Global warming and the end

[Biblewriter]

Dude, I'm quite happy to admit that you know far more about science and engineering than I do. I'm also quite happy to point out that you are still avoiding the FACT that this term is used to discuss energy in the atmosphere! If you even looked up the basic WIKIPEDIA on WATT, you'd see this reference:


Forgot to mention that did we? Oops!
You can talk down to me all you want, but it doesn't make the fact that the peer-reviewed climate scientists choose to use the term watt when discussing atmospheric energy. Are you also a qualified climatologist? I thought not. It sounds like your industry's preferred use of the term watt has become the only definition you'll use, whether or not other professions use it to describe other phenomenon. Refusing to acknowledge this possibility when I've pointed you to the sources is just stubborn, ignorant and arrogant.

There is no such thing as "my industry's use of the term." The word has a meaning, and that meaning is universal across all sciences. A watt is a unit of energy flow, not a unit of energy. That is why it is impossible to "trap" a watt of "energy." A watt cannot be trapped. A joule can be trapped, but not a watt.

I would like to see one of your peer-reviewed articles that says such a thing, for that would be a nail in the coffin for their fraud. Anyone who speaks of "trapping" a "watt" of energy does not understand enough to calculate how long it would take a cup of coffee to cool, much less how hot the earth will be a hundred years from now. Whether he calls himself a scientist or not, such a person is a total ignoramus when it comes to heat.

Your argument about this is only digging yourself deeper into the hole you have already dug. The only thing you are proving is that you do not even understand the data you are quoting. And by the way, the wikipedia article uses the term correctly. I have used the solar irradiance, which is measured in watts per square meter, in calculations many times. For I design solar heating systems.

 

[eclipsenow]

There is no such thing as "my industry's use of the term." The word has a meaning, and that meaning is universal across all sciences. A watt is a unit of energy flow, not a unit of energy. That is why it is impossible to "trap" a watt of "energy." A watt cannot be trapped. A joule can be trapped, but not a watt.

I would like to see one of your peer-reviewed articles that says such a thing, for that would be a nail in the coffin for their fraud. Anyone who speaks of "trapping" a "watt" of energy does not understand enough to calculate how long it would take a cup of coffee to cool, much less how hot the earth will be a hundred years from now. Whether he calls himself a scientist or not, such a person is a total ignoramus when it comes to heat.

Your argument about this is only digging yourself deeper into the hole you have already dug. The only thing you are proving is that you do not even understand the data you are quoting. And by the way, the wikipedia article uses the term correctly. I have used the solar irradiance, which is measured in watts per square meter, in calculations many times. For I design solar heating systems.

Thank you for explaining, so clearly, that it is a unit of energy flow. This is exactly how the IPCC uses the word.
FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state.
Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that affect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors.

FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

In fact, if you bothered to read my previous posts, you would have seen this energy diagram which illustrates the energy flows.

And the Co2 prevents some of that energy flow going in the correct direction: therefore we have a melting Arctic, warming planet, and the general problem of Global Warming as described by the peer-reviewed science. But go ahead. Keep on ranting about how watts = energy flows. You're only proving climate science for me!



Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath.... - YouTube

 

[Metal Minister]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a small clean up. Please remember to stay on topic. MOD HAT OFF

 

[eclipsenow]

Biblewriter,
it turns out you are just attacking the easily debunked straw-man of my own layman's use of the terms. There's actually nothing of substance in your attack because you've just admitted that the wiki's use of the term is correct. So that you don't have a heart-attack I'm quite happy to give up talking about watts being 'trapped', because, as you correctly point out, watts are a measure of energy flowing. Talking about them being 'trapped' is like talking about 3 sided squares. It's just a meaningless semantic error. So, if you don't like the word 'trapped', I'm happy to change it to another layman's term... something like 'redirected' or 'diverted'. For that is what is happening and why the world is warming. It turns out Co2 is 'redirecting' about 1.7 watts / m2 back into the atmosphere!

No wonder the world is warming!

So when you're ready please link to an article that calculates how much expanding deserts will offset global warming, and explains why expanding deserts are even desirable in the first place! Thanks.

(And don't even raise those silly old maps again until you can link to them online. If they're that big a deal shouldn't there at least be a WIKI on them??? But you can't even link to that!?)

​

 

[interpreter]

Global warming is proof that God exists and knows the future (because it is clearly foretold).

 

[eclipsenow]

Global warming is proof that God exists and knows the future (because it is clearly foretold).

I don't really think it has been predicted in the bible, or that the bible talks about it at all. But God gives us the loving character to approach this the right way, and try to solve it ASAP so that the poor are not harmed by our actions.

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter,
it turns out you are just attacking the easily debunked straw-man of my own layman's use of the terms. There's actually nothing of substance in your attack because you've just admitted that the wiki's use of the term is correct. So that you don't have a heart-attack I'm quite happy to give up talking about watts being 'trapped', because, as you correctly point out, watts are a measure of energy flowing. Talking about them being 'trapped' is like talking about 3 sided squares. It's just a meaningless semantic error. So, if you don't like the word 'trapped', I'm happy to change it to another layman's term... something like 'redirected' or 'diverted'. For that is what is happening and why the world is warming. It turns out Co2 is 'redirecting' about 1.7 watts / m2 back into the atmosphere!

No wonder the world is warming!

So when you're ready please link to an article that calculates how much expanding deserts will offset global warming, and explains why expanding deserts are even desirable in the first place! Thanks.

(And don't even raise those silly old maps again until you can link to them online. If they're that big a deal shouldn't there at least be a WIKI on them??? But you can't even link to that!?)

​

My argument was not a straw-man at all. Its point was that, with all your arguing about what "science" has proved, you have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to distinguish between a valid scientific argument and total "pseudo-scientific" trash.

The community of "real" scientists have a disproportionate number of "climate deniers" in their ranks. Can you guess the reason? I will give you a hint. Because "real" scientists can see that this whole thing simply doesn't make sense. When we examine the alleged proof we see repeated cases of gross oversimplification and half truths. People that have no concept of the real scientific principles involved simply cannot detect these oversimplifications and half truths.

When we see "scientists" who are unwilling to have their work reviewed, we know they are hiding things. When they claim they have lost their data, we see no reason to believe they ever even had such data. And when their computer program is leaked, and gives the same results when fed randomized data, we know it is outright fraud.

If you actually think all this has been proven with such compelling reason, explain this chart, which was published by the NASA Earth Observatory, which shows the radical differences between solar radiance measurements taken by different satellites. The vertical scale is in watts per square meter and the horizontal scale is years.

You will notice that this chart shows drastic variations between observations of the same phenomena by different satellites. Which one is the correct one? This is just one example of the many problems we real scientists see.

You can see the original at:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php

As to the ancient map I referred to, I am not aware that anyone but myself ever noticed its connection to global warming. And as I already told you, I am not aware that anyone has ever posted it on the internet. But you can get the book at almost any library.

 

[eclipsenow]

My argument was not a straw-man at all. Its point was that, with all your arguing about what "science" has proved, you have clearly demonstrated that you are unable to distinguish between a valid scientific argument and total "pseudo-scientific" trash.

Please disprove the radiative forcing of Co2, which is demonstrable in any physics lab on the planet.

The community of "real" scientists have a disproportionate number of "climate deniers" in their ranks.

You pretend that climate scientists are not real scientists, and only engineers are the real scientists. Keep pretending.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you guess the reason? I will give you a hint. Because "real" scientists can see that this whole thing simply doesn't make sense.

Keep pretending.

Academies of Science (general science)

A total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This includes 33 who have signed joint science academies' statements and one individual declaration made by the Polish Academy of Sciences made in 2007.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we examine the alleged proof we see repeated cases of gross oversimplification and half truths.

From denialists, yes. From the real science, no.

People that have no concept of the real scientific principles involved simply cannot detect these oversimplifications and half truths.

But I can detect lies and half truths promoted by Denialists.

When we see "scientists" who are unwilling to have their work reviewed, we know they are hiding things.

So why don't the denialist's get published in peer-reviewed literature and instead, sell their revolting lies directly to the public in a pathetic political ploy. After all, it is the peer-review process that weeds out the lies and half truths and poor data.

When they claim they have lost their data, we see no reason to believe they ever even had such data.

Woah, this really is fruity. Are you claiming there are not 3 peer-reviewed instrument databases of global temperatures on the planet by 3 different organisations? What 'data loss' are you referring to? Once again you are all big claims with zero data.

And when their computer program is leaked, and gives the same results when fed randomized data, we know it is outright fraud.

So called 'Climategate' was exonerated by many different organisations.

Inquiries House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)[1]
Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK)
International Science Assessment Panel (UK)
Pennsylvania State University (US)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Department of Commerce (US) Verdict Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges


Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you actually think all this has been proven with such compelling reason, explain this chart, which was published by the NASA Earth Observatory, which shows the radical differences between solar radiance measurements taken by different satellites. The vertical scale is in watts per square meter and the horizontal scale is years.

You will notice that this chart shows drastic variations between observations of the same phenomena by different satellites. Which one is the correct one? This is just one example of the many problems we real scientists see.

You can see the original at:
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles

Please keep in mind that this piece is loudly telling us about how important NASA's new satellite will be, justifying their spending, so it is 'shouting' the inadequacies of previous systems to explain the requirement for their upgrades. Which is all well and good, as long as you don't use it to undermine the scientific consensus I've outlined above. You simply don't get to pretend that every national science academy on the planet is ignorant of this graph! That's a really weak, hard to prove conspiracy theory there my friend.

The key phrase here is " With such data, scientists have a good approximation of the 11 year cycle, but no real insight into more subtle changes that may occur over many decades and centuries." In other words, they want more accuracy to model the 11 year solar cycle's impacts on the minutiae of climate modelling, but have enough data to 'roughly' handle the solar impact on the macro climate trend.

What countless studies using multiple tools have demonstrated is that the sun is on a weak phase while global temperatures keep rising. Here is just one study.

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?


Now, what would be REALLY great is if you could explain why that 'documentary' the Great Global Warming Swindle lied to us, outright, about the impact of the sun on climate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Sf_UIQYc20

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi again Biblewriter,

a contact says Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet : Feature Articles looks to be at least a decade old (it mentions that the satellite will launch in 2003, not that it did launch).

So even if there were some ambiguities in predicting micro-climatic events from the tinier variations of solar activity they were trying to measure, your information is 10 years out of data. SORCE has been running for the last decade and has been incorporated into climate models, fine-tuning these already quite accurate models even further.

During its ten-year mission, SORCE monitored solar irradiance continuously during the decline of solar activity into the prolonged, anomalously quiet minimum that began in 2008. Combining SOLSTICE and SIM spectral measurements during this period, along with those at shorter EUV wavelengths made by SORCE's XPS and the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission's Solar EUV Experiment (SEE), produced the most accurate reference spectrum of solar irradiance for the nominally inactive "quiet" Sun. This reference spectrum—shown in Figure 2—is a unique benchmark and reference for past and future solar variability. Solar activity has now begun to increase again with the onset of a new solar cycle (Solar Cycle 24), and SORCE continues to track the solar irradiance fluctuations that are expected to peak in 2013 at a modest level. Solar Cycle 24 is exhibiting notable differences from the three prior, more active cycles for which TSI and ultraviolet SSI observations exist—and SORCE will be there to observe it as it evolves.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2013/2013_news.htm


News reports that previous instruments gave high measurements because of internal scattered light, but this has been fixed. It also says that the more accurate SORCE results are used in climate modelling.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your charge of "outright lies" about the sun indeed seems to be well based, as long as you cling to your infatuation with the total reliability of the information being produced by the global warming alarmists. But without even contacting the people that produced the chart, I can indeed give an exceeding valid reason for their cutting off the data when they did. For the place where they cut it off "just happens" to be exactly the place where the United States Governmental agencies began to systematically close down weather observatories in higher latitudes, higher altitudes, and rural areas. The fact that they did this is a matter of record, and its effect was shown in the video I posted. That I why I have been repeatedly saying that for the last thirty years, the data has been willfully manipulated to artificially produce the appearance of global warming.

If last year was the hottest year on record, for instance, why was it the first year in recent history when the snow cap on Mount Hood never melted all year long? I have been going to Oregon every year for some time now. And last year was the first time that the snow cap was still there when the fall snows began. Why was there more ice in Antarctic last year than had ever been measured before? And why was there record cold throughout the earth last winter?

The claim that last year was even warmer than the medieval warming period is utter nonsense. They cannot measure the temperatures at that time, they can only estimate them. And they cannot get rid of the fact that in those days, olives were grown in Germany. Try planting an olive tree in Germany now, ans see what happens.

One of the reasons we are so slow to believe any claims made by this cadre is that we have already spent a lifetime experiencing the lies and misrepresentations of the "scientists" who are working so hard to force us to accept evolution. We have experienced the systematic "cherry picking" they do, and their systematic efforts to silence all opposing voices. They regularly threaten to fire anyone who dares to openly disagree with them, and call for boycotts against publishers who publish books that present opposing evidence. I have personally been mocked and jeered for daring to oppose, and have been personally threatened with dismissal for speaking out. And have personally read the calls for boycotts in their "respected" journals. They have even gone so far as to file lawsuits to prevent excavation of fossil beds that are alleged to contain fossils that disprove their theories.

So we are exceeding disposed to believe the malefasence exposed in the climategate files, and not at all disposed to accept exhonerations issued by investigators who have a vested interest in the public's continuing to trust these rascals.

Anyone who simply believes everything said by anyone who claims to be a scientist thereby proves himself to be one of three things:

1. Exceedingly gullible.

2. So prejudiced he is unable to think for himself.

3. A wholehearted participant in the promulgation of the currently popular lie.

 

[eclipsenow]

Your charge of "outright lies" about the sun indeed seems to be well based, as long as you cling to your infatuation with the total reliability of the information being produced by the global warming alarmists. But without even contacting the people that produced the chart, I can indeed give an exceeding valid reason for their cutting off the data when they did. For the place where they cut it off "just happens" to be exactly the place where the United States Governmental agencies began to systematically close down weather observatories in higher latitudes, higher altitudes, and rural areas. The fact that they did this is a matter of record, and its effect was shown in the video I posted. That I why I have been repeatedly saying that for the last thirty years, the data has been willfully manipulated to artificially produce the appearance of global warming.

Sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence for these conspiracy theory assertions. The temperature record is reliable and is modelled by 3 large scientific institutions using a variety of independent methods around the globe, all of which concur.

You sound like Watts!

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)

Instead, what we find is that...

Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

In short, the Denialists LIED to us! But this is hardly surprising. They're backed by agenda driven fossil fuel money. So that's why they are so 'objective'.

If last year was the hottest year on record, for instance, why was it the first year in recent history when the snow cap on Mount Hood never melted all year long? I have been going to Oregon every year for some time now. And last year was the first time that the snow cap was still there when the fall snows began. Why was there more ice in Antarctic last year than had ever been measured before? And why was there record cold throughout the earth last winter?

Just because there’s excessive snow somewhere does not mean global temperatures are down. “It turns out to be the eighth warmest March on record. We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.
Earth Day Climatology: A Warming World even thought it doesn't feel like it, sometimes? - YouTube

The claim that last year was even warmer than the medieval warming period is utter nonsense. They cannot measure the temperatures at that time, they can only estimate them. And they cannot get rid of the fact that in those days, olives were grown in Germany. Try planting an olive tree in Germany now, ans see what happens.

Evidence for your assertions? Remember, local warm bits do not indicate a warmer GLOBAL temperature because micro-climates can develop as a side-effect of changes in the global energy balance. In other words, as the energy in the climate increases the jet stream moves. This can dump extra snow in certain latitudes while the overall global temperature increases, and this effect is well documented for Antarctica, and starting to become better understood for the Northern Hemisphere. See the news clip above!

Also:

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times. This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

One of the reasons we are so slow to believe any claims made by this cadre is that we have already spent a lifetime experiencing the lies and misrepresentations of the "scientists" who are working so hard to force us to accept evolution.

That's your problem, not mine. Genesis has both historical narratives that are to be read somewhat 'literally', but it also has symbolic theological polemics rebuking ancient pagan creative narratives. The fact that many American's are brainwashed into reading Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and making a basic category mistake about the literature involved, is an embarrassment to the church, not a cause to celebrate their 'faith'. It is not more 'faithful' to read poorly!

Anyone who simply believes everything said by anyone who claims to be a scientist thereby proves himself to be one of three things:

1. Exceedingly gullible.

Well, you're a scientist and I'm not believing everything YOU say am I?

2. So prejudiced he is unable to think for himself.

There is a role for specialists and experts. Would you 'think for yourself' if your cardiologist told you you needed heart surgery? Would you get your plumber to do open heart surgery instead, because, 'He's a plumber and knows about moving fluids!' That's about as sensible as taking the word of a Denialist weather-man like Tim Ball over trained climatologists. 'Thinking for yourself' when you are not actually informed of all the facts and data is just foolishness. It's how old wives tales and urban myths and silly conspiracy theories are born. EG: "A PLANE flew into the Pentagon! A PLANE has a huge wingspan. So why aren't these windows broken!?" (Here comes the lie dressed up as flattery). "You're a sensible person, and can see that a plane would have broken all those windows. It must have been a missile!" (WRONG! They are NOT an expert on the physics of a plane slamming into a reinforced building like the Pentagon and do not know how the wings would fold back).

3. A wholehearted participant in the promulgation of the currently popular lie.

The only lies here are being pushed by fossil fuel companies, and you're pushing them!

 

[Biblewriter]

Sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence for these conspiracy theory assertions. The temperature record is reliable and is modelled by 3 large scientific institutions using a variety of independent methods around the globe, all of which concur.

You sound like Watts!



Instead, what we find is that...




Are surface temperature records reliable?

In short, the Denialists LIED to us! But this is hardly surprising. They're backed by agenda driven fossil fuel money. So that's why they are so 'objective'.





Just because there’s excessive snow somewhere does not mean global temperatures are down. “It turns out to be the eighth warmest March on record. We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.
Earth Day Climatology: A Warming World even thought it doesn't feel like it, sometimes? - YouTube


Evidence for your assertions? Remember, local warm bits do not indicate a warmer GLOBAL temperature because micro-climates can develop as a side-effect of changes in the global energy balance. In other words, as the energy in the climate increases the jet stream moves. This can dump extra snow in certain latitudes while the overall global temperature increases, and this effect is well documented for Antarctica, and starting to become better understood for the Northern Hemisphere. See the news clip above!

Also:



How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?



That's your problem, not mine. Genesis has both historical narratives that are to be read somewhat 'literally', but it also has symbolic theological polemics rebuking ancient pagan creative narratives. The fact that many American's are brainwashed into reading Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and making a basic category mistake about the literature involved, is an embarrassment to the church, not a cause to celebrate their 'faith'. It is not more 'faithful' to read poorly!


Well, you're a scientist and I'm not believing everything YOU say am I?


There is a role for specialists and experts. Would you 'think for yourself' if your cardiologist told you you needed heart surgery? Would you get your plumber to do open heart surgery instead, because, 'He's a plumber and knows about moving fluids!' That's about as sensible as taking the word of a Denialist weather-man like Tim Ball over trained climatologists. 'Thinking for yourself' when you are not actually informed of all the facts and data is just foolishness. It's how old wives tales and urban myths and silly conspiracy theories are born. EG: "A PLANE flew into the Pentagon! A PLANE has a huge wingspan. So why aren't these windows broken!?" (Here comes the lie dressed up as flattery). "You're a sensible person, and can see that a plane would have broken all those windows. It must have been a missile!" (WRONG! They are NOT an expert on the physics of a plane slamming into a reinforced building like the Pentagon and do not know how the wings would fold back).


The only lies here are being pushed by fossil fuel companies, and you're pushing them!

The "funding by fossil fuels" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. The majority of the "denialists," as your side loves to call us, have exacrly zero funding from fossil fuels. But the "vested interest in the public continuing to believe the lies" is not."

But the treatment we get from both sides is identical. Go ahead and believe what you want about this and about evolution. I choose to believe the simple word of God about all things scientific and prophetc. I am not going to waste any more time on this, for you have demonstrated that you have more confidence in the lies told by "scientists" and "scholars" than you do in the word of God.

 

[eclipsenow]

The "funding by fossil fuels" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. The majority of the "denialists," as your side loves to call us, have exacrly zero funding from fossil fuels. But the "vested interest in the public continuing to believe the lies" is not."

A lie? I don't think so. You've swallowed the lie.

The money trail is introduced here. The Koch brothers fund it (amongst others, but they are the worst).

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube

The money trail is long and convoluted, but in summary the Koch brothers have given something like $196million to political think tanks, much of it going directly to climate denial organisations. They've donated more to climate denial than Exxon Mobile, so that's gotta be some real dough because Exxon Mobile have donated $23 million to climate Denial institutes since 1998.

But no! This wouldn't fund front-men behind dodgy 'institutes' and 'thinktanks' like the Heartland institute, would it? This wouldn't bring a handful of vested interests together to shape a counter-scientific mindset and conspiracy theory? No, sure, we can trust these people! They even fund church groups like the Action institute for the study of religion and liberty, yet another Denialist think-tank whose sole purpose is to attack real science.

Basically, if you listen to these sources (Hartland, Action.org, etc) or people who are echo-chambering these sources, you've been had.

But the treatment we get from both sides is identical. Go ahead and believe what you want about this and about evolution. I choose to believe the simple word of God about all things scientific and prophetc. I am not going to waste any more time on this, for you have demonstrated that you have more confidence in the lies told by "scientists" and "scholars" than you do in the word of God.

There you go again, playing the poor persecuted martyr card and just assuming you're getting some kind of spiritual brownie points because you.... witness to the gospel all day long? Not the subject. Because your family were persecuted for the gospel? Not the subject. Because your brothers in Christ disagree with your literalistic classification of a uniquely stylised and symbolic portion of biblical literature? Now that's on subject, but it doesn't sound like you get the poor persecuted Christian brownie points when we phrase it like that, does it? I doubt you've even read the Enuma Elish which was written hundreds of years before Genesis. You ought to. It has 7 rough stages of creation, was written on 7 tablets, and was brought before the people of Babylon and read to them once a year as kind of their 4th July & Anzac Day tradition rolled into one. It's what the author of Genesis was writing his polemic against, the enemy of God's people, Marduk.

Enûma Eliš - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[interpreter]

I don't really think it has been predicted in the bible, or that the bible talks about it at all. But God gives us the loving character to approach this the right way, and try to solve it ASAP so that the poor are not harmed by our actions.

But it has:
8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory. (Rev. 16:8-9)

 

[Biblewriter]

Second coldest start to spring in history.

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History | Real Science

 

[eclipsenow]

But it has:
8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory. (Rev. 16:8-9)

This is more about creation in chaos than any specific prophecy. It's a picture of God using natural disasters to judge, maybe a famine or drought. Global warming of course increases the number of these extremes in weather, but Revelation is generally descriptive, not predictive, of the Last Days in which we live (of 2000 years and counting since Acts 2).

 

[eclipsenow]

Second coldest start to spring in history.

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History | Real Science

And Steven Goddard is...?

Sorry, but while there are cold records in certain northern micro-climates of the USA because Global Warming shoved the Jet-Stream out of kilter, the REALITY (to anyone who's reading the REAL science in the peer-reviewed journals) is quite different to home-grown 'hick- science' of old men that stick their heads out the window and chuff to themselves, "Gee, it sure is cold outside! This Gobal Warming thing's gotta be a crock!"

As the peer-reviewed weather & climate guys have reported and I shared above:

Earth Day Climatology: A Warming World even thought it doesn't feel like it, sometimes? - YouTube

Just because there’s excessive snow somewhere in particular does not mean global temperatures are down. “It turns out to be the eighth warmest March on record. We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.

 

[Biblewriter]

We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.

In 2013, NASA published the following data on its website under the title
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C):
-----------------------------------
year Annual 5-year
Mean Mean
-----------------------------------
1880 -0.4524 *
1881 0.0626 *
1882 -0.0719 -0.3641
1883 -0.7792 -0.3860
1884 -0.5797 -0.4916
1885 -0.5619 -0.5249
1886 -0.4653 -0.4547
1887 -0.2382 -0.2952
1888 -0.4282 -0.1608
1889 0.2177 -0.1256
1890 0.1100 -0.1746
1891 -0.2895 -0.2113
1892 -0.4830 -0.2293
1893 -0.6119 -0.3923
1894 0.1277 -0.3012
1895 -0.7048 -0.2260
1896 0.1660 -0.1369
1897 -0.1070 -0.2398
1898 -0.1664 0.0163
1899 -0.3867 -0.0042
1900 0.5755 0.0079
1901 0.0635 -0.0769
1902 -0.0464 -0.0724
1903 -0.5902 -0.2729
1904 -0.3643 -0.2879
1905 -0.4273 -0.3141
1906 -0.0113 -0.1662
1907 -0.1772 -0.1370
1908 0.1489 0.0188
1909 -0.2181 0.0519
1910 0.3518 -0.0848
1911 0.1543 -0.1358
1912 -0.8611 -0.0832
1913 -0.1058 -0.1852
1914 0.0448 -0.3166
1915 -0.1581 -0.3405
1916 -0.5028 -0.3122
1917 -0.9807 -0.3495
1918 0.0359 -0.4012
1919 -0.1419 -0.0798
1920 -0.4166 0.1449
1921 1.1045 0.1198
1922 0.1424 0.0114
1923 -0.0892 0.1709
1924 -0.6839 -0.0423
1925 0.3808 -0.0359
1926 0.0384 -0.0076
1927 0.1745 0.0221
1928 0.0524 -0.0321
1929 -0.5354 0.1587
1930 0.1094 0.1193
1931 0.9926 0.2419
1932 -0.0223 0.5945
1933 0.6653 0.5792
1934 1.2276 0.4129
1935 0.0328 0.3882
1936 0.1613 0.4097
1937 -0.1458 0.3213
1938 0.7728 0.3186
1939 0.7852 0.3895
1940 0.0196 0.4262
1941 0.5156 0.2989
1942 0.0379 0.1506
1943 0.1364 0.1374
1944 0.0433 0.1600
1945 -0.0463 0.1610
1946 0.6285 0.1105
1947 0.0433 0.1318
1948 -0.1161 0.0908
1949 0.1494 -0.1160
1950 -0.2509 -0.0722
1951 -0.4057 0.1221
1952 0.2623 0.2530
1953 0.8554 0.2898
1954 0.8039 0.4231
1955 -0.0668 0.3956
1956 0.2609 0.2340
1957 0.1247 0.1006
1958 0.0473 0.0675
1959 0.1370 0.0157
1960 -0.2324 -0.0105
1961 0.0019 0.0173
1962 -0.0061 -0.0303
1963 0.1860 -0.0077
1964 -0.1007 -0.0527
1965 -0.1194 -0.0684
1966 -0.2235 -0.1656
1967 -0.0843 -0.1861
1968 -0.3000 -0.1894
1969 -0.2033 -0.1656
1970 -0.1360 -0.2088
1971 -0.1043 -0.1002
1972 -0.3003 -0.0205
1973 0.2430 -0.0326
1974 0.1949 -0.0615
1975 -0.1965 0.0729
1976 -0.2486 -0.0699
1977 0.3717 -0.2184
1978 -0.4709 -0.1276
1979 -0.5478 0.0570
1980 0.2576 -0.0784
1981 0.6745 0.0196
1982 -0.3052 0.1394
1983 0.0188 0.0173
1984 0.0514 0.0349
1985 -0.3532 0.2574
1986 0.7626 0.3288
1987 0.8074 0.3003
1988 0.3760 0.5522
1989 -0.0912 0.5393
1990 0.9061 0.4488
1991 0.6983 0.3007
1992 0.3546 0.4257
1993 -0.3643 0.3297
1994 0.5336 0.1808
1995 0.4265 0.1401
1996 -0.0466 0.4779
1997 0.1514 0.5908
1998 1.3246 0.6495
1999 1.0983 0.8490
2000 0.7197 0.9585
2001 0.9509 0.8377
2002 0.6989 0.7449
2003 0.7209 0.7861
2004 0.6343 0.8563
2005 0.9254 0.9045
2006 1.3022 0.7954
2007 0.9395 0.7109
2008 0.1756 0.6455
2009 0.2116 0.5212
2010 0.5986 0.7087
2011 0.6807 *
2012 1.8770 *

The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Sciences and Exploration Directorate, Earth Sciences Division, published this data online at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

But in 2000, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Sciences and Exploration Directorate, Earth Sciences Division, published what was allegedly the same data, except without the updates for 2000 to 2012. This data was published by at:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

Notice that the only difference between these two web addresses are that in 2013 the part reading /data/update was removed from the address and /graphs was replaced with /graphs_v3.

Attempting to open the old address now yields the following message:
“Page Not Available
— Please Note —
Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, some interactive content, such as creating scientific plots using web forms, is disabled.”

Now it is curious why the previous web address cannot be opened, while the current one can. For they allegedly contain the same data, except for the newer data, which could only make the new data more complicated to process that the old data. But many people, including this writer, have the old data stored on their computers. The previously published data reads:

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual 5-year
Mean Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.47 .03
1881 .10 -.23
1882 -.09 -.41
1883 -.77 -.44
1884 -.80 -.54
1885 -.65 -.58
1886 -.38 -.51
1887 -.29 -.32
1888 -.44 -.17
1889 .17 -.16
1890 .08 -.21
1891 -.30 -.28
1892 -.58 -.29
1893 -.76 -.44
1894 .12 -.35
1895 -.69 -.26
1896 .14 -.14
1897 -.12 -.26
1898 -.18 -.01
1899 -.44 -.04
1900 .54 -.04
1901 .03 -.13
1902 -.15 -.14
1903 -.64 -.33
1904 -.47 -.33
1905 -.43 -.35
1906 .03 -.18
1907 -.22 -.14
1908 .18 .01
1909 -.24 .04
1910 .30 -.08
1911 .18 -.12
1912 -.83 -.06
1913 -.02 -.14
1914 .09 -.28
1915 -.13 -.33
1916 -.52 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.34
1918 .07 -.38
1919 -.05 -.04
1920 -.35 .22
1921 1.19 .20
1922 .23 .08
1923 -.01 .23
1924 -.68 .01
1925 .41 .00
1926 .10 .03
1927 .20 .07
1928 .14 .03
1929 -.51 .24
1930 .22 .21
1931 1.15 .33
1932 .07 .69
1933 .73 .67
1934 1.30 .49
1935 .10 .47
1936 .26 .50
1937 -.06 .43
1938 .93 .43
1939 .91 .51
1940 .10 .55
1941 .67 .41
1942 .15 .27
1943 .22 .25
1944 .20 .27
1945 .02 .27
1946 .76 .21
1947 .14 .22
1948 -.05 .16
1949 .22 -.07
1950 -.26 -.02
1951 -.38 .18
1952 .37 .31
1953 .95 .36
1954 .86 .50
1955 -.01 .46
1956 .31 .29
1957 .18 .16
1958 .11 .12
1959 .21 .06
1960 -.20 .03
1961 .02 .05
1962 .00 -.01
1963 .20 .00
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.12 -.07
1966 -.25 -.17
1967 -.11 -.20
1968 -.28 -.20
1969 -.24 -.18
1970 -.14 -.23
1971 -.11 -.13
1972 -.38 -.06
1973 .22 -.08
1974 .12 -.11
1975 -.23 .03
1976 -.28 -.13
1977 .31 -.28
1978 -.57 -.21
1979 -.64 -.04
1980 .15 -.19
1981 .58 -.09
1982 -.44 .02
1983 -.09 -.11
1984 -.09 -.11
1985 -.53 .12
1986 .61 .18
1987 .71 .13
1988 .18 .38
1989 -.33 .36
1990 .72 .24
1991 .52 .08
1992 .13 .21
1993 -.62 .10
1994 .28 -.08
1995 .17 -.14
1996 -.37 .20
1997 -.14 .28
1998 1.05 *
1999 .71 *

(continued)

 

[Biblewriter]

We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.

Looking at raw columns of numbers does not make anything immediately obvious. So I downloaded the data into a computer spreadsheet program called “Quattro Pro.” The data was directly downloaded, rather than transcribed, to eliminate the possibility of transcription errors. The reason for loading the data into “Quattro Pro” is that this spreadsheet includes automatic graphing and analysis capability. Here is the first graph obtained by using this program, showing the data published by NASA in 2013 as “Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Temperature Anomolies (C).”

The vertical bars show the data published for each year, and the fine curved lines are the trend lines calculated by Quattro Pro. You will notice that this graph shows the temperature remaining essentially constant from 1880 until about 1935, then it shows a continuous increase in temperature, at a steadily increasing rate. This appears to be conclusive proof of global warming. But it not only appears to be proof of global warming. It also appears to be proof that the warming began about the time that the consumption of fossil fuels began to increase exponentially. And this would not just “appear” to be proof of these things, it would be positive and final proof, except for one little detail.

The data previously published by this same United States government agency, NASA, shows an entirely different story. Here is a graph of what was allegedly the same data (except for the years 2000-2012) published by the same NASA in the year 2000.

You will notice that this data shows a cooling trend from 1880 to 1900, which is entirely missing from the 2013 data. Then it shows a warming trend from 1900 to about 1965. This is radically different from the 2013 data. But then the data published in 2000 shows a distinct cooling trend from about 1965 to 2000. This is not only omitted from the data published in 2013, but was exactly reversed in the data published in 2013.

To find the changes made in the data for the years 1880 to 2000, I subtracted each item in the data published in 2000 from the same item in the data published in 2013. The results of this subtraction are shown in the chart below:

You will notice that almost all of the temperature numbers were increased from 1880 to about 1908, then almost all of them reduced from about 1908 to 1965. And all but one of them after 1965 were systematically increased, at a steadily increasing rate.

We need to remember that these two data sets were published by the same United States government agency, the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Sciences and Exploration Directorate, Earth Sciences Division, and allegedly show the same data for the same historic period. But there is a very material difference in the data contained in these two data sets. If the data set they published in 2013 is true, then Anthropomorphic Global Warming is an unquestionable fact. But if the data set they published in 2000 is true, then Global Warming was not taking place at all, at least during the period from about 1965 to 2000.

Now new evidence can always be discovered, causing new understanding of facts. But the facts of history do not change. So historical records, by their very nature, cannot change. The fact that the alleged historical temperature records were materially changed sometime between 2000 and 2013 is conclusive proof that NASA has wilfully and intentionally changed the records. This is not a matter of poor judgment. It is not bad scientific reasoning. It is blatant fraud, being perpetrated in the name of science.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” (1 Timothy 6:20)

Note:

This message was produced with zero funding from any entity even remotely connected with "oil money," or ANY OTHER ENTITY WHATSOEVER, OTHER THAN THE WRITER'S OWN RESOURCES.

 

[eclipsenow]

Looking at raw columns of numbers does not...

...answer the question I put to you earlier.

And Steven Goddard is...?