40/40 Vision: Richard Somerville

[werecow2003]

And btw, arguing that humans can't change the climate by pointing at previous natural variations is like arguing we can't start forest fires because lightning does. Equally, arguing that a warmer world is good because it was warmer in the past is like arguing that it's good when a tiger devours a human baby because predator-prey relations are abundant in nature. Climate change is not good or bad in and of itself, it's good or bad *for us*, in context.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 its funny you keep using fire analogys and global warming. cause when humans use fires against naturally accouring fires it usually puts them out...ie "fighting fire with fire" so any warming we may be doing is actually making the climate MORE stable MORE comfortable MORE habitable. the global earth temperature is 60F we can go up to 70F and it will be perfect for human habitation

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Controlled burns are one thing, but what we're currently doing is nothing of the sort, so your extension of that analogy breaks down right at the offset.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 global warming has been pretty kind to us so far. 40k years ago there were anatomically correct human beings...but no civilizations. only hunter gatherers. but lo as the ice melted civilization was born the more it melted the more advanced weve become. i say more global warming the better. if a few people have to move for PROGRESS so be it.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Yeah, and it just so happens that the formation of that civilization took place over a period of time in which the climate was remarkably stable. What matters is not the absolute temperature, but whether or not things change too fast for us to adapt to.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 it was stable because it was warmer. in my state west of the mountains is warm and wet. temps range from 40F in the winter and 70F in the summer. on my side its cold and dry. with temp ranging from -10F in the winter to 114 in the summer. warmer earth is a wetter earth. and a wetter earth is a more stable earth. fact look it up

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 to be wreckoned with

[VAR1UM]

Climate models or not... Global warming is occurring. The problem is the average person (majority of kids on youtube) quickly glance over something like this and think they know everything.

Whether you believe the models are real or not doesnt mean, shit. There are plenty of other things to look at to persuade you.

[BackwardsBound]

markbotv3,

My heart aches because of the deception that so many people like you have fallen into. Your mindset prevents mankind from saving ourselves. You'd rather we continue overpopulating, consuming, covering the Earth with asphalt, sucking all the life out of the oceans and lands, and burning the internal combustion engine for our comfort. You will never learn because of your blindness and because you won't open your mind to learning the truth.

[markbotv3]

@BackwardsBound lol wow are you a self loather or something? but i totally agree. everyone who lives in a major city and its surrounding suburbs should be euthenized. there is no reason for any city to have more than 50 000 people. luckily for me i live in a rural area and will avoid the great "cleansing" of human excriment. lol naw just kidding. had ya scared for a bit huh. but seriously you sound like you are from affluent parents in a big city. so really its YOU thats the problem

[markbotv3]

@BackwardsBound lol your statement about being blind and learning the truth blah blah blah reminds me of those jahovas witness or mormons who knock on my door from time to time and say shit like "BELIEVE" or "REPEANT SINNER" just out of curiosity has AGW become a religion? and if so the govt cant tax us because that would be a violation of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

[BackwardsBound]

It is very important for mankind to learn these things of truth that evolve to understanding. Too much our minds are blinded by the powers of money, while oil works as a power that is given to money. These beasts of money and oil blind our eyes and make us forget that we live on the Earth.

So then what shall we do?

Please visit my youtube site.

[markbotv3]

scientists are just as untrustworthy as oil barons since they receive nearly 100% of their funding from taxes it is in their best interest to scare voters into giving them outrageous sums of money to fight a phantom menace...and if anyone questions if the billions were worth it all they have to do is say "see we kept the earth from boiling up" since their isnt a problem with the earth to begin with...but we will just need another 80 billion to make sure it doesnt return...sickening

[BackwardsBound]

Science is not just as untrustworthy. Obviously you've never studied science. But let's say you're right. What should we then do? Nothing?

[markbotv3]

if we would of done NOTHING back in 1967 all the pollutants that we spared the atmoshphere would still be there and we wouldnt have to rerelease them in order to keep the earth cool

[BackwardsBound]

You are speaking nonsense my friend. Because of the warnings of sincere scientists like Carl Sagan countries took the ozone hole warning seriously and were able to prevent global catastrophe.

While aerosols may supposedly cool the Earth CFC's cause holes in the ozone layer. Why would we then use CFC's? Isn't that insanity? The Earth is our spaceship. The atmosphere is our air and our protection from UV and space. It's insane to sell out our lives for underarm deodorant. Don't you see?

[markbotv3]

hey dont blame the messenger i just about shit bricks when i heard the proposal to release Carbon monoxide back into atmosphere in order to keep the planet cool...isnt carbon monoxide the leading cause of acid rain? its all a power trip by the eco nazis. these same ppl are against wind turbines and solar pannels. they want to see all humans eradicated from the earth

[BackwardsBound]

Where did you here someone was thinking about releasing CO into the atm? Not in this video.

The reason some people are against saving the Earth is because of money. Money is a poison that has perverted all our minds - as well as the ecosystem of the Earth. I personally believe if we really want to save mankind we'll have to do away with our use of money, and oil, completely. See my video on here.

[markbotv3]

from the same guy who coined the phrase "anthropogenic" global warming...look it up if you dont believe me

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're thinking of sulfate particles, not CO. It probably wouldn't have a big effect on acid rain, but there are other reasons why it may not be a great idea to do so (for one thing, it doesn't solve the problem of ocean acidification). Most scientists see this sort of thing as a last resort, so that, if temperatures rise to catastrophic levels, we'd have some way to combat that effect. But Somerville is not a proponent of trying this approach, he just thinks it should be studied.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol define "catastrophic levels" wow you people are nuts. you dont believe we landed on the moon BUT you believe we can controll the earths climate like a thermostat. release co2 to turn it up and release sulfate particles to turn it down...oh ya and tax the fuck out of the poor and middleclass in between. ever read 1984 and animal farm? big brother is not your freind pal

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The high end projections of climate change are around 5-6 degrees, which is equivalent to the difference between today and the ice ages. That would be catastrophic. Personally, I'm not in favor of geoengineering because of the potential for unknown side effects. Besides, it doesn't fix ocean acidification. But it'd be foolish not to have a back up plan.

Re your tax-objections: Some of the biggest tax breaks right now go to fossil fuel companies. How about cutting those, for starters?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 if you cut the tax breaks to the oil companys they charge more for their product. and who pays for that? yup the poor and the middle class. stop all this class warfare bull shit. cause everytime a lefty opens his big fat mouth a dollar bill evaporates out of the wallet of the working man.

as for the iceages...you do know that the ice ages are an abnormality right? mabey it just correcting itself back to earths "normal" the earth is 4500 mill years old but only had ice for 12mill

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Who do you think will suffer most from the consequences of droughts, floods, extreme weather events, and so on?

Ice ages are cyclical. They have not been any more abnormal than interglacials for several millions of years. But it's kind of irrelevant to current day climate change anyway.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol droughts floods extreme weather are all acts of god. but financial suicide is man made. and define "several" million years because the earth has only had ice covered poles for a TOTAL of 12 million years disperced over FOUR major glaciations lasting roughly 3 million years each. with non ice covered poles inbetween lasting in the 100s of millions of years. this current ice age we are experiencing is 2.4 million years old. so its almost done according to history.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 also you global warming alarmists always assume its gonna be bad. why cant global warming be good? its been pretty darn good for us so far. more warmth means more evaporation. evaporation means more precipitation precipitation means LESS deserts not more. plus areas hither too cold to farm would be unlocked combined with the extra rainfall would substantially increase food production eradicating world hunger. global warming? i say bring it on baby

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 So far we've only seen a tiny change. There are very few benefits to the steep warming trend and large changes projected, and very many nasty consequences. Dry regions get drier, wet regions get wetter. You get more extreme heat waves and long droughts, and floods over short periods of extreme downpour. Sea level rise of 1m would affect over 100 million people in Asia alone, many more worldwide, with obvious socio-political consequences. Not to mention species extinction projections.

[werecow2003]

If you want to call that "alarmist", then fine, call it that. But it's what the best available knowledge suggests, it's what scientists who know their stuff are projecting, and it has nothing to do with Al freaking Gore.

As for who has the most to gain, I'd suggest that you look into the people who have the most to gain from delaying action, such as Exxon, which spent many millions of dollars funding various think tanks to spread misinformation on this subject in order to confuse the public.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 and projections is what we call in a court of law SPECULATION. the problem with computer models is G.I.G.O. which stands for "garbage in garbage out" the model is only as accurate as the dato put into it. AND IF the programer happens to be a leftist marxist ends justifies the means eco theocrat then the data will reflect that. have you forgoten about the east anglian and swansea e-mails? or the fact james hanson was caught manipulating nasa satalite data? i havnt

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 5 separate investigations of the stolen UEA emails revealed that the scientists had a siege mentality and made some poor decisions regarding FOIA requests. It revealed no fraud, nothing that would cast doubt on the science, and it didn't substantiate any of the ridiculous claims made by deniers. Even Roy Spencer defended Jones' temperature record.

Sorry, but you have to be woefully uniformed and a total conspiracy nut to think that this is all a "marxist leftist" plot.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 wait wait wait...did you say "STOLEN" e mails? no no no son those e mails were legaly requested through the freedom of information act the only reason the scientists are bitching is because of the timing. they were trying to keep them in red tape till AFTER global cap and trade legislation passed. but someone dropped the ball. the initial requests were made five years prior.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 I find the timing extremely convenient for the skeptics. Also, I have to wonder about the motives of anyone who claims to be concerned with the science but who issues FOIAs for email conversations. Although I admit to being rather curious as to what McIntyre has in his inbox. And let's face it, when have the auditors ever audited a study done by skeptics? Never, as far as I can tell. Not once. That's a clear sign of bias, to say the least.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 kk whats a "FOIAs"?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the skeptics get audited all the time. but the left doesnt care about facts they just go on a smear campaign and claim anyone who is against the notion of AGW is being bought off by big oil. the reality is the jury is still out. climate science is in its INFANCY and because of dishonest "scientists" what little date we do have is corrupted. hanson lowered older data temps and raised newer readings to show a dramatic spike to match al gores hockey stick...which has since been disprov

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 When have McIntyre et al audited a skeptical study? Be specific, please, because I'd really like to see that.

BTW, that people are being paid by fossil fuel companies is not just an unsupported hypothesis. Exxon's funding to think tanks like the Heartland Intitute or the George C Marshall Intitute is public record (look at their lists of members). Patrick Michaels recently admitted that he got 40% of his funding from fossil fuel companies. He didn't think that was "significant".

[werecow2003]

But just so this is clear, I don't think these climate skeptics are in it for the money. I think they have an ideology that is in conflict with, among other things, government intervention, which blinds them to the actual state of the science and the considerable risk involved. The fossil fuel companies that provide the funding, media training, etc. however, enable them to get their minority view vastly overrepresented in the public sphere. That's where the actual misrepresentation comes in.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 holy fuck are you truly suggesting that skeptics get MORE air time than global warming alarmists? that is just fucking the nutiest thing i have ever heard!!!. for the last 4 years all you heard was GLOBAL WARMING THIS!!! GLOBAL WARMING THAT!!! RUN!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!. then east anglia comes out and the media is like...um might have been a hoax...the end. ON PAGE FUCKING 113. in small print

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 I don't know about "more"...but this is being represented as an equal debate among scientists, when it's really 5% versus 95%. Should that 5% get equal time? I don't think so.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the five percent are the proponents of AGW i think you are confusing AGW with GW. their is a HUGE difference. 100% of climate scientists believe the earth has been on a warming trend for the last 40k years. that is GW. AGW on the otherhand stands for "anthropogenic global warming" or man made global warming. and only a few scientists have actually pined their carreers on it. everyone else are political activists and the media. google "ice ages" if you think im lying.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The various signed statements by the joint academies of science and a large number of other institutes either explicitly acknowledge the anthropogenic influence on climate, or implicitly endorse it by backing the IPCC. It's extraordinary to find these typically very conservative institutes willing to sign such strong statements. As for scientists, the studies that have been published under peer review all show a strong consensus on *anthropogenic* warming.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 your analogy is nothing like the earth warming. ok the earth has been warming for the last 40k years...it hasnt stopped then all of a sudden man became industrial 200 years ago. and lo it STILL hasnt stopped. so how much of a 40k trend is man made and how much of a 40k trend is natural? your analogy should of been well fires have come and gone in the past lightning caused this one so im going to throw this one match and "contribute" to the existing fire.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol the dude in this video says "ice ages have come and go in the past BUT now humans are causing it" lol WHAT?!?! so if it happened BEFORE the industrial revolution its "normal" but if it happens after the industrial revolution its MAN MADE wheres the evidence in that? if we didnt cause global warming or global cooling in the past what makes you think we are doing it now? oh thats right you have an agenda you hate capitalism and love socialism

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Your argument is analogous to the following situation:

"I'm telling you, forest fires have occurred in the past many times over! Where is the evidence that that match I threw in those dry leaves caused the forest fire you see behind me? It's all perfectly natural!"

And no, I'm not a communist nazi hippy. I'm just a guy who loves science, and hates anti-science and pseudoscience with a passion.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the warming up to 1998 was slight not dramatic. just like the cooling from 1999 to the present all within recorded perameters

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The only way you can get a cooling trend is by picking an anomalously hot year as your starting point and picking an anomalously cold year as your end point. That's cherry picking. 98 was a strong El Nino year. Besides, a decade really isn't long enough for the signal to rise above the noise anyway.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 ahh but according to AGW theory cooling or even temp stabilization is imposible...HOCKEY STICK GRAPH remember? the models show ONLY upward trends so we have to PANIC NOW!!!! AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! send us your money or we are all gonna die!!!! ahhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhh....remember? again you need to read about the difference between plain jane global warming wich has been going on for 40k years and anthropogenic global warming which only has 20 years of "data" half of which shows coolin

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 How does the hockey stick show that "stabilization is impossible"?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 yes it does read micheal manns conclusions on global warming PRE 1998. as far as cherry picking is concerned lol that is EXACTLY how they came up with AGW theory. they chose the coldest year 1973 and showed how warm we are getting right up to 1998...and then they had to start getting creative. 1973 was abnormally cool as well as the rest of the 70s the 80s were normal and yes the 90s were a bit above average but now its correcting. its natural

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Sorry, but every single reliable source I've read, from vetted textbooks, through peer reviewed papers, up to assessment reports by institutions like the NAS, accredited universities, and the IPCC, says otherwise. I'm not about to take the word of a bunch of libertarian think tankers over that of prominent scientific institutions, as well as every single climate scientist I've spoken to (which includes some who are generally considered highly conservative, like Hans Von Storch).

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 define "reliable" someone who gets $1000 to study birds? or someone who gets $3.6 million to study birds to see how global warming affects their migration paterns...see the difference? its the same guy he just gets more funding if he jumps on the agw bandwagon. and again all those vetted acredited peer reviewed papers are for GW not AGW . it has been globaly warming for 40k years why would it stop in 1850?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 let me explain the difference between global warming and AGW in global warming temps go up and down up and down with an over all long term trend towards up. AGW on the other hand the temps ONLY go up. and they go up dramatically and man is to blame. now yes 100% of scientists believe in gw because the data is irrefutable. BUT only a small fraction believe in AGW theory as a whole with some who believe man contributes but NO ONE knows how much yet. their isnt enuff data. FACT

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Can you cite me ONE significant scientific instituttion that takes the position that there'no discernible human impact on climate change? And I'm not talking about grass root movements or political think tanks, I'm talking about the NAS (of any country), the AAAS, the Royal Academy, the Met office, NASA, NOAA, and so on.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 how is the met office thrown in to climate debate?

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The Met office does a lot of work on climate. They're in the process of constructing a new, independent temperature reconstruction from raw data right now (they don't expect that project to change the fundamental conclusions, btw). See surfacetemperatures org.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the only problem with a political organization doing data. is it is just as untrustworthy as if an oil company were doing an independant study. for exactly the same reason. big govt needs cap and trade to grow. without cap and trade plus the recession govt has got to shrink. so the met office is a biased organization that has no business doing scientific work.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 have you ever seen "an inconvienent truth"? i suggest watching it. its ripe with propaganda and psuedo science and out right lies.it has pictures of polar bear babys. etc. i also suggest watching lethal weapon 2 why you ask? because they talk about "dolphin safe tuna" do you remember that trend? where is it now? where is the hole in the ozone that was going to kill us all? why arent we all dead from aids? these trends are short lived and agw has run its course dont be made a fool.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 No, I've actually avoided watching Gore's movie or anything like it, and I have no particular desire to watch it now. I try to piece together the state of the science by reading the source material such as peer reviewed papers and large scale science reports, and using university text books, watching lectures from reputable universities, emailing questions to the people doing the research, and so on.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 then do that now and research ice ages

[werecow2003]

You should realize, btw, that while ice ages were initiated by orbital factors, you can't get the observed temperature changes without taking into account the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (which in this case act as a feedback) and changing albedo.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 water is 1000 times more potent a green house gass than co2. co2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses out there. mars has a co2 atmoshpere and is cold as fuck

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Water vapor has a very low residence time in the atmosphere. And because there's so much of it, we can't really influence the graanhouse effect of water vapor very much. There are stronger GHGs, but they're typically rare. CO2 is relatively abundant compared to other GHGs, but not so abundant that we can't significantly increase its concentration and influence it's warming effect. That's why it has the most pronounced effect on climate out of all anthropogenic gas emissions.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol hey at least you are the FIRST lefty to admit what we have always known. you single co2 out cause its the ONLY thing humans have even the slightest bit of controll over. but more co2 in the atmoshpere means more plants more plants mean more oxygen more oxygen means bigger bugs bigger bugs means more food for animals more food for animals means more food for us. its win win win every one wins nobody loses

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're turning matters on their head. CO2 is the focus because it happens to be the factor we're influencing. Nobody's claiming it's the only factor that drives climate, but it's the one that's causing the problem because we happen to have accidentally assumed control over it. There are others, too, like methane, soot and aerosols, and they get a lot of attention, but CO2 happens to be the main source of the problem at the moment.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 did you study about ice ages? and did you confirm my assertion that the earth has only had ice covered poles for 12 out of 4500 million years of earth history?

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're incorrect. Just off the top of my head, there are the Varangian, Sturtian, and Huronian snowball (or slushball) earth glaciations, the Silurian/Ordovician glaciation, the Carboniferous/Permian glaciation, and of course the Pleistocene. Although still in the minority, together they amount to a lot more than 12 million years. But that's kind of irrelevant anyway, because back then we didn't have a complex society as we do today. We're adapted to today's climate.

[werecow2003]

Oh, and of course the Marinoan, and possibly the Gaskiers.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the bigest problem with ice ball earth is it states the equator was as cold as modern day antarctica...the only problem is the fossil record shows a plethora of plant and animal life throughout the ENTIRE planet at the very time it was supposed to be encased in ice. not to mention no mass extinctions. what did everything hybernate for 100 million years and then come out and carry on business as usual?

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Now you're just talking out of your butt. The snowball earth episodes occurred before we have any fossil evidence of multi-cellular life having existed, let alone plants and animals. The Marinoan and Sturtian was before the Ediacaran period. Back then there were only prokaryotes and single celled eukaryotes. How they survived is still subject to debate, and one of the main reasons why some have argued for a slushball, rather than a snowball earth.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 psssh slush ball ice ball it doesnt matter its STILL just a hypothesis. it isnt even a theory yet. let alone fact. its just some delusional pipe dream thought up by some russian guy.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 I don't think you're communicating the state of affairs on this issue accurately. But either way, as I noted multiple times already, it's irrelevant anyway, as there was no infrastructure or complex global sociopolitical structure back then that we depended on (which in turn today depends for a large part on our current climate) - for most of the time, there wasn't even an 'us'.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 there still isnt a "COMPLEX GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE" and why would you want one? i dont want to have to call the fucking UN when someone is breaking into my house. cause they dont care about me. its funny how you "athiests" dont believe in the day of judgement and yet you are doing everything in your power to make it happen. a one world govt is going to be ruled by the anti christ dipshit

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 add em all up...12 million TOTAL.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The Marinoan alone lasted longer than that, as did the Sturtian.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the whole "iceball earth" is still only a hypothesis it hasnt even reached theory stage yet. so dont be trying to say that the marinoan lasted 100 million years with out PROOF. i need 100% iron clad PROOF before i believe it. if you ask me i tell you that ice ball earth never will become theory let alone fact their are just too many holes. cmon now certainly an athiest such as your self can understand why i need irrefutable undenieable PROOF cant you?

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 There is discussion about whether the earth froze over completely or whether there may just have been "slush" in some parts. That there was significant ice cover, beyond what we've seen since, is pretty well established by now.

You'll never get 100% iron clad proof in complex systems science. It simply cannot be done, and to say that any conclusion is 100% certain (as opposed to, say, 99.999%) is decidedly nonscientific in any field. You can be pretty damn sure, but never 100% sure.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 too bad cause like you to believe in god you need 100% proof of his existence. i too need 100% proof that al gore is a divine prognosticator of the future. and his faux science which he is trying to use to tax the fuck out of us all for his own benefit. i wont send him tax money but i will join any revolution for his over throw.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Al Gore is irrelevant, as are my religious (dis)beliefs. I base my judgment on a preponderance of evidence. That that only approaches but never quite reaches 100% is simple the nature of science. It has nothing to do with politics, wishful thinking or religion.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 oh but it DOES have to do with politics. because al gore is trying to get TAX money. as are the climate scientists and the UN. so politics is very much a part of this debate. now if you think that tax payer money shouldnt go to fund this then you are correct. but as long as they are using my money they need to be held accountable. and that means bringing AGW theory to a court of law and have it decided once and for all if man is causing it.

[werecow2003]

^simply, not simple

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the preponderance of the evidence says "earth is warming...has been for 40k years...its STILL warming any warming man is causing is being drowned out by the natural warming" the evidence doesnt say "man is causing warming and its all going to be catastrophic" only the ipcc is saying that. and why? because of greed. greed for money and greed for power. the UN right now is a joke. but with the trillions of dollars funneled to it through global warming legislation it will be a force.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 No, the IPCC is not the only one saying that. For example, last year, the Interacademie of Sciences, a body that includes the national science academies of over 70 countries, signed a joint statement warning about the very significant danger of ocean acidification. The IPCC has in fact UNDERESTIMATED CO2 emissions, sea ice melt, sea level rise, and continental ice shelf melt. To say they're just alarmists is demonstrably false.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the ice sheets are GROWING the fact that they are breaking off is proof of that. the last time ice bergs were found in the mid atlantic is when they sank the titanic in 1912. when the earth was just starting to recover from the "little ice age" if they were melting they would turn to liquid water but since they are growing and then breaking off and NOT melting means it is cooler.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The ice sheets are not "growing". Do some research before you write silly things like that.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 YES THEY ARE!!! they wouldnt be breaking off if they werent growing. its like a conveyor belt. when they grow they get so big they break off. when they melt they just disapear. like i said the last time the ice sheets were this large was 1912 when it sank the titanic

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You seem to be mixing two different things, the ocean conveyor and ice sheet dynamics. What's happening in Greenland and West Antarctica, among other things, is that the flow of the ice sheet out into the sea has accelerated. Therefore you get more ice flowing out to sea and coming in contact with the warm ocean water, which melts them from below and causes them to break up more rapidly. In land, increased precipitation causes more snowfall, but it's the balance that counts.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 no i wasnt talking about the saline conveyor. i was refering to ice on a conveyor belt. it would go out straight for a while and then break off from the weight. if it werent growing it wouldnt break off. but speaking of the saline conveyor. the oceans have been getting more acidic. why? because their is more salt in the water. why? because less ice is melting. why? because its been cooling since 1998. why? cause earth temp is cyclical not hockey stick shaped

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Salt makes water saltier, not more acidic. The increase in acidity is due to the rise in CO2. The increase in salinity in the tropics is due to more evaporation due to rising temperatures. In the higher latitudes, the ocean is actually freshening, though there is much uncertainty about trends in the arctic. Overall, the trend is towards a freshening of ocean water due to increased precipitation and ice melt, though again there is much uncertainty. See IPCC AR4 WG1, ch 5.2.3.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 salt is 5 on the ph scale...how is co2 AN INNERT GAS making water more acidic?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 its early september and the temps are already dropping rapidly. just a month ago it was 104 now its 72. thats 32 degrees in a few weeks. 2010 was the year of two seasons...winter and july and august. i was still running my heater in june. and i live in the desert. lol when your over lords tell you that earth is cooling. you will be like "see the earth is cooling and its man made and its all bushes fault...and capitalism." read 1984

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Weather is not climate. You can't tell much from a decade, let alone a few months or a year.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 and yet you guys are doing just that. all this hubbub started in 1995 when you claimed "the earth is getting warmer"...and it did...for three years. then it stabalized and started to get cooler. this is the seventh consecutive cooler year. and the farmers almanac predicts it to be one of the coldest in over a century. and it has a 87% accuracy rate. and yet you want us all to donate are hard earned money and give it to a bunch of liberals who dont have our best interest at heart.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS!!!. one of your eco nazi buddies stormed the discovery channels head quarters today. and took three hostages. he was shot and killed by the police. none of the hostages were hurt in the exchange of gunfire. good guys 1 eco nazis zero. BURN IN HELL JAMES LEE

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol interacademy of sciences is apart of the UN. that doesnt surprise me since its the UN whos pushing the hardest for this legislation. without a global "threat" their is no reason for the UN to even exist. they need global warming...or global cooling to be mans fault so they can get funding and expand their authority...if its just natural they get NOTHING. i dont know but people have killed for far less than TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of dollars and global power. sounds plausible

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The IAC spans the academies of science of many countries. Those are among the most respected science institutes in the world. 

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 respected by the globalists mabey. not by those who believe in the soverignty of nations

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 it wouldnt be hockey stick shaped now would it? it would look just like the graphs of temp prior to 1973 with ups downs etc. also did you know that 1946 was only 2 degrees cooler than 1998? and that the mideivel warm period was 17 degrees warmer than present.. the area known as avalon was a lake "lady of the lake" its now 23 feet above sea level. and they found more viking settlements in greenland much farther north than previously thought possible

[werecow2003]

re models: Let's see... Models currently underestimate sea level rise, land ice melt, and sea ice melt. Temperature is currently at the high end of IPCC model projections. The models generally fail to reproduce extreme rapid climate shifts such as D-O events or the YD. Estimates of climate sensitivity are not symmetric, with a heavy tail in the direction of higher estimates.

In short, uncertainty in these models is not your friend.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 i dont trust the IPCC or anything that has to do with the UN. did you know john kristy was on the original IPCC report? well his name anyway. even though he is AGAINST AGW theory

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Even Christy has now had to admit, much to his chagrin, that the climate is warming, and that it's most likely due to humans. He's about as far from the mainstream as you can get while still being a climate scientist. The fact that he was involved in the IPCC should clue you in that they don't avoid hearing the views of climate skeptics.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 lol wow just wow. the earth is cooling not warming. and it is projected to cool for at least the next 30 years. kristy did not admit to it warming. show me the video i want to hear it in his own words not just your ASSERTION. and he never WAS on the IPCC. only his NAME was on it.he had to publicly disclaim it. after which he was villified by the left.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're wrong. There is still an upward trend, but it has leveled off somewhat, probably due to solar variability. See Roy Spencer's blog. He got a lot of crap from Watts et al for pointing out that fact. And the current absolute temperatures are still above the mean for the projections.

Re Christy, his words: " We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. " (he goes on to complain about alarmism)

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 ha ha ya i saw that video too. kristy gos on and on and on about how man is NOT responsible for gw. and then the comentator of the vid cuts his tape and speaks for him...nope sorry sista but that aint good enuff. i need to hear it in HIS OWN WORDS before i believe it. cmon that shouldnt be surprising to an athiest like yourself. you dont believe in god for the exact same reason.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Alright, well, let's just say that if Christy doesn't accept even that basic fact, he's not being scientifically minded imho. At least his colleague Spencer is honest enough not to deny that basic fact. Maybe I'll email Christy the question to see if/how he'll respond.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 oh lol freedom of information act duh my bad

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 sun spots to be exact...or lack there of i should say. gee who would of thunk it that the primary source of heat is to blame for climate change...its like a pan of water on a stove top in a house that is fourty below zero. turn up the heat and the pan boils turn it off for a bit and it cools and eventually freezes. the sun not man is the cause of climate change. always has been always will be

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Solar activity has shown a downward trend while temperatures have been going up. Furthermore, the stratosphere has been cooling while the troposphere has been warming, because more heat is trapped by GHGs (if it was the sun, you'd expect the stratosphere to heat). Nights warm faster than days, as one would expect from GHG forcing, but not solar. Winters warm faster than summers, again as GHG forcing would predict. And so on.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 its not warming like i said its been cooling since 1998 the CORRECT data shows that.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the earths temps are still within paramaters of past epochs. and are actually cooler than 99% of what the earth considers "normal" remember ice ages are the annomoly not the norm. even though their has been ice covered poles for all of civilization doesnt mean that it is normal from earths perspective. you have to step back and look at the big picture. think global but act local not think local and act global

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The issue is not about whether the temperatures are normal on a geologic time scale, it's about whether humanity and the biosphere can adapt to such a rapid change without difficulty. The climate system has been quite stable throughout the time that humanity has managed to thrive. But today 40% of the human population lives near the coast. The point is that we have adapted to the current climate, and the change we see and project is very rapid.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 then the 40% who live on the coast need to be eradicated for being so fucking stupid and watering down the gene pool. survival of the fitest i say. cmon if the human race cant get out of the way of waters that raise .0001cm a year we dont deserve to survive as a species

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're a Poe, right? I'm being Poed.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 they had to use the freedom of information act because the scientists would not release them. now if it were simply a scientific matter it wouldnt have been a big deal but we are litterally talking TRILLIONS in taxes if the legislation passed and a whistle blower from the inside had a pang of conscience and wanted the rest of the world know that AGW is a lie whos sole purpose is redistribution of wealth.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 You're missing the point; why would they want the emails in the first place? If they're so concerned with the data, getting raw data and program code released would be plenty. Asking for the emails is something you do if you want to find nasty statements you can use to demonize your opponent, and that's exactly what's been done here.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 no the whistle blower KNEW that the raw data has been faked, he needed the e mails as evidence. he requested it and the buddies of the evil scientists held it up for a bit. but unfortunately for them and fortunately for us they were released BEFORE coppenhagen summit. cmon as a scientist you cant possibly condone changing data to fit a political agenda? thats just not...whats the word im looking for? snap oh ya scientific

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Bullshit. There is no evidence that anything was faked. None. And by contrast, other temperature records, including that of skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy, are in line with Jones' reconstruction. The reconstruction has also been redone over and over again with publically available data. If they were falsifying data, they did a piss-poor job of it.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 yes their is. james hansons satelite data. micheal manns hockey stick graph al gores "inconveineint truth" is based largely on their falsified data. and if you read the emails their is the "hide the decline" among other statements

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Look up "divergence problem" and "segment length curse". These are well known issues with particular sets of northern latitude tree ring data, which show a divergence from the instrumental record after the 1960s (instrumental goes up, tree rings down - due to other factors such as precipitation or pollution). That's the "decline", "hidden" to show actual instrumental temps. It's shown in some of the hockey stick graphs. See Cronin 2009 (paleoclimate textbook) for a discussion.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 green land was indeed GREEN back in them days. with thousands of sheep grazing. it was a paradise on earth. and then the cooling started and it had to be abandoned

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 but if you do nothing else research "ICE AGES" ice ages lets you see that temps go up and down they never go only up or only down. and that the warming up to 1998 was well within the norm. and the fact that as long as their are ice covered poles earth will not be considered normal. only untill the caps are gone will it return to normal temp. yes i said it. WE ARE STILL IN AN ICE AGE. dont worry it is projected to last at least 60k more years

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 I have a textbook about paleoclimatology lying less than 50cm away from me that I've worked my way through, as well as a big binder of papers on the subject. I know what an ice age is. No one denies that natural climate variability exists, but there is a plethora of evidence now that the current change is man-made, and quite rapid compared to the normal periodic patterns that we see in paleodata.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 the younger dreyes warming was SUBSTANCIALY more rapid. than the current...meh...warming. as well as the cooling that followed. the earth hasnt experienced anything like that in over 10k years

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 The YD was probably not a global event, it was most likely due to a shift in ocean currents, changing the flow heat. But yes, that change was quite rapid, especially for the northern hemisphere. The difference lies in the fact that we now have infrastructure that we depend on, and there are so many of us that we can't just move over when certain regions become uninhabitable (e.g. because of loss of drinking water sources).

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 ie you mean the welfare class? fuck em they are parasites on society. their are no guarantees in life if people have to move then people have to move but the plus side of that is a MASSIVE housing boom on a GLOBAL scale...can you say "end of the global recession?"...i knew you could

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Where do you get "welfare class" from? Worst case scenario we're talking about losing mainports, lines of communication, major industry, agriculture, and major ecosystems that we rely on such as those that produce our fisheries, as well as the homes of a significant percentage of the world's population. You think that won't affect people like you because you choose to live in a cave somewhere up high? You think that would benefit the economy? Are you wearing a tin foil hat right now?

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 and be honest the ONLY reason you are worried about the mere threat of global warming is because you like those fucking moronic idiots in NewOrleans live in a land that is mostly under sea level. look im sorry you live in a swampy shit hole but thats not my fault. i shouldnt be taxed for YOUR poor choices. its called personal responsibility learn it live it love it.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 I'm not all that concerned about flooding; we're quite used to dealing with that threat here. What worries me are the social consequences of possible mass migrations in Asia in a region where you already have high tension between two nuclear powers, as well as the way climate change affects ecosystems (particularly the bottom of the ocean food chain).

Also, please stop being a fucking asshole.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 and this comming from the person who said "the world is over populated" well which is it? are we over populated or not? you need to let go and let god handle all this shit.

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 When did I say that? It may be true, but I don't think I ever said as much. Is it sustainable? I just don't know.If you want my opinion, I think technology will probably keep up with the rising population if clueless people don't stand in the way of things like genetically modified crops, but we are certainly putting a strain on our environment even at current levels. Do you dispute that?

Also, I'm an atheist, so I can't really sit back and let divine intervention solve my problems.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 then we need to uthenize people who live in large citys. most of them are worthless anyway. problem solved

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 and you guys keep going on and on about the top 1%...but isnt george soros al gore oprah winfrey apart of that top 1%? and they are the beneficiarys of agw legislation. the working man is getting double penetration from the oil companys because we need their products and the government because they tax the fuck out of us. and BOTH are imune to thier own actions and im stuck in the middle paying for BOTH their lavish lifestyles

[werecow2003]

@markbotv3 Also your accusation that I don't believe that we landed on the moon is absurd and extremely offensive to someone like me. I love science, I'm a general skeptic, and while I'm far from an expert on climate, I've done a substantial amount of reading on this subject. Your big-government conspiracy theories border on the insane. Before you scream hoax, communism, fraud and conspiracy, I suggest you at least listen to the people who devote most of their lives to studying the subject.

[markbotv3]

@werecow2003 you believe we landed on the moon? good for you. most liberal athiest socialist marxists dont believe we did. also you need to ask yourself who stands the most to gain from AGW legislation? could it be the head CEO of GIM? (global investment management) the company that sells carbon credits...and just who is the head CEO of GIM? oh thats right its Al Gore. the "sex poodle"

[markbotv3]

@BackwardsBound and dont get me started on cfcs THERE IS NO HOLE IN THE OZONE that was a lie propagated by the dupont corperation because their patent on freon R-12 was set to expire in 1985. so they embarked on a two year campaign of misinformation lies and half truths and propaganda to ban THEIR OWN PRODUCT. so no one else could manufacture it. and would be forced to use their alternative R-13. thanks to the liberal media they succeeded in 1984 months ahead of time