Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Predicted

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
| accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
| coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
| ...
<http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/>

--bks

[Debacle @whitehouse.org Obama's Wreckovery Disaster@White House.gov]

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:js9qar$jj$1...@panix3.panix.com...

Green 'drivel' exposed 743
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a
startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly
"alarmist" about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia
theory - that the Earth operates as a single, living organism - has had a
profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many "environmentalists," who have degrees in political science,
Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working
scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific
organizations.

Lovelock's invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled
scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the
atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental
movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium
have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted,
Lovelock acknowledged, "the problem is we don't know what the climate is
doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago." Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up
interview to the UK's Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more
bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years
worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would
die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that
mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it's now clear the
doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore's) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many
climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit
error, as a freelance scientist, he's never been afraid to revise his
theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that's how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas
emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has
now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also
oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, "Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment.
They've gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross
with the greens for trying to knock it . Let's be pragmatic and sensible and
get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it."
(Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable
energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in
Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and
unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and
save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the
Christian religion," Lovelock observed. "I don't think people have noticed
that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use . The greens use
guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win people round
by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air."

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind
turbines.

As he puts it, "so-called 'sustainable development' . is meaningless
drivel . We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes
are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand
windmills at any price."

(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain
about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope
to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You
don't
know it."

[Rox]

OMG...we're all going to drown!

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:js9qar$jj$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> |

[Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:59:37 -0400, "Rox" <rep...@gmail.com> wrote:

>OMG...we're all going to drown!

That's not the problem, fool. But, then, you rightwingers have a
track record of throwing up strawmen to oppose a valid argument.


In the Norfolk, VA, area, real people are having to deal with real
problems because of sea level rise.

In the Norfolk area, sea level rise is threatening several upscale
residential areas. Over the years, because the sea level has risen a
couple of inches, now heavy rains, or storms with high wind and
moderate rain, cause flooding where a decade ago no flooding occurred.

REAL people -- homeowners, property owners, and the cities in the
area -- are having to deal with this situation that will only get
worse. Do you sell out and move? Do you or your real estate agent
reveal the flooding to prospective buyers? If you own a lot in an
affected area, what do you do? How many more areas will be affected?
What do the municipalities do about flooding that is overwhelming
drains and water supplies in the areas? What do municipialities do
about sea level rise and associated flooding that is undermining
streets and bridge pilings and abutments?

REAL people are facing these problems.

But -- guess what the GOTP-dominated guvmint of Virginia has done. The
VA General Assembly recently directed a study of sea level rise and
its challenges. HOWEVER -- the GOTP-dominated General Assembly
ordered that the scientific study WILL NOT include such "liberal
language" as "sea level rise," "global warming," or "climate change."

And that, fool, is how you rightwankers do things -- throw up a
strawman and bury your heads in the sand.

[David Hartung]

On 06/25/2012 09:10 AM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:59:37 -0400, "Rox"<rep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OMG...we're all going to drown!
>
> That's not the problem, fool. But, then, you rightwingers have a
> track record of throwing up strawmen to oppose a valid argument.
>
>
> In the Norfolk, VA, area, real people are having to deal with real
> problems because of sea level rise.

How much of the sea level "rise" is due to "sinking land"? and how much
is due to an actual rise in water levels?

[Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:58:36 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:

In the Norfolk area, land subsidence is a problem but sea level rise
is major contributor. Reason is Norfolk is at juncition of several
rivers that are tributaries of Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
As sea levels rise, water backs up into the tributaries thereby
hitting the Norfolk area with a double whammy -- not only is the sea
level rising but rivers are not draining.

-- quote

The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
accelerating at a much faster rate than the country’s other coasts due
to global warming, claim researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS).

According to Damian Carrington, a reporter with the UK newspaper The
Guardian, the sea level rise of the “densely populated” Atlantic coast
from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Boston, Massachusetts is
increasing at a rate three to four times faster than the rest of the
country’s coastal regions.

Likewise, the Associated Press (AP) said, the 600-mile area, which the
USGS researchers dub a “hot spot” because of the sea levels, have been
rising at a rate up to 400% faster than the global average.

Among the fastest-rising areas are Norfolk, Virginia, where the sea
level has increased approximately five inches since 1990, and
Philadelphia, which has seen a four-inch rise.

“Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea level rise is the
same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt, increasing the volume
of ocean water, but other effects can be as large or larger than the
so-called ‘eustatic’ rise,” USGS Director Marcia McNutt said in a
statement. “As demonstrated in this study, regional oceanographic
contributions must be taken into account in planning for what happens
to coastal property.”

“Cities in the hotspot, like Norfolk, New York, and Boston already
experience damaging floods during relatively low intensity storms,”
added Dr. Asbury Sallenger, a USGS oceanographer and the head of the
study, which is the subject of a paper published in the journal Nature
Climate Change. “Ongoing accelerated sea level rise in the hotspot
will make coastal cities and surrounding areas increasingly vulnerable
to flooding by adding to the height that storm surge and breaking
waves reach on the coast.”

While Sallenger told Carrington that this hotspot affect had
previously been predicted through computer modeling, the USGS study is
the first to use real data to prove that the sea-level acceleration is
currently occurring and that scientists can currently detect and
monitor it.

The cause, he said, is the warming of dense Arctic water, causing it
to sink more slowly and leveling out the so-called “slope” from the
fastest-moving water in the mid-Atlantic to the east coast of America.
As a result, the sea level in that location increases, and could
ultimately add as much as 30% to the global sea level rise.

“We came up with a very clear correlation between the acceleration of
sea level rise and rising temperature in the hotspot area. That
suggests to me that as long as temperature continues to rise the
hotspot will continue to grow,” Sallenger told the Guardian on Sunday.

Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/1fMcK)

-- end quote

-- quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/science/earth/26norfolk.html

NORFOLK, Va. — In this section of the Larchmont neighborhood, built in
a sharp “u” around a bay off the Lafayette River, residents pay close
attention to the lunar calendar, much as other suburbanites might
attend to the daily flow of commuter traffic.


If the moon is going to be full the night before Hazel Peck needs her
car, for example, she parks it on a parallel block, away from the
river. The next morning, she walks through a neighbor’s backyard to
avoid the two-to-three-foot-deep puddle that routinely accumulates on
her street after high tides.

For Ms. Peck and her neighbors, it is the only way to live with the
encroaching sea.

As sea levels rise, tidal flooding is increasingly disrupting life
here and all along the East Coast, a development many climate
scientists link to global warming.

But Norfolk is worse off. Situated just west of the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay, it is bordered on three sides by water, including
several rivers, like the Lafayette, that are actually long tidal
streams that feed into the bay and eventually the ocean.

Like many other cities, Norfolk was built on filled-in marsh. Now that
fill is settling and compacting. In addition, the city is in an area
where significant natural sinking of land is occurring. The result is
that Norfolk has experienced the highest relative increase in sea
level on the East Coast — 14.5 inches since 1930, according to
readings by the Sewells Point naval station here.

Climate change is a subject of friction in Virginia. The state’s
attorney general, Ken T. Cuccinelli II, is trying to prove that a
prominent climate scientist engaged in fraud when he was a researcher
at the University of Virginia. But the residents of coastal
neighborhoods here are less interested in the debate than in the
real-time consequences of a rise in sea level.

When Ms. Peck, now 75 and a caretaker to her husband, moved here 40
years ago, tidal flooding was an occasional hazard.

“Last month,” she said recently, “there were eight or nine days the
tide was so doggone high it was difficult to drive.”

Larchmont residents have relentlessly lobbied the city to address the
problem, and last summer it broke ground on a project to raise the
street around the “u” by 18 inches and to readjust the angle of the
storm drains so that when the river rises, the water does not back up
into the street. The city will also turn a park at the edge of the
river back into wetlands — it is now too saline for lawn grass to grow
anyway. The cost for the work on this one short stretch is $1.25
million.

The expensive reclamation project is popular in Larchmont, but it is
already drawing critics who argue that cities just cannot handle
flooding in such a one-off fashion. To William Stiles, executive
director of Wetlands Watch, a local conservation group, the project is
well meaning but absurd. Mr. Stiles points out that the Federal
Emergency Management Agency has already spent $144,000 in recent years
to raise each of six houses on the block.

At this pace of spending, he argues, there is no way taxpayers will
recoup their investment.

“If sea level is a constant, your coastal infrastructure is your most
valuable real estate, and it makes sense to invest in it,” Mr. Stiles
said, “but with sea level rising, it becomes a money pit.”

Many Norfolk residents hope their problems will serve as a warning.

“We are the front lines of climate change,” said Jim Schultz, a
science and technology writer who lives on Richmond Crescent near Ms.
Peck. “No one who has a house here is a skeptic.”

Politics aside, the city of Norfolk is tackling the sea-rise problem
head on. In August, the Public Works Department briefed the City
Council on the seriousness of the situation, and Mayor Paul D. Fraim
has acknowledged that if the sea continues rising, the city might
actually have to create “retreat” zones.

Kristen Lentz, the acting director of public works, prefers to think
of these contingency plans as new zoning opportunities.

“If we plan land use in a way that understands certain areas are prone
to flooding,” Ms. Lentz said, “we can put parks in those areas. It
would make the areas adjacent to the coast available to more people.
It could be a win-win for the environment and community at large and
makes smart use of our coastline.”

Ms. Lentz believes that if Norfolk can manage the flooding well, it
will have a first-mover advantage and be able to market its expertise
to other communities as they face similar problems.

But she also acknowledges that for the businesses and homes entrenched
on the coast, such a step could be costly, and that the city has no
money yet to pay them to move.

In the short run, the city’s goal is just to pick its flood-mitigation
projects more strategically. “We need to look broadly and not just act
piecemeal,” Ms. Lentz said, referring to Larchmont.

To this end, Norfolk has hired the Dutch firm Fugro to evaluate
options like inflatable dams and storm-surge floodgates at the
entrances to waterways.

But to judge by the strong preference in Larchmont for action at any
cost, it may not be easy for the city to choose which neighborhoods
might be passed over for projects.

Neighborhood residents lobbied hard for the 18-inch lifting of their
roadway, even though they know it will offer not much protection from
storms, which are also becoming more frequent and fearsome. Many say
that housing values in the neighborhood have plummeted and that this
is the only way to stabilize them.

Others like Mr. Schultz support the construction, even though they
think the results will be very temporary indeed.

“The fact is that there is not enough engineering to go around to
mitigate the rising sea,” he said. “For us, it is the bitter reality
of trying to live in a world that is getting warmer and wetter.”

-- end quote

[Obama is bad for America]

It is actually pieces of the sky falling that are filling the ocean and
causing the water to rise. If we go out in the ocean with sky hooks, and
take some of those pieces out of the ocean, the water will recede.
The Bush administration hid this plan.

[Rox]

I just love rattling a dumbocrat's cage!


"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vurgu7tusflk6rrek...@6ax.com...

[Obama is bad for America]

On 6/25/2012 7:10 AM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:59:37 -0400, "Rox" <rep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OMG...we're all going to drown!
>
> That's not the problem, fool. But, then, you rightwingers have a
> track record of throwing up strawmen to oppose a valid argument.
>

The fishes are going to start eating everybody on the east coast!!!
Holey Mackerel!!!

Oh, damn that man made global warming. Everyone will be fish food?
Just think how much Nancy Pelosi's husband will make on tuna.
Nancy has ensured through legislation that his islander employees
receive less than minimum wages, and she will get richer.
It must be Bush's fault.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Obama is bad for America <abeli...@liberalssuck.com> wrote:
>On 6/25/2012 6:50 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> |
>> | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>> | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>> | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>> | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>> | ...
>>

>It is actually pieces of the sky falling that are filling the ocean and
>causing the water to rise. If we go out in the ocean with sky hooks, and
>take some of those pieces out of the ocean, the water will recede.
>The Bush administration hid this plan.

More proof that simple scientific facts cause Republican heads
to explode.

--bks

[David Hartung]

1. Land subsiding, fact

2. Sea level rising, fact

3. We are in a warming trend, fact.

4. Warming and sea level rise is caused by man, unproven assumption.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>> |
>>>> | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>>>> | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>>>> | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>>>> | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>>>> | ...

> ...

>1. Land subsiding, fact
>
>2. Sea level rising, fact
>
>3. We are in a warming trend, fact.
>
>4. Warming and sea level rise is caused by man, unproven assumption.

No, it's proven. You just choose to ignore the opinion of
95% of the Earth Scientists who have studied the data. It
used to be that ignorant people like you questioned that there
was global warming at all. The evidence is now too strong for
you to take that position without seeming to be an idiot, so
you have retreated to a new position which will soon seem just
as clownish.

--bks

[David Hartung]

On 06/25/2012 10:55 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>>>>> | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>>>>> | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>>>>> | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>>>>> | ...
>> ...
>> 1. Land subsiding, fact
>>
>> 2. Sea level rising, fact
>>
>> 3. We are in a warming trend, fact.
>>
>> 4. Warming and sea level rise is caused by man, unproven assumption.
>
> No, it's proven. You just choose to ignore the opinion of
> 95% of the Earth Scientists who have studied the data.

Unsupported claim.

> It
> used to be that ignorant people like you questioned that there
> was global warming at all. The evidence is now too strong for
> you to take that position without seeming to be an idiot, so
> you have retreated to a new position which will soon seem just
> as clownish.

People such as me have always said that we should not jump to
conclusions. The fact that we are in a warming trend is inescapable, but
thus far, the idea that all or part of it is caused by man is unproven.
In fact, did not a respected member of the climate research community
recently observe that predictions have not been reality?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:10:46 -0400, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:59:37 -0400, "Rox" <rep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OMG...we're all going to drown!
>
>That's not the problem, fool. But, then, you rightwingers have a
>track record of throwing up strawmen to oppose a valid argument.
>
>
>In the Norfolk, VA, area, real people are having to deal with real
>problems because of sea level rise.
>
>In the Norfolk area, sea level rise is threatening several upscale
>residential areas. Over the years, because the sea level has risen a
>couple of inches, now heavy rains, or storms with high wind and
>moderate rain, cause flooding where a decade ago no flooding occurred.

A couple of inches?

>REAL people -- homeowners, property owners, and the cities in the
>area -- are having to deal with this situation that will only get
>worse. Do you sell out and move? Do you or your real estate agent
>reveal the flooding to prospective buyers? If you own a lot in an
>affected area, what do you do? How many more areas will be affected?
>What do the municipalities do about flooding that is overwhelming
>drains and water supplies in the areas? What do municipialities do
>about sea level rise and associated flooding that is undermining
>streets and bridge pilings and abutments?
>
>REAL people are facing these problems.

A couple of inches doesn't flood drains and
affect water supplies.

What did the Dutch do?

>But -- guess what the GOTP-dominated guvmint of Virginia has done. The
>VA General Assembly recently directed a study of sea level rise and
>its challenges. HOWEVER -- the GOTP-dominated General Assembly
>ordered that the scientific study WILL NOT include such "liberal
>language" as "sea level rise," "global warming," or "climate change."
>
>And that, fool, is how you rightwankers do things -- throw up a
>strawman and bury your heads in the sand.

Are you sure the area isn't "sinking"?
A lot of coastlines are either sinking or
rising, and more than a couple of inches.

Even areas that are not sinking, or are sinking
because of other reasons, might be able to use
the same techniques as Long Beach did;

http://polb100.com/03/battling-subsidence/

>>"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:js9qar$jj$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>>> |
>>> | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>>> | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>>> | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>>> | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>>> | ...
>>> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/>
>>>
>>> --bks

The only way the climate could cause one coast
to have more water than the other is if rainfall was
much more on east coast watersheds, which could
be a purely random thing and not related to AGW.

[emoneyjoe]

Too bad there are claims the temperature hasn't
risen since 1998. There haven't been many doomsday
forecasts lately, this one makes a flood out of 5 inches.

[emoneyjoe]

Funny how six figure incomes causes everybody
to be team players.

How big a grant does your school get to study
weather?

[First.Post]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
news:zt6dnfCo78ZWEXXS...@giganews.com:

And how about those predictions. Remember when the warmists were yelling
that after Katrina we would undoubtedly see more frequent and more
intense hurricanes?
Or how about the prediction that by now the arctic ice field would cease
to exist?
And what came to pass ended up being less frequent and less intense
hurricanes. And the ice field extended farther south this year than it
has in decades and lasted well into May almost shutting down the crab
fishing industry for a while.
Yeah yeah, sure sure, they really know what they're talking
about..........not. :-)

[First.Post]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in
news:vl5hu7dvb3qj7o3ti...@4ax.com:

For that matter I'd like to see a legitimate source for his "95% of all
scientists" claim.
I'm thinking it'll be as legitimate as the many wrong predictions the
warmists have been throwing around for the last decade that have yet to
come to pass.

[David Hartung]

You will not a source for the "95%" claim because no source exists.

[emoneyjoe]

He said 95% of the Earth Scientists, but that
excludes most of the chemists and geologists
who do not get paid for crystal ball stories.

The climate scientists may be working on
the same premise as the fortune tellers, just
tell all possible stories and some will be right.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:31:08 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:

Why do you people lie so much when it's so easy to prove you full of
shit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are
causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing
specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[107]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on
global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists
support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes
summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate
change.[108] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed
scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is
a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit
endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts,
mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of
the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were
placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate,
thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None
of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the
author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors
evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic
change might believe that current climate change is natural. However,
none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of
either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical
Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason
University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have
increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe
human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently
available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5%
believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse
warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to
very great danger.[109] [110]

[emoneyjoe]

"Specialists in Climate Change", are you stupid,
or what, they only get to keep their jobs if there is
something to study, what besides numbers on a
thermometer could they study?

>Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on
>global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists
>support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

Not the majority of scientists, it is the majority
of climate scientists that "know" the climate is
changing, but just to be safe they don't call it
"warming" any more, it is climate change, it might
be warming, it might be algor.

>In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes
>summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate
>change.[108] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed
>scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is
>a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

So science in climate science is not facts and
figures, it is opinion, a preponderance of opinion,
that makes it a consensus.

>Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit
>endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts,
>mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of
>the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were
>placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly
>accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate,
>thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None
>of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the
>author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors
>evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic
>change might believe that current climate change is natural. However,
>none of these papers argued that point."

Might be natural. No position.

>In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of
>either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical
>Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason
>University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have
>increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe
>human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently
>available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5%
>believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse
>warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to
>very great danger.[109] [110]

Surveys and polls can be biased simply because
of the questions asked.
Is there anybody that doubts CO2 concentration
increases are caused by humans burning carbon?


What makes AGW and climate change remarkable
is that 99% of socialist governing entities not only buy
into it, but actively propagate the harmful predictions.

What the rank and file leftist liberals ignore is
that water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect
at the surface, and CO2 at high altitudes increase
the Infra-Red radiation to space, cooling the upper
atmosphere.

And that leaves the local temperatures to be
a result of cloud cover, moisture in the soil and
fauna, and wind direction.

Too bad the climate scientists can't put
wind direction into numbers.

[David Hartung]

Aren't you one of those who have been saying that Wikipedia is not a
trustworthy cite?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:44:55 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>

No. It's all referenced. Follow the references moron, and admit you
got caught lying again.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:23:48 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> What the rank and file leftist liberals ignore is
>that water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect
>at the surface, and CO2 at high altitudes increase
>the Infra-Red radiation to space, cooling the upper
>atmosphere.
>
> And that leaves the local temperatures to be
>a result of cloud cover, moisture in the soil and
>fauna, and wind direction.
>
> Too bad the climate scientists can't put
>wind direction into numbers.

You're an idiot and a liar.

[First.Post]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

news:uKydnfMDR6VaUHXS...@giganews.com:

Especially with their track record on their climate change pages.

[Transition Zone]

b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
|
| The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
| accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
| coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
| ...

<http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/

--bks

[Tunderbar]

LOL. That's like the water in the bathtub being higher at one end than
the other. LOL. Impossible.

[First.Post]

Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in news:654729c7-cc06-4671-98dc-
b1f902...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:

It can if the tub isn;t level and is leaning.

OMFG!! The ocean is tilting towards the east coast!!
Damned manmade global warming.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Ever watched a pre-schooler taking a bath? The the waves are breaking at
alternating ends.

[Bret Cahill]

> > b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >  |
> >  | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> >  | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> >  | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> >  | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> >  | ...
>
> > <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
> > level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
>
> >    --bks
>
> LOL. That's like the water in the bathtub being higher at one end than
> the other.

What would that be surprising if the bathtub was thousands of miles
long and miles deep?


> LOL. Impossible.

“Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea level rise is the
same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt, increasing the volume
of ocean water, but other effects can be as large or larger than the
so-called ‘eustatic’ rise,” USGS Director Marcia McNutt said in a
statement. “As demonstrated in this study, regional oceanographic
contributions must be taken into account in planning for what happens
to coastal property.”

“Cities in the hotspot, like Norfolk, New York, and Boston already
experience damaging floods during relatively low intensity storms,”
added Dr. Asbury Sallenger, a USGS oceanographer and the head of the
study, which is the subject of a paper published in the journal Nature
Climate Change. “Ongoing accelerated sea level rise in the hotspot
will make coastal cities and surrounding areas increasingly vulnerable
to flooding by adding to the height that storm surge and breaking
waves reach on the coast.”

Source: redOrbit (http://s.tt/1fMcK)

[emoneyjoe]

Great scientific comment, water evaporating
is the same as cooling that much water almost
one thousand degrees.

And because most weather stations are
now in really dry places, it is a wonder they
aren't claiming a ten degree rise in temperature.

[Fredric L. Rice]

Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/

Over 40 news articles covering the survey's findings, and not a single
global warming denier has managed to come up with an explanation that
fits their right wing denial ideology.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.
Super-Kamiokande, because science is "of Satan."

[Jason]

In article
<dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
playing a role in regard to global warming.

[Jay Herblock]

On Jun 25, 9:50 am, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>  |
>  | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>  | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>  | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>  | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>  | ...

> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-l...>
>
>     --bks

The sea level due to melting ice has already increased the sea level.
Just read yesterday - yesterday - where the se4a level is (newly)
predicted to rise over 5 feet this century.
Too bad stupid republican puppets' IQs wont rise as fast.. Duh!

[First.Post]

Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8ef18ad4-b0e3-4a6d...@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

Allright, more predictions. You guys are batting a thousand so far with
your predictions. So far 0 have come to pass.
Funny how most of your predictions are now starting to refer to 100 years
out. Guess that's a sure fire way to gaurantee that no one is around to
call you on it when it doesn't happen.

[David Hartung]

If the sea level is to rise 5 feet in the 21srt century, should we not
already have seen almost 6 inches of average sea level rise? Instead it
seems that the sea level rise in the past 20 years has been about 2.6
inshes, over 20 years. If that rate is accurate, and if that rate
continues, we will see a total 21st century sea level rise of 13 inches.
Still significant, but nowhere near the 5 feet predicted by Mr. Herblock.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Given the challenges of measuring sea level rise, I have my doubts that
the rise has been as high as the cited article says. However, as I am
not any sort of scientist, I am going to patiently wait and see what
happens.

[Tunderbar]

On Jun 25, 6:52 pm, "First.Post" <OccupierDumberThanD...@invalid.org>
wrote:
> Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in news:654729c7-cc06-4671-98dc-
> b1f90279d...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:

But the water isn't higher. One side of the tub is lower. LOL.

[Tunderbar]

Don't forget wind, it can raise the water level of a lake on one shore
higher than the opposite shore. But no one would mistake it for the
actual level of the lake rising, would they?

Your excuses don't address the point.

[Fredric L. Rice]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article
><dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>> The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>> accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>> coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>> U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

>> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/

>Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
>going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
>global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
>playing a role in regard to global warming.

The 7-year Solar cycle *is* playing a role in increased heating of
the Earth and, as you noted, also of Mars. Everyone understand the
increases and decreases of insolation as a result of the Sun's 11-
year cycle. It is accounted for in the data showing global warming,
all climate scientists understand cyclic rising insolation adds to
the problem.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:47 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

I realize that you are very, very proud of your ignorance, Jason, but
you need to realize that climate scientists are not. They already know
about natural variations in climate. They were the ones who discovered
those variations.

Anthropogenic climate variation is a result of the inputs of human
activity. That is why it is called anthropogenic. The climate scientists
have already taken the natural variation into account.

Why do you worship your own ignorance?

[First.Post]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:mpdku757vae1nqdgp...@4ax.com:

Is that why NONE of the doomsday predicitions you useful idiots have
believed in for the past 10 or so years have occured?
There has been no coastal flooding due to any rise in sea level. There
has been no disappearence of the arctic ice field. In fact it was larger
and lasted longer this year than it has in decades.
There has been no dramatic increase in hurricane intensity or frequency.
You claim that the so called climate scientists have taken all variables
into consideration yet to date there is still no absolute proof of man
causing shit regarding weather or climate. Only the same opinions that
we've been hearing for years now, ie the consensus.
A consensus is simply a group of people that agree with a single opinion,
not proof of fact.
You talk of willful ignorance when you refuse to even acknowledge the
difference between a consensus and fact. Can;t be any more willfully
ignorant than that.
Run along now chicken little.

[Fredric L. Rice]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:47 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in alt.atheism:
>>In article
>><dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>>Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
>>going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
>>global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
>>playing a role in regard to global warming.
>I realize that you are very, very proud of your ignorance, Jason, but
>you need to realize that climate scientists are not. They already know
>about natural variations in climate. They were the ones who discovered
>those variations.

These climate change deniers are very amusing. "I bet those atheist
Socialist scientists didn't think of this!!! I'll post my ignorance
in Usenet! That'll shut up them lying socialists, by Jesus!!!11"

>Anthropogenic climate variation is a result of the inputs of human
>activity. That is why it is called anthropogenic. The climate scientists
>have already taken the natural variation into account.
>Why do you worship your own ignorance?

Jesus is the answer.

[Fredric L. Rice]

"First.Post" <OccupierDum...@invalid.org> wrote:

>Is that why NONE of the doomsday predicitions you useful idiots have
>believed in for the past 10 or so years have occured?

Yeah, see if you ignore all of the climate change that is currently
happening around the world and ignore all of the consequences of
global warming, all them predictions going back 60 years never came
true. All ya got to do is shove your fucking Republican head up your
fucking Republican ass and pretend it all doesn't happen, then maybe
Jesus will come down from Kolob and suck your Republican cock for you.
Maybe.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

hey, they may not know themeaning of the word,
republic. at least,
that is a generic condition at all (local) R *party* meetings,
that I have been at.

as for sealevels putativelt rising,
no-one on this tiny forum has bothered
to "refute" Morner, other than to call him names, and
to say what a lousy dowser he is, compared to Bc.

thus:
why is GrIS calving more than AnIS?

is there no GRACE anomaly on AnIS?

[David Hartung]

It is from 2007, but here is something to think about:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
[...]
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
changes in the sun.
[...]

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 26, 4:44 pm, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:47 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in alt.atheism:
> >>In article

> >><dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

> >>Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> >>going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> >>global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> >>playing a role in regard to global warming.
> >I realize that you are very, very proud of your ignorance, Jason, but
> >you need to realize that climate scientists are not. They already know
> >about natural variations in climate. They were the ones who discovered
> >those variations.
>
> These climate change deniers are very amusing. "I bet those atheist
> Socialist scientists didn't think of this!!! I'll post my ignorance
> in Usenet! That'll shut up them lying socialists, by Jesus!!!11"
>
> >Anthropogenic climate variation is a result of the inputs of human
> >activity. That is why it is called anthropogenic. The climate scientists
> >have already taken the natural variation into account.
> >Why do you worship your own ignorance?
>
> Jesus is the answer.

What's the question?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 26, 4:46 pm, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:

> "First.Post" <OccupierDumberThanD...@invalid.org> wrote:
> >Is that why NONE of the doomsday predicitions you useful idiots have
> >believed in for the past 10 or so years have occured?
>
> Yeah, see if you ignore all of the climate change that is currently
> happening around the world and ignore all of the consequences of
> global warming, all them predictions going back 60 years never came
> true. All ya got to do is shove your fucking Republican head up your
> fucking Republican ass and pretend it all doesn't happen, then maybe
> Jesus will come down from Kolob and suck your Republican cock for you.
> Maybe.

<Admiringly> Wow! And I think that I'm militant!

[Jason]

In article <OeCdnZ5uSqXlknfS...@posted.sonicnet>,

fr...@skeptictank.org wrote:

> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >In article
> ><dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >> The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> >> accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> >> coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> >> U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> >>
<http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
> >Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> >going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> >global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> >playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> The 7-year Solar cycle *is* playing a role in increased heating of
> the Earth and, as you noted, also of Mars. Everyone understand the
> increases and decreases of insolation as a result of the Sun's 11-
> year cycle. It is accounted for in the data showing global warming,
> all climate scientists understand cyclic rising insolation adds to
> the problem.

Thanks for admitting that solar cycles do play a role in regard to global
warming.

[Jason]

In article <cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfS...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

Thanks for your excellent post. I do believe that scientists like
Habibullo Abdussamatov are 100% correct. I also believe that pollution
from high flying jet planes and factories also plays a role.

[Jason]

In article <mpdku757vae1nqdgp...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

Do you agree or disagree that the sun plays a role in regard to global warming?

Why is there global warming taking place on Mars?

[David Hartung]

On 06/27/2012 01:16 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article<cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfS...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

A couple of facts to keep in mind:

On the First Easter, it is believed that the entire world human
population was around 300 million. In those days technology was vary
primitive.

Today the world population is about 7 billion people and is for the most
part highly technological.

It is rational to conclude that these two changes have had an effect on
our environment, including climate. The problem is that we still know
very little. For years we have been hearing that the culprit causing
"global warming" is CO2. since the turn of the century, mankind has been
pumping ever more amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet warming has
moderated.

This indicates to me that perhaps our climate change community still has
much to learn, and that just maybe, the warming trends might be natural,
or maybe they are the natural result of our high population.

Maybe the solution to global warming is ti kill off 6 billion people. If
this is the case, I wonder how many of "global warming" fanatics will
volunteer to be exterminated.

By the way, In the early 19th century the world came out of global
cooling we call a "little ice age". Since that time, global temperatures
seem to have trended up. I don't know about you, but this seems like
something which should be expected.

[First.Post]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote in news:2128078a-df2e-4bf5-b094-
ae4692...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 26, 4:46 pm, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> "First.Post" <OccupierDumberThanD...@invalid.org> wrote:
>> >Is that why NONE of the doomsday predicitions you useful idiots have
>> >believed in for the past 10 or so years have occured?
>>
>> Yeah, see if you ignore all of the climate change that is currently
>> happening around the world and ignore all of the consequences of
>> global warming, all them predictions going back 60 years never came
>> true. All ya got to do is shove your fucking Republican head up your
>> fucking Republican ass and pretend it all doesn't happen, then maybe
>> Jesus will come down from Kolob and suck your Republican cock for you.
>> Maybe.
>
> <Admiringly> Wow! And I think that I'm militant!
>

No refutiations. No facts. Just a bunch of name calling and insults.
And that proves your point how exactly?
Typical liberal dumbass believing they can insult someone into being
wrong.
Try getting a real life.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <86014f81-35c8-4f2d-9717-
2ea9fd...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net
says...

> > Jesus is the answer.
>
> What's the question?

"Can you recommend a guy to fix my kitchen cabinets?"

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Fly-n-G]

Brian E. Clark wrote:
> In article <86014f81-35c8-4f2d-9717-
> 2ea9fd...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net
> says...
>
>>> Jesus is the answer.
>>
>> What's the question?
>
> "Can you recommend a guy to fix my kitchen cabinets?"
>

Angie's List.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:19:17 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

Once again, you ask me a question that shows me how profoundly ignorant
you are. Climate scientists are actually competent to measure the
effects of all actions that have a role in the change of climate on
earth.

>Why is there global warming taking place on Mars?

You don't know enough about this to have an opinion. Stop believing
every lie that the Malefactors of Great Wealth tell you so they can make
even more money.

Apparently you have no children or grandchildren because you clearly
don't give a damn about the future.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:32:51 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

The people who deny that human activity is affecting the climate are
either complete ignoramuses like Jason or paid shills of organizations
funded by the Kochs or other coal and oil & gas interests.

Climate scientists have known a great deal about the climate and causes
of changes for many decades now. The fact that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas was discovered in the 19th century.

If we do not respond to the problems we are causing billions will die.
That will make you happy.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 6:34 pm, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >  |
> >  | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> >  | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> >  | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> >  | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> >  | ...
> >
> > <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/

> LOL. That's like the water in the bathtub being higher at one end than

> the other. LOL. Impossible.

Nobody is as stupic as you pretend to be.


--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:47 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)

wrote:

> In article
> <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> Transition Zone <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> > |
> > | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> > | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> > | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> > | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> > | ...
> >
> > <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
> >
> > --bks

> Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> going higher and higher.

No, there is zero evidence that Mars is warming. Mar's albedo
changes in its orbit, but so does Earth.

> That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> global warming is a natural cycle

On Mars it is, silly; on Earth it has been human activities that
have warmed the planet.

> and others to believe that the sun in
> playing a role in regard to global warming.

No.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:19:17 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)

wrote:

Humans play a *LARGER* rfole in climate change than solar
variation does.

> Why is there global warming taking place on Mars?

[mr_antone]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Thunder thighs
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 6:34 pm, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>>  |
>>  | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
>>  | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
>>  | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
>>  | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>>  | ...
>>
>> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
>> level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
>>
>>    --bks
>

>LOL. That's like the water in the bathtub being higher at one end than
>the other. LOL. Impossible.

No you have it wrong.

The reason why sea level of the east coast higher than other coasts is
because the earth doesn't know it's a bathtub.

Bonehead.

mr_antone

[harry k]

On Jun 26, 11:12 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <OeCdnZ5uSqXlknfSnZ2dnUVZ_uydn...@posted.sonicnet>,

>
> fr...@skeptictank.org wrote:
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >In article

> > ><dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

> > >Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> > >> The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> > >> accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> > >> coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> > >> U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
>

> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-l...

>
> > >Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> > >going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> > >global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> > >playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> > The 7-year Solar cycle *is* playing a role in increased heating of
> > the Earth and, as you noted, also of Mars. Everyone understand the
> > increases and decreases of insolation as a result of the Sun's 11-
> > year cycle. It is accounted for in the data showing global warming,
> > all climate scientists understand cyclic rising insolation adds to
> > the problem.
>
> Thanks for admitting that solar cycles do play a role in regard to global
> warming.

Jason?....Hello? (knock knock)...anyone in there?

I have news for you. It isn't "many scientists believe". It is ALL
real scientists engaged in climate research KNOW about the sun cycle.

All of them KNOW it has an effect on on GW.

No need for Fred to "admit" it as it is a known fact.

What you are struggling to ignore is that the denialists insist it is
the ONLY cause of GW. It isn't.

Why don't you get a bit caught up on the subject before spewing your
ignorance?

Harry K

[harry k]

On Jun 26, 11:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

>
>
>
>
>
> <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> > On 06/26/2012 01:27 AM, Jason wrote:
> > > In article

> > > <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com>  wrote:

>
> > >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> > >>   |
> > >>   | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> > >>   | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> > >>   | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> > >>   | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> > >>   | ...
>
> > >> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
> > >> level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
>
> > >>     --bks
>
> > > Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> > > going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> > > global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> > > playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> > It is from 2007, but here is something to think about:
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> > [...]
> > Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
> > Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
> > evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
> > changes in the sun.
> > [...]
>
> Thanks for your excellent post. I do believe that scientists like
> Habibullo Abdussamatov are 100% correct. I also believe that pollution
> from high flying jet planes and factories also plays a role.

Then why do you keep repeating stupid questions?

Harry K

[harry k]

On Jun 27, 4:32 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 01:16 AM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

> > <da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On 06/26/2012 01:27 AM, Jason wrote:
> >>> In article

> >>> <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

And was but like the rest of the denialists you ignore the RATE it is
happening which is far and away faster than any records show. Those
records include ice cores that go back IIRC over 100,000 years.

Yes, as is well known, sun cycles are playing arole in it. As is also
well known excpe t for the idiot denialists, so is mankinds influence.

Harry K

[David Hartung]

Those who have been in this forum for a while realize that I am anything
but a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. IN fact many have used
my skepticism as an indication of a lack of in telligence on my part.
HAving said tha, I ran accross the following information a whale ago and
have been mulling it over.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7321-earth-absorbing-more-heat-than-it-radiates.html
Or: > http://tinyurl.com/85lzqxg

From the article:
[...]
The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to
space, according to a new modeling study. The difference amounts to 0.85
watts for every square metre of the planet's surface. That is equivalent
of 7 trillion 60-watt light bulbs - or the energy output of almost half
a million thousand-megawatt power stations.
[...]

If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits, then the
globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to blame anthropogenic
greenhouse gases for this warming. That is where they lose me, at least
for now.

[my fake smile]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>
> If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits, then the
> globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to blame anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases for this warming. That is where they lose me, at least
> for now.

"The buildup of carbon dioxide causes radiation from our solar
system's sun to become trapped in our atmosphere. This radiation is in
the form of intense heat"

--https://sites.google.com/site/changethepipeforabetterfuture/research

[David Hartung]

I fully understand the concept of the greenhouse effect, in fact it is
that effect which makes life possible on earth. I am simply not
convinced that CO2 is the big bad boogyman everyone is cp;aiming it to be.

Ask yourself this question. What "greenhouse gas" causes the majority of
the earth's greenhouse effect?

[harry k]

On Jun 30, 3:38 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 06:01 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:19:17 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > alt.atheism:
>

> >> In article <mpdku757vae1nqdgpkrh6vb3v9om6nk...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:47 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >>> alt.atheism:
>
> >>>> In article

> >>>> <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

> >>>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >>>>>   |
> >>>>>   | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> >>>>>   | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> >>>>>   | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> >>>>>   | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> >>>>>   | ...
>

> >> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-l...>

>
> >>>>>     --bks
>
> >>>> Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> >>>> going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> >>>> global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> >>>> playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> >>> I realize that you are very, very proud of your ignorance, Jason, but
> >>> you need to realize that climate scientists are not. They already know
> >>> about natural variations in climate. They were the ones who discovered
> >>> those variations.
>
> >>> Anthropogenic climate variation is a result of the inputs of human
> >>> activity. That is why it is called anthropogenic. The climate scientists
> >>> have already taken the natural variation into account.
>
> >>> Why do you worship your own ignorance?
>
> >> Do you agree or disagree that the sun plays a role in regard to global warming?
>
> > Once again, you ask me a question that shows me how profoundly ignorant
> > you are. Climate scientists are actually competent to measure the
> > effects of all actions that have a role in the change of climate on
> > earth.
>
> Those who have been in this forum for a while realize that I am anything
> but a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. IN fact many have used
> my skepticism as an indication of a lack of in telligence on my part.
> HAving said tha, I ran accross the following information a whale ago and
> have been mulling it over.
>

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7321-earth-absorbing-more-heat-...

> Or: >http://tinyurl.com/85lzqxg
>
>  From the article:
> [...]
> The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to
> space, according to a new modeling study. The difference amounts to 0.85
> watts for every square metre of the planet's surface. That is equivalent
> of 7 trillion 60-watt light bulbs - or the energy output of almost half
> a million thousand-megawatt power stations.
> [...]
>
> If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits, then the
> globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to blame anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases for this warming. That is where they lose me, at least
> for now.

You are another one who thinks it is a simple process, i.e., if it is
warming then there
is only one cause (the sun in your case).

The truth is there are many factors in volved, the sun being only
one. Yes, it is having
an input. Man is also having an input - a large innput. That is the
portion the denialists
refuse to accept.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Jun 26, 8:02 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 01:27 AM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >>   |
> >>   | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> >>   | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> >>   | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> >>   | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> >>   | ...
>
> >> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
> >> level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
>
> >>     --bks
>
> > Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> > going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> > global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> > playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> It is from 2007, but here is something to think about:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> [...]
> Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
> Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
> evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
> changes in the sun.
> [...]

Just another one who thinks there is only one cause.

Excerpt from the article:

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the
increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said

So at least he isn't a total denialist. Also note that the article
begins with calling it:
"one scientist's controversial theory".

Aside: Another case of the misuse of "theory" in a purported
scientific article. That
is not a theory in the scientific meaning. It is only a "theory" in
the vernacular use
which usually, and in this case is, nothing more than a WAG (Wild
Assded Guess)
as he has no data other than it is apparently warming (only 3 years
of that even), no research, no testing, no experimentation.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Jun 26, 11:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

>
>
>
>
>
> <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> > On 06/26/2012 01:27 AM, Jason wrote:
> > > In article

> > > <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Transition Zone<mogu...@hotmail.com>  wrote:

>
> > >> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> > >>   |
> > >>   | The sea level of the eastern coast of the United States is
> > >>   | accelerating at a much faster rate than the country's other
> > >>   | coasts due to global warming, claim researchers from the
> > >>   | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
> > >>   | ...
>
> > >> <http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112644423/hotspot-causing-sea-
> > >> level-rise-acceleration-in-eastern-us/
>
> > >>     --bks
>
> > > Some research scientists recently stated that the temperature on Mars is
> > > going higher and higher. That leads lots of scientists to believe that
> > > global warming is a natural cycle and others to believe that the sun in
> > > playing a role in regard to global warming.
>
> > It is from 2007, but here is something to think about:
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> > [...]
> > Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's
> > Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is
> > evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by
> > changes in the sun.
> > [...]
>
> Thanks for your excellent post. I do believe that scientists like
> Habibullo Abdussamatov are 100% correct. I also believe that pollution
> from high flying jet planes and factories also plays a role.

You also believe in sky pixies so I take youre "beliefs" for what they
are worth, nothing.

Harry K

[David Hartung]

Just how do you know that he has no data?

[harry k]

On Jun 27, 4:32 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 01:16 AM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<cdudnQMWJbpZ6nfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

> > <da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On 06/26/2012 01:27 AM, Jason wrote:
> >>> In article

> >>> <dc1d8ef7-3247-40e6-ba57-a69078696...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

More simplistic reasoning. If you have been listening it is CO2 AND
OTHER POLLUTANTS.

since the turn of the century, mankind has been
> pumping ever more amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere

Well at leasst you admit that much.

> yet warming has moderated.
> This indicates to me that perhaps our climate change community still has
> much to learn, and that just maybe, the warming trends might be natural,
> or maybe they are the natural result of our high population.

Makeup your mind, either man does not have anything to do with or he
does. Which is it?

> Maybe the solution to global warming is ti kill off 6 billion people. If
> this is the case,>

Sorta agree there. Mankind meets every definition of a parasite on
this world - all take
, no give, and population running out of control.

> I wonder how many of "global warming" fanatics will
> volunteer to be exterminated.

Nature will take care of it one way or another and there will be no
choice in the matte.

> By the way, In the early 19th century the world came out of global
> cooling we call a "little ice age". Since that time, global temperatures
> seem to have trended up.

Seem? Wild laughter. Guess you don't know about "data".

I don't know about you, but this seems like
> something which should be expected.

What? That we came out of it or that temps should be expected to
rise? One implies the other so what is your point? If it is that he
climate has warmed due to natrual causes it is correct...to a point
That point being the industrial revolution.

It never ceases to amaze me how a denialist will wrap himself totally
around the axle
by siezing on one point in some article and building an entire
edifice upon it.

Bottom line. the climate is warming. It is warming far faster than
ever shown in historical records (include ice cores going back some
100,000 years). It has also warmed far faster than even the
climate scientists predicted.

Harry K

[First.Post]

harry k <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:22ace980-0f86-4e6b...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com:

What a load of bullshit just to say nothing.
Typical warming fanatical sycophant.
A,ll you have is insults and horseshit rhetoric with nothing backing up
your rude stupid assed claims.
Run along trollboy.
You're inadequate.

[First.Post]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

news:MO-dnfqAC5g5hHLS...@giganews.com:

They don't. But they can't acknowledge anything that even hints at
proving their fanaticism to be wrong.
It's what happens when someone feels that their religion is threatened.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:38:44 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Why are you lost? Scientists have understood that there are greenhouse
gasses since the 19th Century. The more there are, the more solar
radiation gets trapped in our atmosphere. What specific question do you
have about this mechanism?

[Fly-n-G]

Desertphile wrote:
> Humans play a*LARGER* rfole in climate change than solar
> variation does.

Are you still traveling around publicly defacing BLM lands with your
hand made petroglyphs?

[Fly-n-G]

Desertphile wrote:
> No, there is zero evidence that Mars is warming.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:58:02 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Your question shows that you do not understand the problem.

Any significant change in any greenhouse gas will change the temperature
of earth. The balance that we are seeing changed at the moment is
relatively small compared to the history of the earth, but it is a major
change for human life. Scientists know how effective each greenhouse gas
is and they know how much those are changing over recent time. You seem
to be cherrypicking the data so you can ignore the overall pattern.

[Fly-n-G]

Desertphile wrote:
> Nobody is as stupic as you pretend to be.

[First.Post]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:g5cuu7l7vjrab0uq2...@4ax.com:

Can you show us the formula that proves anthropogenic global warming.
Should be simple for such a goddamned genius like yourself.
So please give us the formula showing XCO2 caused by man = YDegrees in
global temperature increase.
Oh thqat's right, you can;t because it's still just a hair brained
theory.
Now come back with your typical insults and comments that prove nothing.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:13:33 +0000 (UTC), "First.Post"
<OccupierDum...@invalid.org> wrote in alt.atheism:

Did you think your question makes sense?

>Should be simple for such a goddamned genius like yourself.

I guess you don't have respect for scientists because it appears that
you prefer to believe the lies of science-hating frauds.

>So please give us the formula showing XCO2 caused by man = YDegrees in
>global temperature increase.

Carbon Dioxide is part of the change, but the amount has been
calculated.

>Oh thqat's right, you can;t because it's still just a hair brained
>theory.

Only for science deniers. People who do not worship ignorance and
right-wing lies knows that humans are changing the climate.

>Now come back with your typical insults and comments that prove nothing.

You have chosen to mock science on a tool that exists because of
science. I cannot make more of a fool of you than you have done
yourself.

[First.Post]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:8nhuu7ppgumlcs27o...@4ax.com:

Sccording to the scientists:
CO2 accounts for 3.618% of the total greenhouse effect of which man is
responsible for 0.117% .
Total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
95.000% of the total greenhouse gas effect is caused by water vapor.

Effectively man has virtually no effect on the climate.
You don't even have your own "science" right.
Now run along and spred your propaganda someplace where folks are stupid
enoughb to buy into it.

[Bill Ward]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:02:51 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:58:02 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On 06/30/2012 09:44 AM, my fake smile wrote:
>>> David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits, then the
>>>> globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to blame anthropogenic
>>>> greenhouse gases for this warming. That is where they lose me, at
>>>> least for now.
>>>
>>> "The buildup of carbon dioxide causes radiation from our solar
>>> system's sun to become trapped in our atmosphere. This radiation is in
>>> the form of intense heat"
>>>
>>> --https://sites.google.com/site/changethepipeforabetterfuture/research
>>
>>I fully understand the concept of the greenhouse effect, in fact it is
>>that effect which makes life possible on earth. I am simply not
>>convinced that CO2 is the big bad boogyman everyone is cp;aiming it to
>>be.
>>
>>Ask yourself this question. What "greenhouse gas" causes the majority of
>>the earth's greenhouse effect?
>
> Your question shows that you do not understand the problem.
>
> Any significant change in any greenhouse gas will change the temperature
> of earth.

Actually, no. It's the LWIR optical depth of the atmosphere that
counts. It remained constant while the surface was heating during the
warming of the late 20th century.

Miskolczi writes about it here:

<http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503>
(Miskolczi E&E 2010 paper on optical depth)

"The greenhouse effect is here monitored without the superfluous
complications of AOGCM climate models. The present method shows directly
whether the global average infrared absorption properties of the
atmosphere are changing or not.

"In general, if there has been global warming due to any cause, its
possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the
atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed
by calculations of the absorption properties.

"The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent
change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties
cannot have been the cause of the warming."

If you can read and understand the paper, you'll find it well worth your
while. If you can't, and must simply take the word of a scientist,
Miskolczi is one of the most experienced and highly qualified in the
field.

> The balance that we are seeing changed at the moment is
> relatively small compared to the history of the earth, but it is a major
> change for human life. Scientists know how effective each greenhouse gas
> is and they know how much those are changing over recent time. You seem
> to be cherrypicking the data so you can ignore the overall pattern.

You're at a severe disadvantage trying to convince anyone of things you
don't understand well enough to explain yourself. Why would you even
try? What do you have to offer? Are you just "raising awareness"
through propaganda?

[David Hartung]

First, please excuse my horrible typing in the above post.

Ask yourself this question, what greenhouse gas is in the greatest
quantity in our atmosphere.

[David Hartung]

I see.

You appear to be unable to answer my simple question, instead you chose
to make a baseless assumption.

[harry k]

Ah so you admit greenhouse gases (note the plural) ARE having an
effect.

To answer your "gotcha". Water vapor. Sorry to ruin your day. We
can't do anything about water vapro but we can about CO2.

I guess in your simplistic view, if we can't fix everything, there is
no point in fixing anything.

Harry K

[David Hartung]

So the mankind's contribution to warming is less than three one
hundredths of the total. As I recall, the total 20th century warming was
about a degree Centigrade. That would make mankind's contribution, over
hundred years 3/100th of one degree, which would come out to
3/10,000th of a degree per year, is it was the same year to year.

I believe that some are projecting up to a 5 degree centigrade rise in
the 20th century. Assuming mankind's contribution doubles to
6/100th(data likely unavailable for this), mankind's total 100 year
contribution would still be only 3/10th of a degree.

It is possible that the figures given by First.Post are not accurate, so
if someone else can provide better figures, they would be appreciated.
First, I think I know where you got this from, but a cite would be
appreciated.

[David Hartung]

On 06/30/2012 10:35 AM, harry k wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:58 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 06/30/2012 09:44 AM, my fake smile wrote:
>>
>>> David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If the earth is actually absorbing more heat than it emits, then the
>>>> globe is indeed warming. The article goes on to blame anthropogenic
>>>> greenhouse gases for this warming. That is where they lose me, at least
>>>> for now.
>>
>>> "The buildup of carbon dioxide causes radiation from our solar
>>> system's sun to become trapped in our atmosphere. This radiation is in
>>> the form of intense heat"
>>
>>> --https://sites.google.com/site/changethepipeforabetterfuture/research
>>
>> I fully understand the concept of the greenhouse effect, in fact it is
>> that effect which makes life possible on earth. I am simply not
>> convinced that CO2 is the big bad boogyman everyone is cp;aiming it to be.
>>
>> Ask yourself this question. What "greenhouse gas" causes the majority of
>> the earth's greenhouse effect?
>
> Ah so you admit greenhouse gases (note the plural) ARE having an
> effect.

You really need to learn not to read into what people post.

> To answer your "gotcha". Water vapor. Sorry to ruin your day. We
> can't do anything about water vapro but we can about CO2.

How can you be so certain that CO2 is the culprit?

[First.Post]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

news:PZOdnYAfkJtZ_XLS...@giganews.com:

Forgot to post the link. My bad.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Note that the authors of the site are by no mean "denialists".

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:36:35 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

A culprit. A culprit that human activity is responsible for. One that
has been shown to affect the climate in additional to all other effects.
One that is causing problems now and will cause further problems if we
choose to ignore what we are doing.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:46:50 +0000 (UTC), "First.Post"

Source?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:55:13 +0000 (UTC), "First.Post"

Really? Aside from the fact that it is outdated, the selection of
sources does not imply a balanced view.

The aggregate greenhouse effect is not what is of concern. The question
is what the marginal effect of marginal changes will be. Yes, water
vapor and other greenhouse gases keep Earth from being an iceball. That,
from the point of view of humans, is a good thing. The question, since
your cite shows that water vapor, absent other changes, is stable over
time,

The claim about the natural vs. anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide
is not terribly useful if the author ignores the natural absorption of
carbon dioxide. The question is how much is anthropogenic sources are
changing the balance. The answer is that we are seeing carbon dioxide
levels increase and have done so since we were significantly into the
industrial era.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:15:39 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>

If your question was not intentionally misleading, you are not informed
enough about the question at hand to have an opinion of value. If it was
intentionally misleading, you know enough to know you are misleading
people.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:55:37 -0500, Bill Ward
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Why did he publish that paper in a low quality (others rarely reference
works published in it) journal like Energy & Environment?

>
>> The balance that we are seeing changed at the moment is
>> relatively small compared to the history of the earth, but it is a major
>> change for human life. Scientists know how effective each greenhouse gas
>> is and they know how much those are changing over recent time. You seem
>> to be cherrypicking the data so you can ignore the overall pattern.
>
>You're at a severe disadvantage trying to convince anyone of things you
>don't understand well enough to explain yourself. Why would you even
>try? What do you have to offer? Are you just "raising awareness"
>through propaganda?

The propaganda comes from those paid to tell lies and "raise questions"
by the coal and gas & oil interests.

[Bill Ward]

I take it you can't understand it? The facts don't change according to
where the paper is published. But to answer your question, at the time,
the Hockey Team had the previously respected journals under control. No
one with different views could get anything published. See the
climategate emails. Or are you one of those who try to deny climategate
ever happened?

>>> The balance that we are seeing changed at the moment is relatively
>>> small compared to the history of the earth, but it is a major change
>>> for human life. Scientists know how effective each greenhouse gas is
>>> and they know how much those are changing over recent time. You seem
>>> to be cherrypicking the data so you can ignore the overall pattern.
>>
>>You're at a severe disadvantage trying to convince anyone of things you
>>don't understand well enough to explain yourself. Why would you even
>>try? What do you have to offer? Are you just "raising awareness"
>>through propaganda?
>
> The propaganda comes from those paid to tell lies and "raise questions"
> by the coal and gas & oil interests.

Apparently you believe everything you're told. You're new around here,
aren't you?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:51:44 -0500, Bill Ward

What facts? The model was badly designed and the paper was published in
a marginal journal. The funding came from some AGW deniers (really from
the coal and gas & oil folks).

[David Hartung]

You know this how?

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:04:30 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>

I read the paper referenced above.

[First.Post]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:qm9vu79if564s78dm...@4ax.com:

Care to cite the passage or reference that substantiates your claims
regarding the funding?
Or is that just another half assed assumption because you don't like
their conclusions?