AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Avro
#601
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Look 'em up yourself Avro.

There are none.

Show them to me.

Why can't you?
 
mentalfloss
#602
Kumbayaaaaaaa
 
Bar Sinister
#603
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Wow... They aren't frauds because Avro says so. You also support the notion that AGW is factual. Case closed I guess, Avro has spoken.

All that's left is for you to call up and convene the UN and tell 'em what's what.

He won't have to; the official UN position on global warming is that it exists. Why don't you dig up some climate information showing the the warming trend of the last 30 years has not happened?
 
captain morgan
#604
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

He won't have to; the official UN position on global warming is that it exists.


Hitler's official position on Jews was that they weren't "human".... He was just as wrong as the UN is on AGW.



Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Why don't you dig up some climate information showing the the warming trend of the last 30 years has not happened?




Marc Morano is the resident authority on global warming with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority staff. He says according to records kept by the United Nations, global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 -- and that since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.
Critic cites stats -- Earth cooling down, not warming up (OneNewsNow.com)

"Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future.
"
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling
 
Avro
#605
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Hitler's official position on Jews was that they weren't "human".... He was just as wrong as the UN is on AGW.








Marc Morano is the resident authority on global warming with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority staff. He says according to records kept by the United Nations, global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 -- and that since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.
Critic cites stats -- Earth cooling down, not warming up (OneNewsNow.com)

"Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future."
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling

Now the rest of the story.

This excludes of course the temp drop the good captain eludes to but it also excludes the recent record breakers of the past few months. Perhaps Abdussamatov is enjoying the heat wave and drought in Russia right now.

The trend?

Warming.

...and that's just surface temps...what about the oceans?

Warming.

Psst....Marc Morano is a journalist.

Got any climatologists to link to?

Is this really the best you can do?
Last edited by Avro; Aug 13th, 2010 at 10:39 PM..
 
captain morgan
#606
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post


This excludes of course the temp drop the good captain eludes to but it also excludes the recent record breakers of the past few months. Perhaps Abdussamatov is enjoying the heat wave and drought in Russia right now.

The trend?

Warming.

...and that's just surface temps...what about the oceans?

Warming.

Psst....Marc Morano is a journalist.

Man, you sure are a trip.

As Bar Sinister requested, I provided the info.. As per your latest addition that specified 'the trend' over the last 100 years, well it appears that there are a number of trends, doesn't it? Kinda points to the futility and superficiality of your base question.

As far as Morano is concerned, he was simply referring directly to your handlers at the UN, it was afterall, their data that he reported upon.

Throws a little kink into your, uh, unsubstituted views...

Hell Avro, I really ought to thank you... There's an excellent chance that this may evolve into yet another UN sponsored fraud.

Surely this isn't the best you can do, is it?



Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Got any climatologists to link to?

Try Tim Ball.
 
Ron in Regina
#607
Ball has a B.A. degree from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. degree from the
University of Manitoba in 1970 in Geography, and a Ph.D. degree in geography
from the University of London, England in 1983, writing a thesis analyzing
historical weather records from Canada's north. Ball taught geography
at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996, starting as a
Sessional Lecturer and retiring as a Professor.

Though he's done related study (specializing in the relation of climate to
human settlement), he's not a Climatologist. Ball has writen several books
on Climatic effects though, so I'd assume that he is well versed on the subject.

Ball, Timothy F. (1995). "Historical and instrumental evidence of climate: Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1714–1850". in Bradley, Raymond S. ; Jones, Philip D. . Climate Since A.D. 1500. Routledge . ISBN 0415075939

Ball, Timothy F.; Kingsley, Roger A. (1984). "Instrumental temperature records at two sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910" . Climatic Change 6 (1): 39–56. doi : 10.1007/BF00141667 . http://www.springerlink.com/content/l51087083622ll24/

Ball, Timothy F. (1983). Climatic change in central Canada: a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850 . Queen Mary, University of London : Ph.D. Thesis. http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscop e=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27

Ball, Timothy F. (1983). "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851" . Climatic Change 5 (3): 85–93. doi : 10.1007/BF00144682 . http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1412752642704v3/

Catchpole, A.J.W.; Ball, Timothy F. (1981). "Analysis of historical evidence of climate change in western and northern Canada" . Syllogeus (National Museum of Canada) (33): 48–96. http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/CatchpoleAnalysisThis1981.html
 
Bar Sinister
#608
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Hitler's official position on Jews was that they weren't "human".... He was just as wrong as the UN is on AGW.

Marc Morano is the resident authority on global warming with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority staff. He says according to records kept by the United Nations, global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 -- and that since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.
Critic cites stats -- Earth cooling down, not warming up (OneNewsNow.com)

"Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future.
"
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling

Hitler? What a brilliant analogy. How about if I use an analogy of my own? The captain of the Titanic was warmed to watch out for icebergs - he decided to try for a record crossing time instead.

As for Marc Morano I guess he must have missed the decade from 2001 - 2010 which was the warmest on record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/sc...22warming.html

When I asked for proof I was hoping for more than some numbers someone simply made up.

I took the time to look up Mr. Morano.

Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano's Fantasy | ConWebWatch

Apparently he is the Glenn Beck of climatologists and has little credibility among real scientists. In fact he is little more than a right wing mouthpiece for hire who will support any cause for the right amount of money. Here is a quote from Mr. Morano describing himself I am not a scientist, my background is in political science, which is why I feel I am qualified to discuss man-made global warming fears...

Yep, he is qualified alright.
 
mentalfloss
#609
Yea, I can't believe we're actually deliberating Marc Morano. Might as well be talking about Rush Limbaugh as a legitimate climatologist. And that article you posted, captain, has no actual temperature data, nor does it refer to a credible source. It's just Morano saying: "Da climate is cold since 1998."

And then you have the gall to criticize Avro when he actually posts real and qualified data? lol

We've hit a new low.
 
petros
#610
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

I see. So a correlation is enough for you. I'll make note of that.

And you of course will disregard the satellite observations of a darker planet, with higher albedo . The solar energy has been on a declining trend since the 1970's:



Yet I bet you'll ignore that and continue on with your falshoods, as any denier worth their salt would.

No, what I am selling is the most probable cause. Science really isn't conclusive in the way you want. It makes conclusions, based on what is most probable. When a scientific theory has conclusiveness, it's because many related investigations find the same thing, over and over again, and the probability that the theory is wrong is very slim.

You routinely talk about science, without knowing a single thing about how it works.

Sunshine does a damn good job of making syngases in the atmosphere with or without man being the one burning things on the ground to provide the aerosol chemicals.

The graph could use a line showing the 10% decrease and heavy drift in the magnetosphere too.
 
captain morgan
#611
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Hitler? What a brilliant analogy. How about if I use an analogy of my own?


Thanks for the compliment on the analogy. It takes a big girl to admit when an effective and succinct point is made that undermines her own position.


Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

As for Marc Morano I guess he must have missed the decade from 2001 - 2010 which was the warmest on record.


Quite the contrary. the request on your part from post 603 was:
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Why don't you dig up some climate information showing the the warming trend of the last 30 years has not happened?

Clearly there was no 30 year trend, was there?


Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

When I asked for proof I was hoping for more than some numbers someone simply made up.

Too funny. The numbers were sourced from your altar denizens at the UN/IPCC.



Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I took the time to look up Mr. Morano.

Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano's Fantasy | ConWebWatch


As expected, when you are faced with the reality of being made to look the fool, you challenge the voracity of the messenger and (conveniently) ignore the contents of the message that was, again, developed and compiled by your handlers at the UN.


Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Apparently he is the Glenn Beck of climatologists and has little credibility among real scientists. In fact he is little more than a right wing mouthpiece for hire who will support any cause for the right amount of money. Here is a quote from Mr. Morano describing himself I am not a scientist, my background is in political science, which is why I feel I am qualified to discuss man-made global warming fears...


He was providing the data compiled by another group Bar... they weren't numbers that were his creation, like I said earlier, they were the spawn of the UN itself.



Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Yep, he is qualified alright.

I suppose that in light of your high standards on the the selection of scientists that Al Gore is exempted (UK High Court ruling on his pack 'o lies), David Suzuki is gone (geneticist that warned of the coming ice age a few years back) and ofcourse, the IPCC (many, many retractions of their in-house "facts").

Doesn't leave many to choose from, unless you elect to support mentalfloss' submission of youtube factual videos.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yea, I can't believe we're actually deliberating Marc Morano.


Would he be qualified if he posted a youtube video?


Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

We've hit a new low.


No mentalfloss, that singular honour goes to you for sourcing your science through youtube.
 
petros
#612
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I suppose that in light of your high standards on the the selection of scientists that Al Gore is exempted (UK High Court ruling on his pack 'o lies), David Suzuki is gone (geneticist that warned of the coming ice age a few years back) and ofcourse, the IPCC (many, many retractions of their in-house "facts").

Take note of what Suzuki really is.

Suzuki has read his Alice Bailey.
 
mentalfloss
#613
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Sunshine does a damn good job of making syngases in the atmosphere with or without man being the one burning things on the ground to provide the aerosol chemicals.

It only factors about 10% of the warming of the last 120 years.

"Only in the anthropogenic influence is there a sufficiently large upward trend over the past 120 years to explain global surface temperature variations self-consistently with the space-era components. Accordingly, trends in solar irradiance in the past century contribute global warming of 10% or less."

Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate - Lean - 2009 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library

That article is a really good read. Peer reviewed with no nonsense.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

No mentalfloss, that singular honour goes to you for sourcing your science through youtube.

 
captain morgan
#614
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Take note of what Suzuki really is.

Suzuki has read his Alice Bailey.

No doubt.

A question for you, we were talking about Suzuki and you had mentioned his outside investment-style practices.

Do you happen to know what specific companies?
 
petros
#615
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

No doubt.

A question for you, we were talking about Suzuki and you had mentioned his outside investment-style practices.

Do you happen to know what specific companies?

I do. I'll get the specifics.
 
L Gilbert
#616
Nifty little graph that shows sources for forcing:



It should be simple to add up the clues.
1. The Earth has a cycle of warming and cooling periods.
2. There is a relatively stable balance of cooling and warming.
3. Regardless of how much we contributed to the shift, it looks like it was enough to offset the balance.

Accept it or not, that's the way it looks.
 
captain morgan
#617
The commentary associated with this graph assumes that the theory/science behind it is solid.
 
petros
#618
S'COOL: Observing Contrails


What are contrails?

Contrails are clouds of ice particles formed around the small particles (aerosols) which are in aircraft exhaust. When these persist after the passage of the plane they are of great interest to researchers. Under the right conditions, clouds initiated by passing aircraft can spread with time to cover the whole sky. See an article by CERES researcher Dr. Pat Minnis.

Where do contrails form?

Contrails are human-induced clouds that only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40°C). Because of this contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where such very cold air can sometimes be at or near ground level.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not those who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.

Contrail Formation

If the air is very dry, a contrail will not form behind the plane. If the air is somewhat moist, a contrail will form immediately behind the aircraft and make a bright white line that lasts for a short while (a short-lived contrail). Persistent contrails form immediately behind the airplane in very moist air. These long-lived contrails will usually grow wider and fuzzier as time passes. You may wish to review the GLOBE Contrail Formation Guide (available in several languages).

Contrail Evolution

Sometimes contrails will actually take on the characteristics of a natural cirrus cloud and no longer look like contrails after only a half hour or so. Persistent contrails can exist long after the airplane that made them has left the area. They can last for a few minutes or longer than a day. However, because they form at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will often move away from the area where they were born. When we look up into the sky, we may see old persistent contrails that formed somewhere else but moved overhead because of the wind. An example of several very persistent contrails is shown in the S'COOL cloud chart . Persistent contrails are those most likely to affect climate.


NASA could use more data on contrails. Thus, when cloud amount is estimated, it would be good to know:
  1. Is it possible to see contrails? That is, can the high altitudes be seen from the surface, or are there too many low clouds in the way?
  2. If it is possible to view upper levels of the atmosphere, are contrails seen?
  3. If contrails are seen, are they persistent or short-lived?
  4. If persistent, how many were seen?
  5. If persistent, were natural-looking cirrus clouds also in the sky?
  6. If persistent and possible, how much of the sky contained contrails?These observational details can be reported in the comments section of the S'COOL report form. However, we do now ask for a count of the number of short- lived and persistent contrails visible during every observation.
    This information, if taken regularly, will help us learn where and how often contrails occur. By matching the surface observations with the satellite data, we will then know if we are using the satellite data correctly to identify contrails and determine how they affect climate.
    For more information on contrails, visit Dr. Minnis' web page .
    Contrails in the News:
    • Earth & Sky radio
    • Daily Press



Swiss Cheese Clouds Produced by Aircraft Over Texas

Are there different types of contrails?
Contrails are all made of the same materials and are formed in the same way, but exist for different lengths of time. Because of the differences in contrail "life-spans", contrails can be divided into three groups: short-lived, persistent (non-spreading), and persistent spreading. See the Contrail Formation Guide for more information on how contrails form.

Short-lived contrails look like short white lines following along behind the plane, disappearing almost as fast as the airplane goes across the sky, perhaps lasting only a few minutes or less. The air that the airplane is passing through is somewhat moist, and there is only a small amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. The ice particles that do form quickly return again to a vapor state.

Persistent (non-spreading) contrails look like long white lines that remain visible after the airplane has disappeared. This shows that the air where the airplane is flying is quite humid, and there is a large amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. Persistent contrails can be further divided into two classes: those that spread and those that don't. Persistent contrails look like long, narrow white pencil-lines across the sky.

Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.

Contrail cousins are things that look like contrails but actually arise from a different physical process. For example, under the right conditions you will see vapor trails form from the wingtips of a jet on takeoff or landing. This phenomenon results from a decrease in pressure and temperature in the wingtip vortex. If conditions are right, liquid water drops form inside the vortex and make it visible. These evaporate very quickly after they form.
Can contrails move, or do they stay in the location where they were formed?
Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.
How are contrails different from other clouds?
Contrails are "human-induced" clouds since they are formed by water vapor condensing and freezing on particles from airplane exhaust. Contrails are always made of ice particles, due to the very cold temperatures at high altitude. Other types of clouds can be formed by water vapor that condenses on particles which are present in the atmosphere due to many sources, such as from volcanoes or dust storms, not specifically from aircraft exhaust. Those clouds are sometimes made of water droplets, and sometimes ice crystals, depending on the temperature where they form.

Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C). Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds.
When were contrails first observed?
Contrails were first noticed during high-altitude flights in the 1920's. However, interest in contrails really blossomed during WWII when bombers could be sighted from miles away. In fact, numerous WWII veteran accounts tell of problems to aviation due to massive contrail formations. Planes could not find their targets, and sometimes collided with each other. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Nifty little graph that shows sources for forcing:

Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.


NASA's statement does jive with nifty chart.....
 
AnnaG
#619
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The commentary associated with this graph assumes that the theory/science behind it is solid.

Prove otherwise.

The idea behind science is that people take evidence and make an idea of reality. Then they test it. if there's nothing that can disprove the idea, then the science holds. If there's something that interferes, then the science is amended or dumped. Seeing as very little (so far it's been a bunch of babbling about political agendas, scientists individual motives, "breakthrough proof of fraud* that was independently dismissed by multiple investigations)interferes with the evidence found so far, the science holds.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

S'COOL: Observing Contrails


What are contrails?

Contrails are clouds of ice particles formed around the small particles (aerosols) which are in aircraft exhaust. When these persist after the passage of the plane they are of great interest to researchers. Under the right conditions, clouds initiated by passing aircraft can spread with time to cover the whole sky. See an article by CERES researcher Dr. Pat Minnis.

Where do contrails form?

Contrails are human-induced clouds that only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40°C). Because of this contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where such very cold air can sometimes be at or near ground level.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not those who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.

Contrail Formation

If the air is very dry, a contrail will not form behind the plane. If the air is somewhat moist, a contrail will form immediately behind the aircraft and make a bright white line that lasts for a short while (a short-lived contrail). Persistent contrails form immediately behind the airplane in very moist air. These long-lived contrails will usually grow wider and fuzzier as time passes. You may wish to review the GLOBE Contrail Formation Guide (available in several languages).

Contrail Evolution

Sometimes contrails will actually take on the characteristics of a natural cirrus cloud and no longer look like contrails after only a half hour or so. Persistent contrails can exist long after the airplane that made them has left the area. They can last for a few minutes or longer than a day. However, because they form at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will often move away from the area where they were born. When we look up into the sky, we may see old persistent contrails that formed somewhere else but moved overhead because of the wind. An example of several very persistent contrails is shown in the S'COOL cloud chart . Persistent contrails are those most likely to affect climate.


NASA could use more data on contrails. Thus, when cloud amount is estimated, it would be good to know:

  1. Is it possible to see contrails? That is, can the high altitudes be seen from the surface, or are there too many low clouds in the way?
  2. If it is possible to view upper levels of the atmosphere, are contrails seen?
  3. If contrails are seen, are they persistent or short-lived?
  4. If persistent, how many were seen?
  5. If persistent, were natural-looking cirrus clouds also in the sky?
  6. If persistent and possible, how much of the sky contained contrails?These observational details can be reported in the comments section of the S'COOL report form. However, we do now ask for a count of the number of short- lived and persistent contrails visible during every observation.
    This information, if taken regularly, will help us learn where and how often contrails occur. By matching the surface observations with the satellite data, we will then know if we are using the satellite data correctly to identify contrails and determine how they affect climate.
    For more information on contrails, visit Dr. Minnis' web page .
    Contrails in the News:
    • Earth & Sky radio
    • Daily Press



Swiss Cheese Clouds Produced by Aircraft Over Texas

Are there different types of contrails?
Contrails are all made of the same materials and are formed in the same way, but exist for different lengths of time. Because of the differences in contrail "life-spans", contrails can be divided into three groups: short-lived, persistent (non-spreading), and persistent spreading. See the Contrail Formation Guide for more information on how contrails form.

Short-lived contrails look like short white lines following along behind the plane, disappearing almost as fast as the airplane goes across the sky, perhaps lasting only a few minutes or less. The air that the airplane is passing through is somewhat moist, and there is only a small amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. The ice particles that do form quickly return again to a vapor state.

Persistent (non-spreading) contrails look like long white lines that remain visible after the airplane has disappeared. This shows that the air where the airplane is flying is quite humid, and there is a large amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. Persistent contrails can be further divided into two classes: those that spread and those that don't. Persistent contrails look like long, narrow white pencil-lines across the sky.

Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.

Contrail cousins are things that look like contrails but actually arise from a different physical process. For example, under the right conditions you will see vapor trails form from the wingtips of a jet on takeoff or landing. This phenomenon results from a decrease in pressure and temperature in the wingtip vortex. If conditions are right, liquid water drops form inside the vortex and make it visible. These evaporate very quickly after they form.
Can contrails move, or do they stay in the location where they were formed?
Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.
How are contrails different from other clouds?
Contrails are "human-induced" clouds since they are formed by water vapor condensing and freezing on particles from airplane exhaust. Contrails are always made of ice particles, due to the very cold temperatures at high altitude. Other types of clouds can be formed by water vapor that condenses on particles which are present in the atmosphere due to many sources, such as from volcanoes or dust storms, not specifically from aircraft exhaust. Those clouds are sometimes made of water droplets, and sometimes ice crystals, depending on the temperature where they form.

Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C). Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds.
When were contrails first observed?
Contrails were first noticed during high-altitude flights in the 1920's. However, interest in contrails really blossomed during WWII when bombers could be sighted from miles away. In fact, numerous WWII veteran accounts tell of problems to aviation due to massive contrail formations. Planes could not find their targets, and sometimes collided with each other. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.
Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.


NASA's statement does jive with nifty chart.....

Yeah. And?
Last edited by AnnaG; Aug 15th, 2010 at 01:57 AM..
 
Bar Sinister
#620
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Thanks for the compliment on the analogy. It takes a big girl to admit when an effective and succinct point is made that undermines her own position.





Quite the contrary. the request on your part from post 603 was:


Clearly there was no 30 year trend, was there?




Too funny. The numbers were sourced from your altar denizens at the UN/IPCC.






As expected, when you are faced with the reality of being made to look the fool, you challenge the voracity of the messenger and (conveniently) ignore the contents of the message that was, again, developed and compiled by your handlers at the UN.





He was providing the data compiled by another group Bar... they weren't numbers that were his creation, like I said earlier, they were the spawn of the UN itself.





I suppose that in light of your high standards on the the selection of scientists that Al Gore is exempted (UK High Court ruling on his pack 'o lies), David Suzuki is gone (geneticist that warned of the coming ice age a few years back) and ofcourse, the IPCC (many, many retractions of their in-house "facts").

Doesn't leave many to choose from, unless you elect to support mentalfloss' submission of youtube factual videos.




Would he be qualified if he posted a youtube video?





No mentalfloss, that singular honour goes to you for sourcing your science through youtube.

You just don't get it do you? Your science is junk; your sources are junk; and you now think that calling me a girl is an insult. I will now add misogyny to your list of defects. You are also too limited to realize that your Hitler analogy was utter rubbish. Keep on trying. I am sure that one of these days you will actually make a comment regarding global warming that you can back up with sound science; something that you have failed utterly to do so far. It is quite clear that you have given up attempting any sort of rational arguments and are now resorting to cheap insults to back up your points. Good luck convincing anyone of anything other than the fact you are a Glenn Beck wannabe.
 
gopher
#621
Tell the folks in Moscow that the weather is getting colder. They would appreciate such a refreshing message.
 
captain morgan
#622
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

You just don't get it do you? Your science is junk; your sources are junk;


I see... The message is that the science is sound if, and only if, Bar Sinister bestows a blessing on it. How quaint. You've appointed yourself grand-pooba.

What is the most interesting component of your tantrum is the notion that you deem all other opinion(s), perspective, scientific angles and research as "junk"... I won't go into attempting an explanation of why your statement is baseless as it will be an utter waste of my time, but I will summarize by saying this:

The "junk science" you refer too is supported by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years of support through the Earth's historical record.

You, on the other hand, throw your support behind multiple frauds and pretend otherwise.



Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

and you now think that calling me a girl is an insult. I will now add misogyny to your list of defects. You are also too limited to realize that your Hitler analogy was utter rubbish.


That's what you better expect when you elect to call someone a "he/she or it".

Don't want that treatment, then don't dish it out you whiner.



Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Keep on trying. I am sure that one of these days you will actually make a comment regarding global warming that you can back up with sound science; something that you have failed utterly to do so far.


See comment about hundreds of thousands of years of historical record.


Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

It is quite clear that you have given up attempting any sort of rational arguments and are now resorting to cheap insults to back up your points. Good luck convincing anyone of anything other than the fact you are a Glenn Beck wannabe.


Posting a rational argument?... You?... That has got to be the biggest joke you've posted so far.

Fact is, you have a preconceived view and you massage reality in order to accommodate it regardless of whatever is offered up in opposition. There is nothing that anyone could propose that will ever alter you view.

That said, remove yourself off of your soap-box spare me the sermon that even hints at you being rational, you and your ilk represent the antithesis of rationalality when it comes to this issue. What's worse is the reality that every single solitary one of you are hypocrites at the highest magnitude. Your lifestyle and every component of your existence breaks the very rules that you demand be imposed.

You make a hell of a show talking the talk but don't have the balls to walk the walk so with that, spare me the rhetoric.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Prove otherwise.


The onus is on you you to prove your point. From my perspective, you're asking for me to prove a negative.
Last edited by captain morgan; Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:49 PM..
 
Bar Sinister
#623
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I see... The message is that the science is sound if, and only if, Bar Sinister bestows a blessing on it. How quaint. You've appointed yourself grand-pooba.

What is the most interesting component of your tantrum is the notion that you deem all other opinion(s), perspective, scientific angles and research as "junk"... I won't go into attempting an explanation of why your statement is baseless as it will be an utter waste of my time, but I will summarize by saying this:

The "junk science" you refer too is supported by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years of support through the Earth's historical record.

You, on the other hand, throw your support behind multiple frauds and pretend otherwise.






That's what you better expect when you elect to call someone a "he/she or it".

Don't want that treatment, then don't dish it out you whiner.






See comment about hundreds of thousands of years of historical record.





Posting a rational argument?... You?... That has got to be the biggest joke you've posted so far.

Fact is, you have a preconceived view and you massage reality in order to accommodate it regardless of whatever is offered up in opposition. There is nothing that anyone could propose that will ever alter you view.

That said, remove yourself off of your soap-box spare me the sermon that even hints at you being rational, you and your ilk represent the antithesis of rationalality when it comes to this issue. What's worse is the reality that every single solitary one of you are hypocrites at the highest magnitude. Your lifestyle and every component of your existence breaks the very rules that you demand be imposed.

You make a hell of a show talking the talk but don't have the balls to walk the walk so with that, spare me the rhetoric.




The onus is on you you to prove your point. From my perspective, you're asking for me to prove a negative.


I have noted a certain trend in your posts. You begin by attempting to prove your point using what you think are "facts." When these facts are shredded by others you then resort to name-calling, no doubt thinking that somehow it will strengthen your arguments. It doesn't, and in this thread you lost the argument several posts ago when you were unable to back up any of your assertions with a single bit of scientific evidence. You have failed to score a single point not only against me, but against any of the others who have found issue with your posts. It really is quite sad that you believe that simply asserting something over and over again is in any way evidence; and that using pretend scientists to support your arguments gives them any credibility. I suggest you confine your posts to the Spirituality and Philosophy Forum where posts based on pure faith have a proper venue.
 
captain morgan
#624
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I have noted a certain trend in your posts. You begin by attempting to prove your point using what you think are "facts." When these facts are shredded by others you then resort to name-calling, no doubt thinking that somehow it will strengthen your arguments. It doesn't, and in this thread you lost the argument several posts ago when you were unable to back up any of your assertions with a single bit of scientific evidence. You have failed to score a single point not only against me, but against any of the others who have found issue with your posts. It really is quite sad that you believe that simply asserting something over and over again is in any way evidence; and that using pretend scientists to support your arguments gives them any credibility. I suggest you confine your posts to the Spirituality and Philosophy Forum where posts based on pure faith have a proper venue.


Wow... I don't know what to say.

You have blinded yourself to anything that challenges your position on this issue. I am highly skeptical as to the existence of AGW and pointed to highly generalized, factual ideals that relate to Earth's history and questioned how it is possible that the eco crowd can positively assess causation in the face of historical fluctuations, and more importantly, how anyone can claim mastery on this issue considering no one has any depth of understanding of the systems/mechanisms that drive climate. Apparently, these fundamental positions are deemed "junk" by your definition.

In the end, what you've posted is exactly what I feel abouyt how you have approached this issue and those that maintain an opposing view from yourself.
 
mentalfloss
#625
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I am highly skeptical as to the existence of AGW and pointed to highly generalized, factual ideals that relate to:

1.) Earth's history and questioned how it is possible that the eco crowd can positively assess causation in the face of historical fluctuations, and

2.) more importantly, how anyone can claim mastery on this issue considering no one has any depth of understanding of the systems/mechanisms that drive climate.

We've already been through both of these issues a few times with you, and then your amnesia/alzheimers kicks in and you somehow forget what just happened. I'm not sure what kind of serious mental deficiency you suffer from, but if it really helps, I can continue to post this general thread summary to help you remember:

1.) We've shown that despite entirely natural fluctuations in the climate that there has been a definite increase in warming. For instance, despite the El nino/La nina cycle, the temperature has still increased during La nina periods - periods when the climate should be cooler. Also, despite solar cycles, the temperature is still increasing even when we are on the low end of the solar cycle - during periods when the climate should be cooler.

We've shown this -- with peer reviewed material no less! -- yet you fail to come up with a successful rebuttal. And then your amnesia kicks in.

2.) Tonington has mentioned many times that regardless of the abundance of evidence to show the probability of AGW, no scientist affirms that it is a 100% certainty. We've argued this based on theories which reflect a high probability - not absolute certainty - and test these models to help affirm these theories accordingly.

Again, you fail to come up with a successful rebuttal - and then your amnesia kicks in.

So, unless you would like to move the conversation forward, please don't clutter the thread with idle banter. Come up with a convincing argument first, and then we'll talk.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Aug 16th, 2010 at 08:20 AM..
 
Bar Sinister
#626
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Wow... I don't know what to say.

You have blinded yourself to anything that challenges your position on this issue. I am highly skeptical as to the existence of AGW and pointed to highly generalized, factual ideals that relate to Earth's history and questioned how it is possible that the eco crowd can positively assess causation in the face of historical fluctuations, and more importantly, how anyone can claim mastery on this issue considering no one has any depth of understanding of the systems/mechanisms that drive climate. Apparently, these fundamental positions are deemed "junk" by your definition.

In the end, what you've posted is exactly what I feel abouyt how you have approached this issue and those that maintain an opposing view from yourself.

Looks like you have run out of ideas, CM; a not surprising event considering how weak your defence of your position was in the first place. Unless you have anything further to add to the thread this is my last post on the issue.
 
captain morgan
#627
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Looks like you have run out of ideas, CM; a not surprising event considering how weak your defence of your position was in the first place. Unless you have anything further to add to the thread this is my last post on the issue.

Sure Bar, I have one last thing to add before you rush away.

What is your position on the issue and what kind of underlying proof do you found your ideas on? From what I recall, your role has been to critique, but I don't recall any actual position/proof.
 
Avro
#628
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

As Bar Sinister requested, I provided the info.. As per your latest addition that specified 'the trend' over the last 100 years, well it appears that there are a number of trends, doesn't it? Kinda points to the futility and superficiality of your base question.

You still didn't answer the question I asked Captain.

What has been the trend over the last 100 years?

One of cooling or warming?

One word answer will do.

Quote:

As far as Morano is concerned, he was simply referring directly to your handlers at the UN, it was afterall, their data that he reported upon.

My handlers?

What does that mean?

So journalists are okay to use as critics of AGW....okay...I'll remember that.

Other deniers as yourself brushed off jouranlists.



Quote:

Throws a little kink into your, uh, unsubstituted views...

I don't think so....but a wonderful try.

Quote:

Hell Avro, I really ought to thank you... There's an excellent chance that this may evolve into yet another UN sponsored fraud.

Yet something else you have failed to provide....these vast cases of fraud.

In fact you have yet to provide one single case of fraud.

Quote:

Surely this isn't the best you can do, is it?

I don't need to do better against you.


Quote:

Try Tim Ball.

Nope...perhaps you should check to see how many times Ball has been caught lying about his education.

I suppose you'll tell me Monckton is a climatologist as well.

Have a good one.
 
JLM
#629
[QUOTE=AvroWhat has been the trend over the last 100 years?

[/QUOTE]

Given the age of the earth, 100 years isn't a trend- it's like a snap of the fingers.
 
captain morgan
#630
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

You still didn't answer the question I asked Captain.

What has been the trend over the last 100 years?

One of cooling or warming?

One word answer will do.


Both



Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

My handlers?

What does that mean?


It means that you are entirely content to swallow the pap that you are handed by those groups in which you have confidence despite their many retractions, frauds and agendas.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

So journalists are okay to use as critics of AGW....okay...I'll remember that.


Yes, as these journalists like Morano are delivering the information that was gathered by the UN.

It is obvious that you need to admonish their info as it is not supportive of your position. In typical ecotard fashion, your only option is to dismiss the info based on who the messenger is as opposed to what the info represents. this isn't the first time I've seen this Avro, it's a very common practice among the green groups.




Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

I don't think so....but a wonderful try.

Funny, if it didn't throw a wrench in the (your) machine, why is it necessary for you to work so hard in deflecting the focus of the issue?


Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Yet something else you have failed to provide....these vast cases of fraud. In fact you have yet to provide one single case of fraud.


Keep your head in the sand Avro, but it's pretty futile in that you addressed them directly earlier and made all kinds of excuses.



Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

I don't need to do better against you.


Need to?... Hell, it's clear that you can't.


Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Nope...perhaps you should check to see how many times Ball has been caught lying about his education.

I suppose you'll tell me Monckton is a climatologist as well.

Gore is a businessman/politician
Suzuki is biologist/geneticist
the UN claimed support for their docs from MD's, engineers and zoologists.

I suppose that Monckton and ball are entitled as well. On that note, Ball is far more qualified than the clowns that teh IPCC has hung their hat on.
 

Similar Threads

60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008