Golly,will this new system end the nasty arguments? Hope so. Hope Coco gets on.

Read the title of this article, then the article and then tell us the author is either stupid, or wrong, or perhaps full of crap. And then explain why that is so. Or, tell us he is correct and therefore you are wrong.

Thank you Tech 2, Lizard, Namaste, Sigurdur, etc.

Goodby ~Lizard~. I already told you why I didn't reply to what you wrote, and I hadn't sat here waitning breathlessly for you to write anything. When I did return this article was already buried here in the archives.

Apparently the response ~ARRY~ gave you wasn't good enough for you, and again you didn't address your post specifically to me. Why didn't you debate ~ARRY~, since he appropriately disagreed with you.

I really didn't wish to repy to you anyway as it would have just led to another senseless argument. That post you wrote was like the ones you have posted frequently and many who are a hell of a lot better informed than I have explained that you don't have a clue.

You like ~TECH2~ here ignore the obvious that indeed, as this article states, the Arctic is thawing like it never has for at least the past 600,000 years and is not thawing over a century or so but in a time span of less than five years. That isn't nature working, that's mankind's polluting our atmosphere with EXCESS Co2 emissions.

That's where you and I and others have been disagreeing for months now, so there is absolutly no use for you and I to bother to argue about it. And as for replies, you or the other G/W deniers have never addressed with any substance the article ~John Atcheson~ wrote and explained where he is off base.

~Tech 2~ You ask again what is in danger?

Here is your answer. What is in danger is the 400+ gigatons of methane in the Arctic's ice and perma-frost is going to be released into our atmosphere. That will set off global warming like you or I or anyone else here can imagine. That's the danger and you'd better believe that answer is accurate, 100% accurate.

If you wish to argue it you will be arguing with scientists who know the score a lot better than you, Lizard, or I do. I don't expect you wish to argue it and neither does the lizard, Many named Namaste, ANN R Key, Mesanthorpe, MIMICCS, Sigurdur11, etc.

None of you G/W deniers argue that factual comment. You can't with any credense, so you bring up other issues to change the subject. The subject here is the Arctic is thawing at an alarming rate, it's clearly obvious, no science or computer models are necessary to observe it happening. What will be the end result of the Arctic melt is the MAJOR issue. But you deniers ALL ignore the major issue.

Arry.

Lots of people are concerned about the polar bear, but on the other hand, there are other species that are doing very well and expanding their habitat due to the current warming trend in the North.
Why do you think the earth has to stay the same? Don't you agree the geologic record shows the earth is always changing?

Your assertion that c02 levels are the proven cause of the current changes in climate is not a concensus in the scientific community at all.
I think some of the others on this site have challenged the assertion well.

Given this is not a scientific website, let me explain my position on your CO2 level assertions.

In medicine today, the FDA approves drugs based on studies where a healthy animal is exposed to overdoses of one particular substance.
Today, researchers are waking up to the fact that even though one drug or pesticide or herbicide might be safe on its own at one particular level, combinations of these substances have detrimental affects, even though levels are below the "safe" level.

I.E. we are finding out something like tylenol, taken with some prescription medicine has damaging effects on the body.
IT is IMPOSSIBLE to study all the permutations and combinations of drugs, and other chemicals we are exposed to.

I think this is a very good analogy for predicting climate. The number of factors is large, and their interactions are so complex it is very difficult to model it mathematically.

As for your comment that my short statement about energy balance and atmospheric circulation is a "tactic".....

look, all climate models are basically an energy balance equation. The energy inputs to the earth are easy:
1) the sun
2) minor addtion from the core of the earth.

Outerspace is an infinite heat sink.

The internal energy of the earth is something we can work out based on the heat loss of the earth.

Well we all know that means radiation, conduction and convection.

Well, radiation and conduction models are somewhat
realistic, but the convection models, - mainly the atmospheric circulation and oceanic circulation are way beyond our ability to model successfully.
IN my opinion.

I realize I have simplified this somewhat, but the truth is the climate is changing and we have no idea what is really going on.

Getting back to my three questions:
1) what if anything is in danger
2) technically what can we do
3) socially what SHOULD we do.

Again, scientist today can describe in great detail the changes that are happening. yet the what we reall need to know is what, if any wide ranging ecosystems are in real danger.

Its up to the general public to deceide whether we need those eco systems or not.

Its up to engineers to figure out possible ways to live in better harmony with the earth cycles.

frankly #3 is a very interesting question. Some people on this site, think we should act even though we really don't know what is going on. I have no problem with that position.

My personal opinion is that the earth never will and never has been in equilibrium. that catastrophic changes have been the norm.
In case you have not noticed, we are a tiny little ball spinning around in an infinite sea of cold.
And our only source of heat is not a smooth, constant totally stable object.

If you think hanging your clothes up on a line is going to save the polar bear, then go ahead and do it.

Anyone got a link to a graph of the Arctic ice volume similar to the Antarctic above?

I forgot who said it but they were saying just because climate is periodic up till now doesn't mean it will continue since all things are not the same now. Well. . .

The area covered by lava from the Siberian Traps eruptions is about twice as large as was originally thought, and most of the additional area was shallow sea at the time. It is very likely that the seabed contained methane hydrate deposits and that the lava caused the deposits to dissociate, releasing vast quantities of methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

Things are indeed different now. No?

I thought so. No response to be seen as usual. Don't say I didn't try. Now good-bye.

Namaste / AnnRKey [August 14th, 2008 4:44 pm]

Glad to see you are only playing at being an AGW skeptic. Had me going for a while there!

PS. The repeated links to Wikipedia were a nice touch.

Is that all the land rapers of the world can think of? Were to drill for more oil? Blood-tainted profits!

Oh yeah, no relation that I know of.

KEM PATRICK August 15th, 2008 1:56 am

No time for a proper response. I will say that the method for doing this ¿ is the same method for doing this Æ.

Kem: Will I be getting a response to my points, or not?

But sorry you brought the distasteful subject up again ~REBELNOW~, we had gotten back onto the issues of the article.

Who would have guessed that ~NamastePresenceVerocityKEMomirror~ said a few days ago, that he had finally (come out of the closet) on the global warmig issue and then supported ~MIMICCS~ ~Mesanthorpe~ ~Lizard~ and ~Sigudur11~? And then fully supported ~MIMICCS~ when he said that I was miserable bag of shit or some such insult. If it's war, it was his decision. And I always supported George Patton.

Wow you guys are still going at it? I think the earth's temperature just rose a bit more from all the heat generated on this thread. Who would have guessed that Kem and Namaste would end up duking it out? Is this how wars get started?

~ANN ARE KEY~ By your wording, I believe that you ask how much methane will be released into our atmophere and how soon and then you ask, isn't methane being released as we speak?

Indeed it is, it always is. I do beleve you are missing the big picture, as is Doctor ~Lizard~. MASSIVE methane releases is the "ticking time bomb". ___ Now I have posted this link over a hundred times and only two of those who doubt it is a serious problrm, or deny humanity is the cause of the current global warming probem, have ever commented on the article, either pro or con. ONLY TWO!

The two who did respond, curtly brushed it off and stated the author used words such as (perhaps, if, maybe, possibly), and therefore he had proved nothing and was just an alarmist. Of course scientists use those words, most papers written by scientists are hedged with the "If" word, or perhaps, or maybe, and possibly.

Einstein wrote in that manner, they are not always 100% certain of anything and if they say smething is 100% certain, they are looking for a lot of flak. They do not wish to overstate. That does not mean that the gist of their findings are not important, or are incorrect.

So once again, I will post the article written by ~John Atcheson~ and I want to see who is the first to tell us, that what this highly regarded geologist wrote is incorrect and why he is incorrect. For is he's correct, then ~Lizard~ you are dead wrong, as are you ~Ann R Key~ and many others of those whom I term G/W deniers.

I very often hear that what I post on the subject is wrong, but I'm quoting ~John Atcheson~ and ~Dr. Michael J. Benton~. Also the National Association of Geologists supports Benton's findings and opinions. So please do tell us what you find to be in-accurate with this article. In addition, neither of you or ~Tech 2~ has respnded to the Far North Science link I posted, or what that scientist says about the dangers of the Arctic's methane releasing. It's very serious unless you can tell us why it is not. To do that, you have to show us where the ones I have offered as experts are wrong.

Finally, let us play a game for a minute. You have a one cubic foot of ice and you have insured that there is one ounce of methane gas frozen in that block of ice. The methane will stay frozen there for millions of years, as long as the ice is not allowed to thaw and melt.

That is the situation in the Arctic, 400 gigatons of methane gas which has been safely locked up in the ice for hundreds of thousands of years. Not methane in the southern areas of the Arctic, the northern ares of the Arctic.

The entire Arctic is thawing at an alarming rate and that is undeniable and when it thaws suffeciently, the methane will release into the eatmosphere and I do not understand for the life of me, how or why, any sensible or resonable person will deny that. But, let's hear the denials. Please do not be afraid to deny it __ buttttt, be specific and give damn good scientific reasons. I doubt any will respond. ___ We'll see.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

The "infamous" link again. BTW, I notice you posted an upside down ___?___ on another thread Ann R Key, How do you do that? That's a ~NAMASTE, VEROCITY, PRESENCE, KEM O MIRROR~ trick. ___ Hmmmm, Any relation there Annie???

Arry August 15th, 2008 12:13 am

Ü I think most miss that. Although its tempting, I have avoided hints. I gave someone a hint one time and they got it straightaway and reacted similarly. This person stated they were "too visual". Anyhow. . .

Local is good. I would hope that anyone that claims my nickname as a philosophy would agree. NGO's are great because they are voluntary. I personally would like to see 67 percent of the voting population stay home this time. Call me a dreamer, but 40 percent stayed home last time. And Bush claimed he had a mandate. P-LEASE!

Arry August 14th, 2008 11:02 pm

You can expose without throwing in "denier".

And most certainly, I am not one to point fingers. I am at a loss as to how to convince people they are wrong about their particular brand of dogma. While I try to avoid calling someone to their face a delusional, I still state in general - they are. Its more than what I believe, its what I "know". So, "I feel your pain".

In my defense, dogma is outside the realm of science. The water is nowhere near as muddy. "Deniers" do have observable data to point to,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

dogma is cut out of whole cloth.

Ø

lizard -- Yes, short term predictions are notoriously difficult. (I'll agree that the decision to go to bed is rather easy, but it is easier to predict, for example, that the swallows will return to Capistrano than to predict the precise time of the migration or each of the myriad of factors that result in the migration.)

"When your predictions are wrong, it ALWAYS means your theory is wrong and needs to be changed". Of course that is true, but oversimplified. When you are dealing with climate, adjustments are continually necessary. But there are fields of right and wrong and in complex models it is a matter of moving the model as far as possible into the field that will match reality. I'm sure you know that it isn't as simple as you state.

In regard to correlations of CO2 and ice, you'll soon see a much more rigorous study, I believe. Nevertheless, it's kind of a circular thing to say the loss of ice is due to global warming but not to CO2. Then we would have to get into the effects of CO2 which is at the basis of human-induced global warming. We'd have to discuss that subject which would be useful but is at the heart of the climate change, and we're back to square one. But maybe it would be useful to get back to basics.

The thing about human arrogance...well, my opinion is a mirror image of yours. I think human arrogance keeps us on the road to environmental destruction through the silly thought that we are special and what we do to the earth can't..not really...lead to global environmental catastrophe. Well, it can. Raising the atmospheric CO2 level 25% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is major environmental "experimentation" and can lead to significant changes. The most elementary common sense (not arrogance) would say so.

Where I can agree with you is that, yes, water vapor is very significant, but it is tied to CO2 levels very closely.

I will also agree that human stupidity will probably seal our fates.

Ann R. Key -- Oh, I get your name. I didn't get it before. What a dummy! (I thought it sounded familiar...)

Yes, I agree that governments will screw it up. As far as I can tell there has been zero progress in governance since the the time Plato was contemplating the subject.

I am a firm believer in localization because nothing else is going to work. I work toward it all the time. It may be a lost cause, but I'll work for the necessary and right (and life affirming) thing lost cause or not. I have but one life...

Ann R. Key -- I will admit that using the word "denier" can be couterproductive.

However, you are missing my point about the nature of the argument. In the initial stage, it's not about who is right or who is wrong. If there is a false or underhanded argument it has to be exposed.

And, jclientelle, it is technically not an ad hominem attack when the basis for the accusation of denial is exposed and the process of denial is demonstrably true.

But, really, I think you will only see one use of the word "denier" in my postings and I used it to say something was "a tactic of a denier". That's a circumstatial statement that carries a slight weight in my own argument but is certainly not ad hominem attack. So, in general, I do agree it is important not to muddy the waters.

(BTW, I should make it clear that by "false and underhanded" I don't mean "bad" or "evil". Some of the nicest people in the world go through their lives in denial and don't have a clue that what they perceive as truths are based on false assumptions and erroneous reasoning. I should also state that I think it is imperative to "radicalize" people on this issue but do my best to separate the radicalization from the more basic arguments. It is sometimes difficult.)

Thanks Arry - I agree we should not soft pedal important information to get along on some mushy basis. Who was it that said "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you." So Kem is in good company. Sometimes strong voices are required and others will get hot under the collar, or pretend to be because that is their job.

To paraphrase, I think you are saying that if someone stubbornly and repeatedly refuses to seriously consider lots of clear evidence, then they can be dubbed a denier. If someone looks at evidence with sincerity and comes to different conclusions, then that is just disagreement or an investigation in progress. I don't believe in yetis or chupacabras, not because I am a "yeti denier", but because the evidence doesn't convince me.

In either case, those third parties like myself who are reading the arguments and trying to inform themselves will be more enlightened when the issue remains in the forefront rather than ad hominem arguments that create a lot of vitriolic noise.

Arry: The decline in ice has not been proven to be due to increased CO2. On the contrary, the evidence suggests otherwise.It is due to global warming and the behavior of air and water currents. Noone has produced more than correlations and even there the correlation is poor. Correlations do not allow you to prove anything, they just point you in a certain direction. Cholesterol does not cause disease, it is correlated with disease. Most people believe cholesterol is bad for you, yet there is no proof of this and ample evidence to the contrary. No, I don't work for the meat industry, I think we should all be vegetarians.

I have seen noone on these threads who deny that the world is getting warmer. They do deny that there is proof that the warming is due to human activity. Certainly we do contribute something, and maybe even a lot, but it is simple human arrogance to think it must be us, or that we can control weather and temperature.

Arry: short term predictions are not notoriously difficult. I can usually predict quite easily and on a daily basis, within minutes, that I will be going to bed.

When your predictions are wrong, it ALWAYS means your theory is wrong and needs to be changed. That is the whole essence of science, to be able to predict long or short term. Weather analysis isn't science yet, it is striving to be. The models are inadequate and you can't conduct experiments easily. The models have to be changed. You cannot excuse the inability to predict the way you just did. Not in science, anyway. The phrase is garbage in- garbage out.

KEM PATRICK August 14th, 2008 4:15 pm

Not so much when, but how much? Isn't methane being released as we speak?

Arry August 14th, 2008 9:22 pm

I'll go along jclintelle. Just throwing out "denier" is counterproductive. You really have no idea if they are disagreeing because the waters ARE muddy or because they are COINTELPRO. Denier more accurately should always include - man made - as in, man made global warning denier. Even then, its ambiguous. I don't think anyone (here at least) denies that we are contributing to greenhouse gases. I still think that our contribution may be negligible. I could be wrong. I don't think that makes me a "denier". Science is not decided by majority rule.

One thing that worries me is government involvement. Governments are really good at screwing things up. Agree?

There is a lot more KEM. None of this evidence makes me believe it is ok to burn oil. As a biologist, I appreciate the importance of having a source of polymerized carbon chains. It is biological systems that produce them. They are needed to produce synthetics and it is insane to burn them.

I strongly disagree with a laissez-faire philosophy toward pollution. I strongly advocate switching to alternate sources of energy including nuclear power if needed on a short term basis. We might even get together as a world to perhaps collect all that methane gas you keep telling us about (and thank-you, I learned it through you) and use it for energy, thereby breaking it down into CO2 and water which is great for plants!

We will do almost nothing until our lack of money forces us to. There is no reason to believe that humans will be reasonable. The sight of giant areas of ocean deprived of oxygen by fertilizer use is extremely sad. The idea that we destroy thousands of insect species and the knowledge that would have come from studying them also makes me very sad. We are fools, really. Not very smart at all.

Co2 accounts for a small fraction of the atmosphere. All greenhouse gases together excluding water vapor retains 1.6 kW per meter squared (Al Gore's data). Solar output reaching the atmosphere is 1400 kw per m. squared. This means that a fluctuation of one thousandth of solar output will increase heat by the same amount as all greenhouse gases excluding water vapor. We should therefore want to know if the sun has increased its output by .1 percent. But we can't measure solar output that accurately.

We know that Mars and Venus are warming up. Therefore, without numbers within at least ONE percent accuracy, never mind .1, pertaining to solar output, we ought to think it is the sun.

Furthermore, the increase of 1 degree cent. in the last 100 years was wothout 1.6 kw in gases, it was less. This cannot account for a 1 degree rise. Eartis 285 degrees Kelvin on an input of heat of about 1000 kw after discountin reflection by clouds etc. You need at least 4 kwatts to raise the temp one degree. You can't even do that at 1.6 today, never mind over the last century.

We should be talking about the sun and water vapor.

"One suggestion - let's put the word "denier" to bed. It just means "you don't agree with me". It is an irritating accusation against which there is no defense."

Wrong, jclintelle. Being a denier means using false arguments and methods of propaganda to cloud the issue. If I say someone may be a denier, he or she has a perfect right to defend their mode of argument. But the denial issue is a matter of the sincerity and (to use an ancient term) disinterestedness, not about "science" or anything else. There are logical methods to uncover falseness or insincerity.

To say it is just a matter of agreement or disagreement is to paper over the foundation of falsity or sincerity, something that has to be in the open for the argument to proceed or not to proceed.

But, understand, denial is not just something we can overlook because we want to get along. It pulls us down if we don't identify it. It's not benign in the least.

I pledge, however, that I will not use it lightly.

Thanks for being there, KEM. :)

I share your frustration in swimming through molasses to reach the shore.

One suggestion - let's put the word "denier" to bed. It just means "you don't agree with me". It is an irritating accusation against which there is no defense.

tech2 -- Thanks for the explanation.

I actually agree with you to the extent that the models are not the sine qua non of atmopheric science, although they can be useful as tools among other methods of research. Many climate scientists who recognize the overwhelming evidence of human involvement in climate change will also agree.

But, frankly, I question your disinterestedness in the issue. For example, it is really of little importance that the public has a short memory or that headlines sensationalize the issue. The use of the term "doom-sayers" and "mantra" indicates the direction you are coming from and the particular lexicon from which you choose your words of diversion.

That the predictions were wrong for 2008 is not particularly surprising as short-term predictions are notoriously difficult. It is the tactic of the denier, however, to take a relatively unimportant matter and make a mountain out of it. In the vast field of evidence - physical, chemical, observational and empirical, geologic, oceanographic, mathematical, historical - that now clearly shows that there is nothing magical about human produced CO2 and that it acts the same way in the atmosphere as CO2 has always acted and that it is producing profound changes, the failure to accurately predict a particular polar season is not hugely important.

What *is* important is, for example, that 90% of the decreasing sea ice (and it has decreased significantly, something you ignore for some reason) is accounted for by increased CO2 emissions. That's not a model, that's not doom-saying.

I'm not quite sure what to say about your "energy balance" vs. "atmospheric and oceanic circulation" factors. Again - sorry if I'm wrong - it looks like a tactic. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Every model I've seen is quite frank in its delineation of areas of uncertainty, areas which are continually being refined into increasing certainty. (Longer term predictions are more accurate, naturally.) Again, the question is why would you focus on what is uncertain and ignore everything else? This is a "tactic", sorry to say. (Also, I find it very strange to act as if "energy balance" and "circulation" are unrelated rather than intimately intertwined.)

In regard to you second post, all I can say is, "You've got to be kidding!" Do you seriously think it is a matter of conjecture that ecosystems are in danger? Just when I was thinking we might have attained a bit higher level in our postings.

I will attempt to be nice to you~LIZARD~. Let's give it a shot and maybe you and I can debate this. Or, any other denier available.

From 17,000 to 11,000 thousand years ago, the Co2 in the atmophere rose from 190ppm to 280ppm, a 90ppm rise and a natural greenhouse effect ensued. It took 60 centuries for that to occur, or 1.5ppm of Co2 to enter the atmosphere (per century).

We humans currently emit Co2 at the rate of 2ppm (per year), mostly from burning fossil fuels, primarily coal. That's 100 times as fast as nature did it during the last 'natural' Greenhouse feedback period.

Any comments about humanity causing, or not causing, the current Greenhouse effect? I don't expect any, but please do surprise us all.

And it would not surprise me one iota to someday discover that ~IKE KAY~ and ~NAMASTE~ are one and the same. He uses so many different names here along with different personalities, it's impossible to keep up with him.

And if you or any care to check it out ~IKE KAY~, before you post some more lies about me, go to the archives section here and type in my name. You can read the hundreds of articles about global warming or related subjects, and see that I indeed DO listen to many, even those who are as ignorant about the issue as I was not so long ago. That's where I got educated on the issue, discussing the subject in a friendly manner, with others, such as Miftin and PAULK, and so many others others who did know what they were and are talking about.

I won't listen, or even attempt to be nice to those who come here with a mission to deny and refuse to debate any links posted, but just state they are rubbish, or as the denier ~MIMICCS~ recently stated, they are "INFAMOUS" links. That is they type of irrational bullshiit I argue ~IKE KAY~, and I'm not pleasant about it and I don't care if you or any others don't like it. You should be annoyed with the obtuse deniers, unless you are one also.

I see that you support the ~Lizard~ ~IKE Kay~, not surprised. Any who support the G/W deniers are just as bad as they are. Global warming and methods initiated to change it are our most serious issues. I say that because I am aware of no other issue that we humans have control over, that could be the cause of almost all life on this planet being wiped out. Even a nuclear war won't do that.

Any who support the ~Lizard~ or any other G/W denier, let me give you a few facts. On one thread here about the G/W issue, ~Doctor Lizard~ posted (75) seperate blogs denying it was a fact and or that humainty burning fossil fuels was the cause of the Greenhouse effect. (75!)About twenty other well informed bloggers gave excellent advice and posted credible information that showed the Lizard didn't have a clue of what he was talking about.

Did the ~Lizard` listen or reply to any of them and debate them? ___NO! ___He just kept blogging the same "scientific" information he garnered from Lyndon LaRouche type sites and kept insulting me as you just have here.

He also stated he was a "practicing" MD and a scientist. However he didn't know the answer to some questions every certified MD has to know. He didn't know what "Temporal Aurtoris" was for example, or who Dr. Semmelweiss was and as for his "scientific" knowledge goes, as a prime example of that, he just posted it here. ___ LOL

I won't be so rude as to say the Lizard is lying about being an MD and a scientist, I will say I don't believe him. No practicing MD has the time to wipe their ass, much less spend days blogging stupidity here and arguing agaisnt the global warming issue and posting links which are sites that are funded by big oil.

~Namaste~ saw the light for five miniutes CoCo, and started right in again with his sermons to me, attempting to discredit me and support the deniers. He has not posted a word here about the global warming issue or the thawing Arctic, he only wrote lengthy blogs to discredit me if at all possible.

If he is successful, he has eleminated a denier's thorn in their side, for I will continue to do all I can to discredit them. The deniers only cause great harm, by creating confusion and controversy about the issue. They are no damn good and deserve not an once of respect, or any support whatsoever from any decent person.

KEM AND ANN

well i have to agree, some strange things going on and have been for some time....................

NAMASTE

glad you have seen the light...............

Yes we lived in Alaska for two years, in the 60s. The perma-frost was perma-frost year round then. I understand now that it is not the cae, it's mush and the matural below ground walk in freezers are thawing out and they stink.

That scienntist goes into caves that were inaccessable, frozen solid just two years ago, and she's finding the perma-frost is melting and once trapped methane is escaping into the atmosphere.

Any deniers here wish to comment and tell me that's false? ___ Oh no, of course not, the deniers will ignore that and bring up a Strawman argument and say the Arctic has melted previously.

Not in our lifetimes it hasn't.

POOR LIZARD,

My heart goes out to you and your feelings of betrayal by the UBEROBSTERMFUROR who controls ALL those lesser mortal like you, who have other thoughts and dare to challenge his need to change the world in his single handed crude and rude way.

Be patient, there may come a time when these responses my be set up as a single response system. If not there are many who will no longer tolerate this kind of rubbish, abuse, lack of manners and waste of time. After all, who here has anything of value to offer the opinionated Cd leader!

Hopeless, absolutely hopeless. I shall go back to ignoring him.

The scientist in that last link studies the Arctic's methane deposits ~TECH2~, that's all she does. What she currently is finding since that article was published, she terms "very alarming" and uses the words, "It's a ticking time bomb."

Now that's scientific words I fully understand, "ticking time bombs" are not funny and she does not wish to be classified as an alarmist. She's just telling the truth. I believe her, she not a politician with an agenda. ___ Pretty smart too.

I dunno ~ANN~, I was reading yours while mine was still in draft form and hadn't posted yet, but when it did post, it was above yours. Thought it was sorta strange.

Got a name for the green gizzies? I'm computer stupid along with being a fucking miserable jerk.

What is your opinion about a time frame before the methane burps? I won't waste any more time with ~KEMmirror~, not one single thing he's posted here was of ANY benefit for anyone on the issue.

Hi ~TECH 2~ My question was, are computer models necessary to observe the obvious?

I do believe ~MIFTINS'S~ (1:06am) post answered my question much better than what you just posted. What the scientific community has done is not really relevant to what is happenig to the Arctic ice and the world's glaciers and it's quite obvious for all to observe in my opinion. If this were happening in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, there would not have been any computer models. Speaking of the arctic, here's a very good link.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.0.html

Hope it's still available and another is:

http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26

KEM PATRICK August 14th, 2008 3:32 pm

I couldn't have, could I?

. . .little green gizzy were inching across their box??

KEM: "do we actually need computer simulations to observe with our own eyes what is happening?"

Have you ever visited or lived in the far North, or in Antarctica?

I have noticed some climatic changes in the North, but on the otherhand, there are climatic and other changes happening where I live too.

The question is not "Is the climate changing." No one is saying the climate is not changing.

The questions are more like this:

Q1: "Are there existing ecosystems/flora/fauna on this planet in any danger because the climate is changing?"

Q2: "If so CAN we do anything about it? (scientific/technical)

Q3: "If so what SHOULD we do about it?" (social/political)

My personal opinion is that all the scientific community has done is as follows:

1) gathered a whole lot of data and observations about how the climate is changing, and the nature of the change.

2) specific warnings about certain species like polar bears, penguins, etc...

Gathering vast amounts of data describing the change does not answer the question as to whether any ecosystems are in danger.

I have a question ~Ann R Key~ how did you mange to reply to my post, before I had submitted it. Your two replies posted, just as I hit submit and the little green gizzy were inching across their box? Strange.

"She has so far".

How long do you think she wil hold up?

That's correct ~ANN~. The weather on Mars or Pluto, is not related to our CURRENT global warming, a result of the Greenhouse effect, created from humanity burning fossil fuels.

K E M,

You do start shit fights like directly above when you insinuate ( falsely ):"Now let us all read once more what the incredible Denier ~Lizard`just posted concerning Global Warming. Has anyone with any common sense ever read such utter nonsense? ___"Other planets are warming", etc."

Check out a simple google of that phrase, and it comes back with 2.5 million hits,
so who the hell do you think you are to judge

ANYTHING as scientific,

if you don't ever bother to check your conclusions

before BEATING UP ON PEOPLE

This _M I R R O R_ shows a nastiness and intolerance that might prompt an apology, if in fact there was an interest in open and scientific discussion here ?

¿ Do we have REASON to H O P E ?

H M M M M M M M M M m m m m m m

"Mother Earth cannot handle that excess amount of carbon in the atmosphere in the brief time span of 200+ years."

She has so far.

What do common sense and climate science have in common?

Just to be sure, you aren't necessarily denying global warming on Mars are you Kem? Its just that you think its not related to Earth warming, right?

Humanity may not be able to control the weather ~Lizard~, but we damn sure have influenced it in a bad way. Our Co2 emmissions from burning coal and oil are equivelant to 17,000 active volcanos. Mother Earth cannot handle that excess amount of carbon in the atmosphere in the brief time span of 200+ years.

In addition, we are destroying our forests, which are vital to help sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Sunbeams are not the problem ~LIZARD~ it's the current Greenhouse effect, which is created by humanity and that is well proven, but often denied. Now, as an "un-swell" guy, to emphasize that denier opinion of mine. I'll add, ___ denied by those who may be ignorant of the scientific evidence, and fucking morons and idiots.

"The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

-- Bertrand Russell

Well Doctor ~LIZARD~ You can say whatever you please about me, but I have never started a shit fight here. I respond with words such as moron, etc, after I have been attacked, like ~Mesanthope~ did here on this thread, and not just me, but my wife also, who is one swell gal BTW, who never uses the "F" word as Mesanthope portrayed. I do use it, I'm not so swell.

Now let us all read once more what the incredible Denier ~Lizard`just posted concerning Global Warming. Has anyone with any common sense ever read such utter nonsense? ___"Other planets are warming", etc.___ And he says he's a scientist and an MD. Hope you aren't a brain surgeon Lizard. __ LOL

I see that you don't approve of rudeness or what you term as puffed up attitde and hubris. ~theMIRROR~. Evidently that depends upon whom is guilty of such behaviour in your humble opinion as the Common Dreams expert on such. Your ever present sidekicks like ~Mesanthorpe~ are beyond repoach I take it.

The HOPE is, that when you disagree with a link I post ~Mister Verocity, Presence, Namaste, KEMmirror~, that you would offer some reasonable argument as to why you disagree, instead of offering me lessons on math, science and humility and attempting to show that I'm a damn annoying fool.

Scientific opinions on the global warming issues I offer here, are not MY personal thought up or dreampt up opinions. I quote the ones who have spent their entire adult lives studying the issue. I do offer my personal opinons, __ that I believe from what they have discovered, that the results of global warming is the MOST serious issue for all life on this water-world planet, humans have named Earth.

You don't think that, and that is your perogative. ___ You also don't think humanity is responsible for our current global warming and that also is YOUR perogative. But when you state your opinions here, and say that the authors whom I choose to post here are wrong, you don't offer any decent substance to argue why they are wrong.

Instead, you support the other G/W deniers, who deny and post links written by some 19 year old political sciencce student, or the opinions of Lyndon LaRouche, Rush Limb-bow, and our trusty president Bush, and of course the CEOs of big oil. That's a fact, that's what you do.___BRAVO,___ take a bow.___ And finally don't think for a second that I MIRROR YOU.

I believe your mirror may be one like that Snow Whites's advisary used, for you fully support a G/W denier, who has chosen a name that is defined by Websters, as: (one who hates ALL of humanity), __~MESANTHORPE~.__ Take another another deep bow before your mirror ~NAMASTE~

I will note your back down from your bizarre comments here, but I will never, ever, forget, nor forgive, what you and YOUR personal selected kind, have so often written of me here with attempts to disrupt these types of serious issue threads.

Deforestation really sücks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

I welcome Kem's contribution. I like having him here. I don't see the need to get personal, however. Noone should be called a moron, an idiot, or unworthy of respect. Those who defend him should ask themselves why he is involved in so many fights. It isn't because he is controversial since he follows the conventional line. It is because he attacks the person instead of the argument and this is not acceptable. Why is he unable to be nice?

As for the topic, the problem is that the evidence for man-made global warming isn't strong at all while the evidence against it is rather good in my opinion. For example, the fact that other planets are warming up to has to be faced. The amount of heat generated by green house gases, according to the data Gore relies on, is much to small compared to total solar radiation to account for the warming. The CO2 to temperature lag must be addressed also.

I believe that warming is a natural phenomenon but I cannot disagree that pollution increases it. One has to accept that as logical. It is also clear that pollution is bad. I think so. I also believe that we should stop burning oil and go for other forms of energy.

We are not that important. We cannot control the weather. Our negative contribution is still very small. The sun is important and it is the sun that is the determinant factor. I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

Peace.

J C L I E N T E L L E, __ & __ C O C O

I agree my behavior has been Bizarre, and the joke at KEM's expense is now over.

I didn't consider ever 'terminating' anything other than is overly puffed-up attitude and hubris. Perhaps I could have chosen MIRROR'ator, instead.

I just reached my limit of his condescending accusations, personal attacks, illogic, passive aggressive (hate), and ( brain fogged ) fabrications.

Perhaps knocking his big swinging "attitude" down a few notches, may result in a more open, and considerate environment.

There's always room for Hope,
as it's a very slim item.

JCLIENTELLE

and that's what we all have to do - look at the evidence. you cannot deny/refute concrete/physical evidence. and it is evident that glaciers are melting/lakes drying up/seas becoming acidic/animals' habitat disappearing and the list goes on and on.

and your conclusion is spot on - that human activity is accelerating changes to an alarming degree.

the problem is getting everyone on the planet to change their habits in the short space of time i believe we have left to do something about it.

personally, i don't think it will come to fruition in time...........

(if you discover the reason for the nonsensical things, please do let me know. i'm intrigued.)

There may be some bit of legitimate controversy about what percentage of the ice melting is a result of normal fluctuations and what percent is from spewing of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. I myself look at the evidence and conclude that human activity is accelerating changes to an alarming degree and we have to change what we are doing.

Why have so many people come to this discussion with misinformation, obscurantism and to pick on Kem Patrick? One person even configured his identity for the express purpose of Terminating KP. Bizarre.

I have discovered that there are always reasons for things that seem to make no sense. We just have to discover the reasons and it will become clear.

~TECH 2~ do we actually need computer simulations to observe with our own eyes what is happening?

Arry's and Miften's comments here are very appropriate, so is Paulk's and the author of this article. So are the authors of the links I post so frequently. Global warming is a fact and it's clearly obvious. The only real argument I see is how much time do we have left to correct it, ___ if any.

CoCo's comments are very appropriate also, but I hesitated to say so, because I don't wish for anyone to ever get the notion we are a team. We are not. I admire her though, for the high degree of common sense, intellect and the obvious sense of humor and honesty which she displays. CoCo is a fine person.

I may be crazy "kimTerminator", but I'm not stupid. I know who you are and why you post comments here, usually disruptive ones and you do use several different names.

Arry:

Regarding your "frog in the water" hypothesis, in my opinion, the situation is as follows:

1) The winter/spring/early summer of 2008 in the Arctic has been a "typical" year, except that the winter was very cold, resulting in situations like inland, lakes still frozen in late June.
If you go to a site called nsidc.org you will see a graph that shows a fairly normal curve for sea ice this year, up until this recent August storm.

2) after the unusually warm 2006-7, non-scientists were predicting disaster for 2008. However, the 2008 winter was very cold, and the year fairly typical. Predictions WRONG.
Of course no one remembers last years headlines of disaster for 2008, but I guess the most people have a short memory.

3)So what is in store for us in 2009, 2010? Do any of you really know? 2008 was nothing like the non-scientist doom sayers were predicting.

"what was I trying to prove?" Well that touches on the next logical question which is long term trending.

1) according to many scientists, the long term trend is more unusually warm years, and more melting.

2) these "long term" predictions, in my opinion, are based on simulations that are overly dependent on energy balance equations, and very weak in the area of atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Its well known our understanding of the atmosphere is very limited, and the computer models are inadequate, and they use the best models that are available.

NOTE: The dramatic breakup of the sea ice over the last week was because of strong winds, and the fact that the ice was very thin because of the severe melting in previous years. In my opinion, this is just another small observation that shows how atmospheric and ocean circulation are dominate factors in all aspects of our climate, even sea ice.

3) without realistic atmospheric and oceanic circulation models, computer simulation predictions are inadequate.

4) we need to be concerned, and monitor what is happening, but in my opinion, the reality is that we have no power to predict the future with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

5) I think scientists have done the right thing in "raising the warning flag", so to speak.

6) however certain political groups have found this situation is easily manipulated into a fear producing weapon.
And it has become a mantra for their own political agendas and world view.

7) it is this unreasonable and unfounded fear they foster that I am against.

In general, I am a typical old timer, in that I think computer simulation throughout science and engineering is being taken beyond the limits of its MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS. Its like a new toy and there is a lot of garbage in - garbage out going on.

Just my opinion.

KEMINATOR (and others)

i'm a very peace loving person and i hate fighting/arguments/wars etc. but i now have to come to the defence of KEM PATRICK. a few of you (and you all know who you are) have been picking on KEM for quite some time. i just don't see your reason for doing so.

if he posts a link every single time he offers a comment here, SO WHAT? does it represent the end of the world? does it mean your life is in turmoil? it's so petty of you to even mention this. as KEM says in his own defence, maybe there are new bloggers who haven't seen the link.

one would think he was committing some heinous crime they way you go on about it. and no wonder he responds to your taunts.

i have only ever come to the defence of one other person here and that was jcrumb. and again it was such pettiness displayed by other bloggers that made me do it.

so i suggest you all take a step back and breathe deeply. think about the more important things in life other than repeated links or writing in caps.

coco

Yes I agree, about humanities greatest threat -- I'm totally insane, butbecause I'm really you ( and all of those other voices in your head ) that must mean that

_ K E M _ is crazy too !

HA HA ha ha hhhhhaaaaaaa

The comments ~MIFTIN and ARRY~ just posted are what is important ~KEMinator~. Those are very important facts, not denying ignorance and purposefully attempting to disrupt this thread with personalattacks on those who believe the Global Warming issue is humanities most serious threat.

Excellent point ~ARRY~

I see that the global warming denier, ~Presense-Verocity~ Namaste~, etc, is still at it and now with the new name ~KEMinator~ which is evidenlty a "frightening" spin on the word ~Termminator` and he's going to 'terminate' ~Kem Patrick~ from Common Dreams and disrupt these important G/W threads while attempting to accomplish that task, starting off by stating that I'm a "compulsive liar".

It is a shame such people are here, I cannot stop them, only attempt to defuse their sometimes (reasonable sounding) arguments.

When one is insane, they usually deny it, because they are aware they have a serious mentalproblem and they fear it. I won't say that I blame them for that fear, but I'd hope ___ (Namaste, Verocity, Presence, Keminator)___ does seek professional help before he goes over the edge. I'm not trying to be rude by saying that, I'm quite serious and this is the only site available to me where I can contact him.

The Himalaya glaciers are disappearing. 300 million rural Chinese depend directly upon the annual, summer melt-off from these glaciers for drinking water, to irrigate their crops--they depend upon this glacier melt-off for their very lives. Virtually all the irrigation water across China comes from the Himalaya glaciers. They feed all the rivers, streams, etc. When these glaciers are gone, there will be a catastrophic net world food shortage.

Well, I see some posters here admit they don't care. That's honest, I guess.

tech2 -- I'm fairly well-educated in earth science, but I can't figure out your point. I don't see what it is that "just goes to prove." Could you be a little more specific? What are you proving?

Your statement that the sea ice condition was "normal" is in error. It is as if the frog in the boiling water says, "Everything is normal." It is not, actually.

K E M,

NO __ YOU LISTEN and READ _ S L O W L Y

There's an issue of causality here, where things that happen EARLIER in time are understood as setting the context for later events -- most people in the real world rely upon time to sort issues out.

Do you ?

You appear to be incapable of understanding that the LIE you told on August 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm, does not get ERASED when you say something true ( later in time ), like at August 12th, 2008 5:04 pm

You flagrantly illogical attempt at explanation, directly above, errantly skips right over the INSTIGATING CAUSALITY of your original LIE, which I provided a direct cut/past of August 12th, 2008 8:02 pmGet this clear,1. you started a LIE, on the 11th, at 4:24 pm
2. I refuted that LIE, by proving that I had responded EXACTLY opposite of your assertion in 1.11th, at 5:55 pm
3. The next day, you acknowledge I had responded, but only to the "last names" EXCEPT _ …

You act ( and write wrongly ) as though the re-writing of history, actually changes events in the past12th, at 5:04 pm
4. I restate the evidence of you duplicity ( again providing reference to the initial provocation )12th, at 6:01 pm
5. You miss the boat, again ignoring my justification in item 1., jumping over the actual causation, and act as though everything started with item 3.12th, at 6:49 pm
6. I restate the evidence of you duplicity ( this time pasting the initial provocation ) 12th, at 8:02 pm
7. You again ignore reality ( with various added insults ) 13th, at 6:52 pm &
13th, at 8:50 pm
8. This message itself

__ I F __

You had made a mistake ( item 1. ), it was not erased by later re-stating something accurate ( in item 3. ) -- AFTER THE FACT.

__ I F __

You had apologized ( at item 3 ), and accepted the reality of your hurtful words, this would have ended at item 3.

__ I F __

You had bothered to READ, what I wrote ( item 1. ) -- the repetition of items 4. & 6. wouldn't be NEEDED.

Most people can acknowledge making a mistake, but your approach is just to IGNORE the FACTS, restate a prettier version of REALITY where you state equivocally what happened ( which is in fact another LIE ), AS IF the slate and record was wiped clean.

__ T H E N __

You mount your high horse, and accuse me of being "obtuse … almost unbelievable", and chastise me with patronizing tone of "Listen and slowly read carefully" -- where you again refer to you later prettified version of reality as if there is nothing before that.

__ T H E N __

You go further re-writting history, ignoring the 2nd reference -- that I criticized ( before item 1., at 4:12 pm )Your 2nd reference states that: "1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide", but fails to clarify if that were U238 or U235, stating fallaciously ( item 7. )"… (EXCEPT) to say in one, …".

For your version of REALITY, you VOID & ERASE the clarification that I really HAD responded ( to two refs ), but BECAUSE you felt that it was an unwarranted or trivial response, that that was EXACTLY the same as having NEVER RESPONDED AT ALL.

Well that's TOTAL self-aggrandizing _ B U L L S H I T _,

And of course your re-writing of history ( to make it appear that you had never outright LIED, by adding more lies ), is a pathetic attempt to place the onus upon my inability to comprehend, and logically respond. You're BUSTED !

You really do live by that saying thatREALITY is only one of the many possible ILLUSIONS

It's a TRUE shame that the REAL text and time, is blatantly ALL above here, to SHOW exactly what DID OCCUR, and it hardly approaches your twisted self-satisfying version.

Why should anyone believe a compulsive LIAR like you ?

And of course I'm all of your worse nightmares all rolled up together, which means sometimes I even pretend to be you.

Got any backup data for that survey ~KEMinator~? Who is also known as Presence, Verosity, Namaste, Lizard, MIMICCS, Mesanthorpe, and are you ~Sigurdur11~ also?

You are one who causes the confusion about the global warming issue and you should be ashamed, but you're obviously not.

Nope wrong answerMost people surveyed believe

that the most confusion begins

just between your ears

I do not see where any confusion is, The Arctic ice is melting, it's obvious. Anyone here saying the author of this article is wrong? ___ Well yes some G/W deniers here are, they only offer their personal opinons however. The Arctic is not thawing? Just one example: 2007 was the first time in recorded history that the Northwest Passage was open to shippping without the use of ice breakers.

Why argue with the scientists who have been studying the Arcitc all of their adult lives and state that we have a very serious problem? The one who says this current Arctic ice loss is just from a storm is wrong. The Greenland glaciers are rapidly melting and not because of a storm. There is nothing to argue about, unless one is a G/W denier. That's where the confusion begins and that is why they are so harmful.

~LIZARD~ Apparently the obnoxious things that your friend ~Mesanthorpe~ posted here and on other like threads don't bother you. I've been putting up with such crap for more than a year now arguing with you deniers. Take a pill.

And stop attempting to discuss anything with scientific wording. You are not qualified.

I'm pretty much confused by all this. So many conflicting theories and predictions, it can be mind boggling. One thing though, in a vast spectrum of temperatures within the universe it's pretty much miraculous that we inhabit a liquid water planet. I love science and study often and I'm continually in awe of the beauty and mystery of this experience we call life on earth.

The sea ice situation in the Arctic was pretty well "normal" up until a week ago.

Of course due to the last few very warm years, there is a lot of first year ice, but this year, things were pretty normal, except until a week ago, storms and high winds accelerated the breakup.
There are two points in this.

1) the arctic sea ice levels are very sensitive, and to make headline news out of a wind storm, is a bit sensationalist.

2) it just goes to prove one of the major points I have tried to make on this site, in that a "mean temperature" is not nearly as important as the atmospheric and oceanic circulation.

The earth never has been and never will be in long term equilibruim. Lost of heat via convection is the most important factor in the earth's energy balance. Far more than mean temp which has more to do with radiant/conduction losses.
This is because its pretty easy to calculate radiant/conduction losses, but the heatloss from convection is something scientists cannot computer model (in my opinion).

No one knows what is going to happen up to September. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Brian Brademeyer August 13th, 2008 10:33 am

My point is shitis repeatus.

I am going back to I don't give a fücketh.

Bring it on Mom! Flush it all down!

Namaste,

Try looking here for more info on "CO2 lags temp" RealClimate CO2 lags temp

Take care of yourself. I always enjoy your posts, even if I sometimes have difficulty following all of your imagery and poetry.

Kem: If you are getting tired of arguing why don't you let someone else do it. You pick fights with so many people it must be tiring. You always say they started it. You are lying to yourself. You love to vent your spleen. You are mean and insulting and it seems to be your basic personality. Try to be nice, please.

I've tried to present an argument and have received nothing worthwhile in response. I tried to go over the numbers from Gore's data with you and you basically spit at me. That was a while back, I don't try anymore. Those who believe in man-made global warming have closed their minds and I find they have nothing to say except to repeat what is now conventional wisdom about this issue. Lamentable really, but not my problem.

I once thought it would be possible to have rational discussions on this site but I have been very disappointed. A lot of people here don't seem to understand how science works. Scientists argue ferociously but they don't attack each other. Only the evidence matters, not who gives it or their character, or their age, or their personality. That is the way it should be but here it isn't. Read your posts. You love to call people morons, scum, shills, unworthy of respect, etc. Very aggressive, very American, very uncivilized. Pity.

Your problem ~Verosity-Presence~ etc, and now ~KEMinator~, is that you obvously have a not very common mental disorder, a curable disease BTW.

You display all of the symptoms of "Dissaciative Identy Disorder" or (DID), when at least two personalities routinely take control of the individual's behavior with an associated memory loss that goes beyond normal. You have far more than two, a couple are decent, but lately they are joining the obnoxiious ones. Suicide is sometimees the patient's manner of cure, so be careful.

Relax and think it over, help is available if YOU seek it. There are medications, group therapy, hypnosis, and psychoanalysis by qualified experts. I would not recommend that you use ~Dr. Lizard~ and attempt to heal thyself, but that's your call. Good luck.

I won't open that link ~Verocity~, Presence, ~Namaste~, Misanthorpe, and now ~KEMinator~, etc.

The fact that one using the name ~Misanthorpe~ publicaly classified ~COCO~ as a (French whore) here, for no reason at all, is ample evidence of his sick mind, or likely yours to be more accurate.

You need to seek professinal help, your continual support of the Bush regieme is not helping you either.

K E M,

·

NO __ YOU LISTEN and READ _ S L O W L Y

·

OMG, I didn't bother reading his last couple of sentences. You are as decent and intelligent as they come. ___ The man is very sick, and how astute of you to check the word (misanthorpe) in the dictionary. Attaboy, gal.

The deniers do this often, three or four show up and start some crap, nothing to do with the article and pretty soon decent folks get disgusted with it and sometimes with me for answering them. Someone has to attempt to put them in their place and show them for what they actually are, very clever neo-con trolls. I'm getting very tired of arguing with them.

KEM it's august 12 at 10.44 pm near the end...........

yes KEM, the hater of humankind added a bit to his 'tale' that perhaps you missed on this thread. check it out.

the definition btw is from the dictionary

and yes, our sky was filled with cotton wool. the first in over 3 months. i was quite upset..........but i did see an owl.

A different nationality COCO? Your definition was quite accurate BTW.

Did you see the meterior showers? We were cloud covered here.

The "essence" is in the arrticle the author wrote ~JCLIENTELLE~.

Much nasty infighting here. It's too tiring to wade through the ego to get to the essence.

[Ann R. Key August 13th, 2008 9:07 am]: "Cycles are periodic. . ."

And your point is ???? Periodic does not mean deterministic, or identical, endless repeatings. Ceterus is never parabus over the 120,000 years of the Milankovitch cycle.

For example, continents have moved (plate tectonics), the earth is rotating more slowly (recession of the moon), unpredictable geologic events have intervened (volcanos, earthquakes), etc.

The point is, whenever the CO2 ocean greenhouse feedback is initiated (which occurs at roughly the same point in the Milankovitch cycle), the glaciation will end rather abruptly (geologically speaking) as the greenhouse process drives the earth's temperature from a minimum to a maximum.

Both Old Faithful geyser and a Las Vegas hotel fountain are "periodic", but the former is certainly less deterministic than the latter.

So does this mean that nobody has any research money for me?

well, i appear to have taken on another nationality............mon dieu

Well ~COCO~ I'd better "fuck off" as Misanthorpe suggests. BTW, my wife Evie hates that word and never uses it, as Mr. Misanthope has posted she does here t 5:37am. Now he's attackng my wife too, ___ incredible.

DEFINITION:

MISANTHROPE - NOUN

A HATER OF HUMANKIND