sunsettommy

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998? LOL

You say he planned the invasion since 1999 huh? LOL

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Plame sues CIA, says it's delaying memoir Associated Press/ Houston Chronicle chron.com By MATT APUZZO June 1, 2007, 12:26AM Excerpt: WASHINGTON — Valerie Plame, the former undercover CIA officer whose 2003 exposure touched off a leak investigation, is accusing the government of delaying publication of Fair Game, her new book. Plame and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, sued the CIA in a New York federal court Thursday. They accused the government of illegally refusing to let Plame write about the specific dates she worked for the agency. The CIA, which has acknowledged only that Plame worked for the agency since 2002, must approve all writings of former officers before they can be published. "The sole benchmark is whether it contains classified information," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said. "The concern is that publication of the manuscript as submitted would cause additional damage to operations and would affect the CIA's ability to conduct intelligence activities in the future." Plame contends that the CIA released information about her work history in an unclassified letter about her retirement benefits. The letter says that Plame worked at the CIA for more than 20 years. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4852567.html

You do realize that no references were provided in the link? Meanwhile you just talked about CO2 lag with temperature! Again how did we get so much warming when CO2 was not a player and that Water Vapor was essentially unchanged? Here is a link that will help clear your confusion: Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures? October 9, 2003 by Dennis T. Avery http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ubType=HI_Opeds I see you did not read this article that I posted earlier. Article I did read that embarrasing link. They still do not explain why it warmed for at least 400 years before CO2 levels would finally start increasing. Then too the ocean acidic angle ignores the fact that for over a 100,000,000 million years the atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded 1000 ppm and commonly over 2000 ppm.Does this mean that the oceans then had little CO2 left in it? Meanwhile, Where is the CO2 charts reference!!! ? I asked you at post #73 and again now. Post no more Realclimate stuff.It is increasingly a laughingstock in the science world. Nir Shaviv went in circles around them a while ago.They have refused to even submit a guest post at Climate Science along with M and M guys over the Hockey Stick paper excitement. Gavin chickenly avoids tangling with Dr. Glassman over his paper: The aquittal of CO2.Making snide remarks on Realclimate website about Glassman personally and steering a reader to look up some links amazingly found only on Realclimate! Dr. Glassman gets those very links Gavin posted and showed how bad they were. I posted Dr. Glassman at a forum filled with scientists and they mocked his paper without any rational rebuttals.It was a revealing experience especially when Dr. Glassman talked about the SOLUBILITY PUMP.They avoided that part! They also could not deal with the VOSTOCK ICE CORES and its findings.Just like realclimate they rather make stupid ad hoc explanations. Sad.

But those data sets, at least up to 05 which I have checked don't show rising temperatures. I have seen the paint job article before and if true and to what degree it only means temperatures are not as high as people believe and could explain the difference between ground temperatures atmospheric temperatures. Try this then.From a forum I administrate: Surface temperature data are suspect because there are a NUMBER of biases to overcome.

About those weather stations, Watts Up With That? Bad Paint Job = Rising Surface Temperatures? By Anthony Watts SNIP: In a nutshell, nobody seems to have experimentally investigated this issue I raised. Last year I posted an essay on the subject of paint and weather stations shelters at www.globalwarmingindex.com but the idea I've had goes back to the early 1990's, and I haven't experimentally investigated it either. It seems that weather stations shelters known as Stevenson Screens (the white chicken coop like boxes on stilts housing thermometers outdoors) were originally painted with whitewash, which is a lime based paint, and reflective of infra-red radiation, but its no longer available, and newer paints have been used that much different IR characteristics. Why is this important? Well, paints that appear "white" and reflective in visible light have different properties in infrared. Some paints can even appear nearly "black" and absorb a LOT of infrared, and thus biases the thermometer. So the repainting of thousands of Stevenson screens worldwide with paints of uncertain infrared characteristics was another bias that has crept into the instrumental temperature records. Read here a report from the Arizona State University department of Physics and Astronomy of the response of paint pigments to infrared: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/r...ratures_ba.html Read the whole link. This is just one of the problems with these stations.

SCIENCE MAGAZINE Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731 DOI: 10.1126/science.1078758 Prev | Table of Contents | Next Reports Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1 Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5 The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. emphasis mine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728 This would appear to rule out the Milankovich cycle as the cause of the 800 year lag.

Google Milankovitch cycle. (I hope I spelled it correctly.) Edited to add this link. You need to go to the PROBLEMS section of your link. I see nothing that in your link promoting this lag.

You do realize that no references were provided in the link? Meanwhile you just talked about CO2 lag with temperature! Again how did we get so much warming when CO2 was not a player and that Water Vapor was essentially unchanged? Here is a link that will help clear your confusion: Does Carbon Dioxide Really Affect Temperatures? October 9, 2003 by Dennis T. Avery http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ubType=HI_Opeds

B.Max you really need to stop using Junkscience website to bolster your argument using surface temperature data.They have been shown to be biased and compromised. Stephen Milloy no longer consider them reliable or valid.There are simply too many problems with the data.

So during those 200-800 years what promoted the warming trend?

Do you realize what a mess those stations are?

Do you know how and where such data are gathered?

Do you realize that the additional molecular CO2 contribution to warming is less and less? The IPCC admits to it and so does Astronomers who knows better. Here is a handy link: Climate CO2 sensitivity SNIP: You should realize that the carbon dioxide only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies. By this comment, I want to point out that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the carbon dioxide concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases: the expected temperature increase for a single frequency is something like 1.5 ( 1 - exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) Celsius The decreasing exponential tells you how much radiation at the critical frequencies is able to penetrate through the carbon dioxide and leave the planet. The numbers in the formula above are not completely accurate and the precise exponential form is not quite robust either but the qualitative message is reliable. When the concentration increases, additional CO2 becomes less and less important. In particular, there exists nothing such as a "runaway effect" or a "point of no return" or a "tipping point" or any of the similar frightening fairy-tales promoted by Al Gore and his numerous soulmates. The formula above simply does not allow you more than 1.5 Celsius degrees of warming from the CO2 greenhouse effect. Similar formulae based on the Arrhenius' law predicts a decrease of the derivative "d Temperature / d Concentration" to be just a power law - not exponential decrease - but it is still a decrease. SNIP: In all cases, such a possible warming distributed over centuries is certainly nothing that a person with IQ above 80 should be producing movies about and nothing that should convince him to stop the world economy. When you substitute the concentration of 560 ppm (parts per million), you obtain something like 1 Celsius degree increase relatively to the pre-industrial era. But even if you plug in the current concentration of 380 ppm, you obtain about 0.76 Celsius degrees of "global warming". Although we have only completed about 40% of the proverbial CO2 doubling, we have already achieved about 75% of the warming effect that is expected from such a doubling: the difference is a result of the exponentially suppressed influence of the growing carbon dioxide concentration. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

The idea of an average temperature of the world is no longer a good one.The data for it are not reliable or consistent.The stations themselves has been compromised by paint and by location. Dr. Jones large 1986 study has been recently shown to be worthless because the data behind it are not available.They have not been available for many years either.No way to know if his research was any good. Warwick Hughes has been vidicated. Dr Mann and his "Hockey Stick" paper is no longer worthy since it has been statistically debunked. The NSF had reduced it to just the last 400 years of confidence and stated that the MWP and the LIA existed as shown for a few decades now.The Wegman report invalidated it. The "other 9 reconstructions are mostly in camp.True independence from the camp are hard to find and not only that.They base a large portion of their conclusions on SECONDARY PROXY data. It is truly sad when you put so much interest in questionable studies and overlook the solid ones published the last few decades clearly establishing the existence of the LIA and MWP. The Satellite data coupled with weather balloon data are the only reasonably accurate temperature data we have and they go back to 1979 and 1958 respectively.They both show far less warming trend than those compromised surface temperature data show.

Why is this farce going on? Greg was quite specific in what he wrote. Maybe you go back and reread what he wrote. I though he was quite clear in what he wanted us to understand. I did consider making a few pointed constructive criticisms in reply to him at the time.Because it is a recurring problem.But I decided not to. As a Site Administrator of a forum.I can say that it is work keeping the forum in good running order and by the stated rules.I have had to make wholesale corrections to the way several articles were being posted.This to comply with copyright laws and to prevent clutter of a thread. There are 3 Site Administrators and a God Administrator in my forum.So we still can be on top of it. Greg is doing this all by himself here.That is why the forum drifts around for a while untill he come in and purge a few members and clean it up.An active Moderator or two would have prevented the drifting and squabbling from developing.Stop problems cold with suspension or shut down bad threads. Ok so I did give a little on what is on my mind as criticism. Forums live and die depending on the quality of its members and the Administration that runs it.

Well it is now 2 months later.They sure have ignored this thread. LOL

a word of advice check international law wrt to territories "won" by israel. Nothing was won, by Israel. Nothing can be kept, Israel ILLEGALY occupies Palestinian territory. Just the facts. Or let me use a slogan you can likely relate to " no spin" Then attacks by the Palestinians is fine with you. Snicker.

LOLOLOLOL, What a weird thread. I am glad jdobbin put me on ignore long ago. It is refreshing to keep out. Cheers

Try this article: emphasis mineThe President never used that banner in his speech.

Yeah the media played fast and loose on it. Why are you so oblivious to the fact that the media played it up and so many fell for it? Here is the relevant section you missed: emphasis mineThe deployment was a record. They did a lot of work to meet the assignments.Above and beyond the usual deployment service. The ship was nearly home from a very long deployment assignment and was visited by the President just before entering the San Diego Naval dock area. It was the media and others who made a mountain out of a molehill over a banner. LOL

Ehh....thats a bit of a stretch . I know thats how they spun it after the fact, blaming the navy for "putting it up" , but it was the white house that made the banner. So does it matter who made the banner? It still refers to the Carrier.

Meanwhile from post #24: Still no credible post from anyone in the thread about posting valid grounds for impeaching President Bush. LOL

Ehh....thats a bit of a stretch . I know thats how they spun it after the fact, blaming the navy for "putting it up" , but it was the white house that made the banner. It is obvious that you did not read up on the Carrier Abraham Lincoln. Try this: http://www.cvn72.navy.mil/ LOL

From the link at post #35: He said MAJOR combat operations have ended. This is true. What we have today are minor terror attacks in a small area of Iraq carried out by those who are fanatics.The Shiite muslim group has a number of scores to settle.That is part of the reason for their attacks against the minority Sunni's who ran the coutry so brutally for decades. There are no major combat opertions going on these days. The Mission Accomplished banner was referring to the Carriers long deployment assignment.