How or Why we will reverse global warming

[SysError]

Beautiful. I present links to a number of articles from various journals - and it's only a minor subset of all those that are out there.

Then you have the brass to come back to me with the citation of hidden sources AND that final statement about evidence.

Nice try, but apparently the fish rots from the head right down to the fraudulent little fins.

And for the record, I'm not uncomfortable going head to head with any of your "colleagues". I took on Terry Root and Paul Ehrlich back at Stanford and got nothing but sputtering out of them . "Hidden sources" don't carry a lot of weight around here. Bluff Called: Put up or shut up.

By the way, as you try to impeach sources without evidence, you also will need to impeach this growing list of former IPCC scientists who've defected from lockstep orthodoxy - Bengtsson was only the latest: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/08/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/

OK ok  -- I'll be back in 2 weeks (maybe 12 days)  -- I reply then

[PJ_Godzilla]

All right. We should have an agreement regarding the proper way to argue. I, like Brooke, am actually very well credentialed both academically (UM/Stanford) and with regard to my work, with time both in the civil (NASA) and private sector (Arvin/Komatsu/MSC/Ford - including research and advanced). Do me the favor of taking my points seriously and not just dismissing me as a fool and I am likely to give you the same consideration. In short, play the ball and not the man.

Also, I think that rule should apply generally here, since I find that the AH BBS tends to skew male, older, affluent and technical. In short, they have paid for my respect.

Do that and, while I may disagree, I will treat you with the utmost respect, even if I may be pedantic, slightly grumpy, and a stickler for distinctions of vanishing significance.

I should add, there is actually a lot of good and publicly accessible material out there and none of it is magic. Indeed, one of the first sources I looked at that led me down the path of skeptic was the MSU satellite data and it's disagreement with the IPCC models. There's a good story there, regarding the corrections used to account for variations in orbit and othere sources of error, allof which has been explored in some detail in past.

As for the pause, I'd refer you, for an excellent primer, to someone in your own camp, who is at REMSS, and is looking for the cause of the pause. It's one of the more honest assessments I've heard to date, and doesn't prematurely jump to any silly conclusions (eg, The Science is Settled). Science, by its very nature, needs to endlessly question orthodoxy. http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

[Bodhi]

I (and many) are curious as to how much the oceans would supposedly rise if every bit of ice were to melt.....  Surely not the approximate 200 foot rise, especially given the massive amount of ice already displacing water.....

[FBKampfer]

See Rule #4

[FLS]

I (and many) are curious as to how much the oceans would supposedly rise if every bit of ice were to melt.....  Surely not the approximate 200 foot rise, especially given the massive amount of ice already displacing water.....

It's estimated that Antarctica's ice melting would raise the oceans 200ft. The Antarctic has 90% of the world's ice and 70% of it's fresh water.

The Arctic ice floats on the sea so it wouldn't raise sea levels if it all melted. 

[earl1937]

It's estimated that Antarctica's ice melting would raise the oceans 200ft. The Antarctic has 90% of the world's ice and 70% of it's fresh water.

The Arctic ice floats on the sea so it wouldn't raise sea levels if it all melted.

Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming.
While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about! 

[NatCigg]

Yes a interesting point.  The void in the earth could hold vast amount of water .  The boys would need to figure out how and where to dam the topography to maxise its use.  I asked this question a few pages back.

[WWhiskey]

See Rule #4

[MiloMorai]

When all the ice melts at the South Pole, Antarctica will rise.
It is called Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound).

[FLS]

Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming.
While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about!

Earl it's 6 million cubic miles of ice sitting on the ground. It would leave a hole in the air filled in by air. Good thing it's not melting. 

[Zimme83]

Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming.
While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about!

Yes it would.

[earl1937]

Earl it's 6 million cubic miles of ice sitting on the ground. It would leave a hole in the air filled in by air. Good thing it's not melting. 

Sorry, that won't wash sir! all the ice surrounding the poles are sitting on hard ground all its own, yet there is miles and miles of ice attached to that, otherwise it would move around!
I really don't know anything about the ice caps at the poles, other than that is some place I don't want to visit!

[FLS]

Sorry, that won't wash sir! all the ice surrounding the poles are sitting on hard ground all its own, yet there is miles and miles of ice attached to that, otherwise it would move around!
I really don't know anything about the ice caps at the poles, other than that is some place I don't want to visit!

I haven't been there either. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

[bustr]

Are we arguing that we can delay the earth's cycle of cooling and warming or that we can stop the cycle? In the former it will happen no matter what we do. In the latter, did we figure out how to create one of those science fiction space opera planet buster weapons already?

All of the scientists in consensus that something horrible might be happening which a nebulous "we" might be able to delay, cannot give a fixed date other than some time after they are dead and gone. And have made all of their money and prestige, then enjoyed that money and prestige by agreeing to the consensus.

If you don't believe this planet goes through a cooling and warming cycle then yes this is a disaster "in your mind". If according to a consensus of scientists this planet goes through cooling and warming cycles with dramatic results at both ends. Why are some trying to make money and increase their power and influence over others with the equivalent of trying to sell ice to Eskimos because it's a warm day?

[Zimme83]

Are we arguing that we can delay the earth's cycle of cooling and warming or that we can stop the cycle? In the former it will happen no matter what we do. In the latter, did we figure out how to create one of those science fiction space opera planet buster weapons already?

All of the scientists in consensus that something horrible might be happening which a nebulous "we" might be able to delay, cannot give a fixed date other than some time after they are dead and gone. And have made all of their money and prestige, then enjoyed that money and prestige by agreeing to the consensus.

If you don't believe this planet goes through a cooling and warming cycle then yes this is a disaster "in your mind". If according to a consensus of scientists this planet goes through cooling and warming cycles with dramatic results at both ends. Why are some trying to make money and increase their power and influence over others with the equivalent of trying to sell ice to Eskimos because it's a warm day?

The variation of the temperature is not the key problem, its about how fast it goes. And also the fact that a lot of people lives along the coast lines, if the ocean level rise it will have huge consequenses, regardless of whats causing it.