Arctic scientist under investigation

[AntalKalnoky]

Al Gore did not invent the Internet. He invented Global Warming.

Al Gore Did Indeed Invent, Begin the Civilian Internet concept, while it was only Military and academic, by initiating Legislation to make it available to the broad public.

• Science Data has 100% Firmly Proven Global Warming, supported by 90% of Scientists. Even the Vatican is going Green, clean energy independent. Only USA Trillions Dollars Industry is fighting it as false, theory, etc.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I take it that you agree with Mr Gore’s Graphs?

If I agree with Mr Gore’s graphs…I’ve thrown CO2 out the window as the Main Driver of Climate.

You see, Mr Gore won’t tell you this…but by using his graphs shows CO2 lags Temperature rise by 800 years.

If CO2 is the Main driver of climate Temperature would rise WITH CO2 Rise…But Temperature Rises before CO2

It’s just one inconvenient truth.

I can give many links to this but here is two.

huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

It should also be noted…MR Gore refuses to explain this…For that matter, He refuses to debate about anything he’s presented.

.
Albeit I am a student…I’m well versed in what is presented by IPCC and AGW’ers AND the actual “sciences” behind the claims.

I appreciate you trying to link to what you are referencing. Thank you

You do know that IPCC got 21 F’s on their claims of being fully peer-reviewed? Many Scientists etc have called for a complete overhaul of the IPCC process.

EVEN Environmentalist such as Jeff Price of the World Wildlife Federation.

motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/reforming-ipcc

nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463730a.html

Scientists worldwide Agree, support “Gore’s Graphs”, Which Are Science Data. That is what the Science Graphs prove: same as Gore’s. Your links are tidbits about the Now Proven IPCC falsellly created ‘controversy’, and about a few Himalyan Glaciers, bizarre predictions instantly known bizarre, etc., etc, Kimmie.

 

[Hastrman]

Scientists worldwide Agree, support “Gore’s Graphs”, Which Are Science Data. That is what the Science Graphs prove: same as Gore’s.

Let me ask you one question: are you familiar with the current climatic situation on Mars?

Because generally speaking, though correlation does not imply causation, the lack of correlation does imply the lack of causation.

And Mars is experiencing global warming too. Without people.

We may therefore conclude something other than anthropogenic global warming is involved.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Let me ask you one question: are you familiar with the current climatic situation on Mars?

Because generally speaking, though correlation does not imply causation, the lack of correlation does imply the lack of causation.

And Mars is experiencing global warming too. Without people.

We may therefore conclude something other than anthropogenic global warming is involved.

Hate to inform you: Mars Has No real Climate like ours, only heat and cold temps. No Global Warming, only Mars warming, cooling. And now proven Water, seasonally melting.

 

[Hastrman]

Hate to inform you: Mars Has No Climate, only heat and cold temps.

Really? You better tell Wikipedia. Indeed, its climate is significantly more variable than Earth’s.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Really? You better tell Wikipedia. Indeed, its climate is significantly more variable than Earth’s.

Mar’s Climate is a Fraction of 1% as thick as Earth, and Mostly Carbon Dioxide, not mostly Life Sustaining Oxygen, Nitrogen and 1% CO2. Indeed, Mar’s is Variable: Mostly Gone. It had more Oxygen in the past. It Used to have a thicker atmosphere, but the question is why it mostly left. Mar’s is so ‘variable’ as to have mostly gone, and CO2 now. Earth’s atmosphere Evolved; Only in the recent Billions of Years has enough Oxygen been produced to sustain Life. It is thouight that our Oxygen began with Algal coastal sponge corals, still on the South Australian Coast.

                                                                                                                     I meant Mar's  has Virtually no  atmosphere,  correctly,  compared to  ours.  If you Really  want  Atmosphere, try the  Giant Planet Venus,  and it's  fiery  Hurricane  winds.   Atmosphere is dependant on the  size, thus  Gravity, of the  planet.                                   Where  would life in Arizona be   without  lawn  sprinklers?  :D  :tiphat:

 

[Calliso]

Hate to inform you: Mars Has No real Climate like ours, only heat and cold temps. No Global Warming, only Mars warming, cooling. And now proven Water, seasonally melting.

I donlt know if I would agree that Mars has no real climate. However one needs to look at causes of changes before they jump to conclusions. In the case of Mars skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm Our climate and Mars climate don;t work the same way. Mars climate is mostly driven by albedo and dust and like the article said there is actually little evidence that Mars is actually warming over the long term.

And just in case it was or will be brought up some stuff on the other planets. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm

 

[Hastrman]

Mar’s Climate is a Fraction of 1% as thick as Earth, and Mostly Carbon Dioxide, not mostly Life Sustaining Oxygen, Nitrogen and 1% CO2. Indeed, Mar’s is Variable: Mostly Gone. It had more Oxygen in the past. It Used to have a thicker atmosphere, but the question is why it mostly left. Mar’s is so ‘variable’ as to have mostly gone, and CO2 now. Earth’s atmosphere Evolved; Only in the recent Billions of Years has enough Oxygen been produced to sustain Life. It is thouight that our Oxygen began with Algal coastal sponge corals, still on the South Australian Coast.

                                                                                                                     I meant Mar's  has Virtually no  atmosphere,  correctly,  compared to  ours.  If you Really  want  Atmosphere, try the  Giant Planet Venus,  and it's  fiery  Hurricane  winds.   Atmosphere is dependant on the  size, thus  Gravity, of the  planet.                                   Where  would life in Arizona be   without  lawn  sprinklers?  :D  :tiphat:

Oh how silly of me. “No climate humans can live in” is totally the same thing as “no climate”. Oh no, never mind, no it’s not. Jupiter and Saturn, plus Saturn’s moon titan, all have extremely variable climates, every one of which would be instantly fatal to an unprotected human.

Venus is not a giant planet, it’s slightly smaller than Earth—its surface gravity is .904 Gs. The difference, it’s theorized, is that it does not have a moon.

And life in Arizona would be a damn sight better without lawn sprinklers wasting water through evaporation, thanks for asking. It’d be even better without those hypocrite tree-huggers in California stealing the water from the Colorado river.

 

[kimmielittle]

Al Gore Did Indeed Invent,

Actually wrong once again. A search at the US Patent Office shows no assigned name to patents by Mr Gore

assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat.

Begin the Civilian Internet concept, while it was only Military and academic, by initiating Legislation to make it available to the broad public.

Mr Obama, by your definition, Invented the war in Libya

*]Science Data has 100% Firmly Proven Global Warming, supported by 90% of Scientists. Even the Vatican is going Green, clean energy independent. Only USA Trillions Dollars Industry is fighting it as false, theory, etc.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to give references to your 90% claim.

Now, I also ask for reference to your 100% claim.

Here is, just recently, 60 plus Scientists who disagree with Cloud sensitivities used in AGW models…AND the value of Solar being held in Models at a Constant.

CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation

:CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

snip ]

:“We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

theregister.co.uk/2011/08…first_results/

PDF here press.web.cern.ch/press/Press…ng_29JUL11.pdf

CERN article

press.web.cern.ch/press/Press…/PR15.11E.html

VIDEO cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370582

You really need updated material Unless, of course, you just plan to puppet LONG debunked claims.

AR4 Chapter 9 which states…basically…Warming is cause by humans. Was signed by ** 5 people ** Although IPCC claims some 4000 reviewers.

 

[kimmielittle]

Scientists worldwide Agree, support “Gore’s Graphs”, Which Are Science Data. That is what the Science Graphs prove: same as Gore’s. Your links are tidbits about the Now Proven IPCC falsellly created ‘controversy’, and about a few Himalyan Glaciers, bizarre predictions instantly known bizarre, etc., etc, Kimmie.

Nonsense!!!

The LAWS of Science serve the 12 year old as well as the 90 year old.

Climate is NOT a closed system – AS Models wish us to think

The reason that computer climate models do not work is because they cannot predict volcanoes, ENSO and solar variance. They also do not understand how water vapor and clouds work.

Climate Models

Have Solar at a constant…WE KNOW this is a lie

Doesn’t account for ENSO…WE Know these to be a STRONG driver of Climate patterns.

Doesn’t account Black Carbon… Not CO2 ] It isn’t even mentioned in AR4 as a “warmer”

We don’t even have observational evidence whether Clouds are a Positive or Negative. Feedback or Forcing.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hate to inform you: Mars Has No real Climate like ours, only heat and cold temps. No Global Warming, only Mars warming, cooling. And now proven Water, seasonally melting.

Middle school taught me no known forms of life can survive direct exposure to the Martian surface, with its extremely cold, thin air and sterilizing radiation.

Mars lacks an ocean, a source of much inter-annual variation on earth.

Sooooo…what would Mars show us if it supported plant Life?

The Fact remains Solar fluctuations Control Mar’s Warming. The same as on Earth

 

[kimmielittle]

Hate to inform you: Mars Has No real Climate like ours, only heat and cold temps. No Global Warming, only Mars warming, cooling. And now proven Water, seasonally melting.

Middle school taught me no known forms of life can survive direct exposure to the Martian surface, with its extremely cold, thin air and sterilizing radiation.

Mars lacks an ocean, a source of much inter-annual variation on earth.

What would the Climate be on Mar’s if it could support Plant Life and an Ocean? HINT OXYGEN

ONE thing for sure is Solar fluctuations drive warmth on Mar’s the same as it does on Earth.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually wrong once again. A search at the US Patent Office shows no assigned name to patents by Mr Gore

assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat.

Mr Obama, by your definition, Invented the war in Libya

I have asked you, repeatedly, to give references to your 90% claim.

Now, I also ask for reference to your 100% claim.

Here is, just recently, 60 plus Scientists who disagree with Cloud sensitivities used in AGW models…AND the value of Solar being held in Models at a Constant.

CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation

snip ]

theregister.co.uk/2011/08…first_results/

PDF here press.web.cern.ch/press/Press…ng_29JUL11.pdf

CERN article

press.web.cern.ch/press/Press…/PR15.11E.html

VIDEO cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370582

You really need updated material Unless, of course, you just plan to puppet LONG debunked claims.

AR4 Chapter 9 which states…basically…Warming is cause by humans. Was signed by ** 5 people ** Although IPCC claims some 4000 reviewers.

SORRY FIXED LINKS HERE BELOW

press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

 

[kimmielittle]

Even the Vatican is going Green, clean energy independent. Only USA Trillions Dollars Industry is fighting it as false, theory, etc.

It isn’t a false theory because it’s an UNPROVEN Hypothesis. Terminology is important

Going with green alternatives is NOT proving CO2 is a pollutant. NO PLACE in Nature is CO2 proven a Pollutant. CO2 is only a pollutant within AGW Models.

Do you think this part:

:Unsurprisingly,** it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change**: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

Bolding mine ]

Is why no Holy Father has said these words from The Chair…anthropogenic global warming…AGW…Man-Made climate?

Although, some sure like to infer that They have.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

It isn’t a false theory because it’s an UNPROVEN Hypothesis. Terminology is important

Going with green alternatives is NOT proving CO2 is a pollutant. NO PLACE in Nature is CO2 proven a Pollutant. CO2 is only a pollutant within AGW Models.

Do you think this part:

Bolding mine ]

Is why no Holy Father has said these words from The Chair…anthropogenic global warming…AGW…Man-Made climate?

Although, some sure like to infer that They have.

(1) It’s 100% Proven, in Practical terms, By Scientists And All Data. (2) CO2 is no “Pollutant”; it’s Natural, excfept a massive Problem when irreversable Increase, which is where we are Now. The Issue is Preventing Logarithmic Growth in CO2 while still Possible. (3) Very small percent of Scientists disagree with Global Warming: less than 10%, Usually for Monetary Reasons, not science. (4) Global Warming is Science; The Pope speaks Ex Cathdra Only on Catholic Dogma, never science. (5) The Holy City is Going Energy Independent Green, as everyone Except the USA is.

 

[estesbob]

(1) It’s 100% Proven, in Practical terms, By Scientists And All Data. (2) CO2 is no “Pollutant”; it’s Natural, excfept a massive Problem when irreversable Increase, which is where we are Now. It’s Preventing Logarithmic Growth in CO2 while still Possible. (3) Very small percent of Scientists disagree with Global Warming: less than 10%, Usually for Monetary Reasons, not science. (4) Global Warming is Science; The Pope speaks Ex Cathdra Only on Catholic Dogma, never science. (5) The Holy City is Going Energy Independent Green, as everyone Except the USA is.

Kimmie always provides links when she makes a statement. Could you fo the same ,especially the 100% proven part

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Kimmie always provides links when she makes a statement. Could you fo the same ,especially the 100% proven part

              Kimmie's Links  are  an  Article or  an Opinion.  I  provided Key Links Earlier:  Gore's   Graphs Proven  Totally by  Science  Graphs.  Etc.    Etc.                                           90% of Scientists  Agree  Global Waerming  and Man Caused:  recent  National TV  Debate on Global:  Lehrer/PBS  Newshour.  Maybe  August  29.

Maybe I exagerrerated: maybe 99.7% proven, Bob.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie’s Links are an Article or an Opinion. I provided Key Links Earlier: Gore’s Graphs Proven Totally by Science Graphs. Etc. Etc.

I showed if we use Mr Gores graphs…They show Temperatures RISE BEFORE CO2… 800 years or so ] Thus CO2 is NOT THE DRIVER OF CLIMATE .

I gave you CERNS own pages and PDF…You do realize who / what CERN is don’t you?

They are comprised of over 8,000 ACTUAL Scientists.

90% of Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused: recent National TV Debate on Global: Lehrer/PBS Newshour. Maybe August 29.

My… my …my

Here is the actual transcript of your reference pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec11/oilpipeline_08-29.html

HERE ABOVE is MR BILL MCKIBBEN Actual words from that transcript.

I challenge you to show us his words about “90% Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused”

OR 99.7% OR 100% or even 20% That the unproven hypothesis of AGW exists outside of a Model - That CO2 is a pollutant in Nature. That CO2 actually drives temperatures / Climate.

Maybe I exagerrerated: maybe 99.7% proven, Bob.

It seems, without evidence of your claims, you are more than exaggerating IMO

We’re just supposed to take the word of a liberal arts major that the science behind global warming theory is compelling? C’mon He has NO Scientific training , expertise, or Credibility.

Have you even read Mr. Bill Mckibbins book, The End of Nature? 1989 ]

IMO, the arguments in that book are weak. Moreover, McKibben is an emotional basket case. He repeatedly tells us about his feelings of sadness, grief, loneliness, fear, panic, and depression None of this inspires confidence in the soundness of his judgment.

But the fact that the book contains no footnotes says a great deal.

I give you actual Scientists AND their work…you give subjective speculations

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmie always provides links when she makes a statement. Could you fo the same ,especially the 100% proven part

Thank you

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie’s Links are an Article or an Opinion. I provided Key Links Earlier: Gore’s Graphs Proven Totally by Science Graphs. Etc. Etc. 90% of Scientists Agree Global Waerming and Man Caused: recent National TV Debate on Global: Lehrer/PBS Newshour. Maybe August 29.

Maybe I exagerrerated: maybe 99.7% proven, Bob.

Then ALL of these Peer-reviewed are non-existent?

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Actual links to each paper - NOT speculative arguments ]