U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

I heard Obama was born in Seattle.

Didn't know there was a Seattle in Kenya.

Different narrative.

Birth Certificate? 'nuff said.

My efforts to stoke the embers into another inferno of rage and lulz isn't working.

I may have to resort to linking homosexuality to Global Warming while simultaneously quoting Donald Sterling.

My efforts to stoke the embers into another inferno of rage and lulz isn't working.

I may have to resort to linking homosexuality to Global Warming while simultaneously quoting Donald Sterling.

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday.

The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis.

“This is really happening,” said Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”

Not even Altimaomega can ignore this data.

Something tells me that a good portion of "global warming" skeptics are unlikely to reverse their stance regardless of what or how research is presented.



***Secretly I'm waiting for some nut to say: "God intends for things to get warmer." ***

I was originally an avid supporter of AGW. Until I started actually looking at the underlying theory and mechanics behind it and started questioning their methodology. Then the insane "you must believe us or your EVIL / Koch brothers employee / ect.. cause the consensus.." happened and that immediately set off alarm bells, science is never "settled" and most definitely never by a "consensus". It's done by crafting a theory, then attack that theory and attempting to disprove it. You can prove nearly any theory with an appropriately biased study / setup. You can "prove" that black Jews are infiltrating the worlds governments in an attempt to setup an empire, all you have to do is carefully select for the right data with enough ambiguity to draw the "right" conclusions. The real conclusions don't come until after many people have failed to disprove your theory.

The fact that no disapproval was even allowed to take place, no one was allowed to question the "theory". AGW was (and is now) treated as some sort of religion upon which the tenants and beliefs can not be questioned. That resembles propaganda not science. The theory that the speed of light is a universal speed limit has held true for much longer then AGW yet scientists are still trying to either disprove it or find ways around it. Same with many other fields of science, researchers are always expanding and refuting findings. Yet someone AGW is "above" this? AGW is "settled"? Global temperatures have remained constant for 17 years now which is in direct violation of all previous models. I've already presented some (but not nearly all) of the refutations of AGW theory that AGW theorists have yet to falsify.

As of now AGW theorists haven't proven positive core components of their model while several researchers have successfully refuted multiple aspects of current AGW theory. Those refutations are reasonable enough to cast doubt on the accuracy of the current theory. There is also ample evidence of politically motivated tampering that has resulted in tainted results. This could all change, especially if it gets pulled out of the political lime light and progressives stop trying to use it as grounds for a power grab. Real science can only get meaningful results when politics are kept out of it. I wasn't joking when I said there is a backlash building in the scientific community in regards to the AGW folks. Not for the theory's themselves but for the political influence it's receiving and the fanatical zeal it's followers are adopting. Neither is healthy.

I was originally an avid supporter of AGW.

So what is your position now? Obviously your post tells me you don't think that humans are the primary cause but how much do you suppose they account for? What data backs up your position and refutes your old position? And why is this data more trustworthy than the data supporting your old position?

As of now AGW theorists haven't proven positive core components of their model while several researchers have successfully refuted multiple aspects of current AGW theory. Those refutations are reasonable enough to cast doubt on the accuracy of the current theory.

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:

ΔF = α Ln(C/C_0)

Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C_0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha (α) has been assigned a value between five and seven.
Arrhenius at the first Solvay conference on chemistry in 1922 in Brussels.

Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

Give me access to a big enough government research grant, and I'll believe in global warming too.