good, no? I've
got no such ethics and for the traditional suitcase full of money, I'll
be glad to join you in the AGW "constructive debate" and you won't even
have to "like" me! I've already provided a standing offer for many years
to demonstrate how the new electronic voting machines can be hacked to
have your candidates win in exchange for the traditional money suitcase.
So far no takers. My feeling is the folks who would benefit from the
knowledge already know.

[kym horsell]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:06:22 PM UTC+10, bjacoby wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 6:59 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Cause and Effect:
> >
> > o Greenhouse gassed trap IR radiation (observed)
>
> And CO2 is a minor effect compared to total even including bogus
> "positive feedback" theories.

...

LOL. Exactly the problem everyone later than mollusk is concerned about.
The total effect will be much larger than the CO2-only theory.

Or don't you realize if A < B then B > A?

I won't bore you with comparisons with a system of a light and a switch
and the power needed to turn the switch on compared with the power
the light gives out. No -- you need a science or even engineering background
for that, these days.

But let's trot out the skeptics again.

It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008

So Spencer indicates with 40% of CO2 in the atmosphere now, we can
expect CO2-only warming to be around .7*.4 == .28C now.

Our research shows a rolling record of the earth's mean surface temperature.
The warming figures reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all
point to a warming of the earth to around 0.75 degrees.
-- Richard Muller, Jul 16 2011

So what Muller is saying is that with 40% of the distance to CO2-doubling
we are already seeing a total of .75C of warming.

Taking these 2 things we therefore see that there is a factor of .75/.28 == 2.7 between CO2-only and observed total warming.

So we therefore should expect something like 2.7*.7 == 1.9C of warming by around 2100 when CO2 should hit 600 ppmv. Maybe a bit sooner, given the
rate of industrial CO2 out gassing has hit a record over the last 12 m.

--
[A SciAm article jokes about the "Mayan calendar":]
Everyone, except Wormley and minions should note that the Mayan Calendar
is constructed as a set of gears creating day names. Once the cycle
completes, the calendar does not "end", it starts over!
-- Ben "I'm not unstable" Jacoby, 23 May 2012 16:34:07 UTC

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 10:06 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Your first statement is a straw dog. I have always said CO2 is a
> greenhouse gas, I just pointed out that the 13-20 micrometer band is
> already SATURATED and more CO2 will not cause more warming, which is
> consistent with the data that shows CO2 levels rising and temperature
> data remaining steady for the last 15 years.

As temperatures start to climb this decade, I hope you will abandon
your conclusion that "more CO2 will not cause more warming". Most
likely you will decide it's methane or something else.

Hardy B. Granberg writes:

http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i7/p12_s1?bypassSSO=1
"On the basis of radiation transfer theory, Raymond Pierrehumbert
(PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 33 ) claims that as the ditch in
emission spectra seen from space widens, increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide renders Earth’s cooling less efficient. Across the ditch,
emission by CO2 varies with the temperatures of the strata from which
the emission occurs. As the concentration of CO2 increases, its emission
to space takes place from progressively higher levels. Near the edge of
the ditch, where the emission is from the troposphere, the levels become
colder. However, across the 14.5- to 15.5-μm (650–690 cm−1) band they
become warmer".

See: http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i7/p12_s1?bypassSSO=1


Raymond T. Pierrehumbert replies:
http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i7/p12_s2?bypassSSO=1

"Because the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, emission near
the center of the CO2 band increases as CO2 concentration is increased
with temperature held fixed. However, the increased emission in that
spike is far outweighed by the decreased emission in the wings, as is
verified by all detailed calculations of radiative forcing.1 The
increased emission near the center of the CO2 band primarily acts to
cool the stratosphere, not the surface, and once the stratosphere comes
into equilibrium, the effect of ditch-shallowing becomes even less
pronounced.

"The papers Hardy Granberg refers to are attempts to detect the
signature of recent CO2 increase in the observed trend in spectra
between 1970 and 1997. That is a formidable task, given inter-annual
variability, observational errors, the small signal over such a short
time period, and the problem of intercomparison between measurements
taken with different satellites. The spectra discussed in those papers
incorporate the influence of temperature changes over the time period
and do not in any way imply that the CO2 increase has made cooling to
space more efficient. One doesn’t need to be able to accurately observe
the short-term trend in order to confirm that radiative transfer is
being done correctly. The comparisons of present-day spectra shown in my
article already amply demonstrate that".

See: http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i7/p12_s2?bypassSSO=1

Original Article:
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>

[Sam Wormley]

> or wonder why the GISS& HadCRU graphs conflict with this graph you've
> been using?
>

[Sam Wormley]

> or wonder why the GISS& HadCRU graphs conflict with this graph you've
> been using?
>

Hey Marvin, at what points along the graph is dT/dt < 0 ?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/12 10:12 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> I mean, what the hell! If I didn't suspect him of being a dishonest
> propagandist, I would say there is something seriously wrong with that
> fellow. That's just not right.

He probably says the same about you. Perhaps you guys should
find common ground.

[Marvin the Martian]

I didn't say it was negative. I said it was zero.

You're saying it is not only positive, but positive increasing. That's
simply delusional.