Here is another paper, which might be better.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.24.1.191

Ben

Okay, admittedly, much of my post was not productive. Too much snarc, nothing useful. I appreciate your response.

A word about oil money. My undergrad geology department would not be around if it was not for oil companies, and never have I laid a claim that “skeptics” are in it for money from the oil companies.

As for a paper on heat flow, here you go….

Stein CA, Stein S. 1994. Constraints on hydrothermal heat flux through the oceanic lithosphere from global heat flow. J. Geophys. Res. 99:3081–95

Smokey (17:43:37):

Smokey, even if I were an expert that’s a hell of a task wouldn’t you say? And look at the responses i’ve had all along? Its futility! I will trust you’ve looked at the data, you’ve digested it, and you’ve made your conclusions. You can trust i’ve done the same. So we disagree, you at least have managed to be mostly respectful during our conversation. Less could be said of others….

timetochooseagain (17:52:05) :

Rocks for jocks reject, eh? Are you a [snip] in real life, or does it just come out from the anonymity of the internet?

Ben

But you seem to make a good point. SEEM TO. Namely that one can’t dismiss conclusions of scientists by questioning their motives. EXCEPT that’s exactly what warmers do when it comes to every finding which reduces alarm. MOREOVER you continue to confuse the trivial with the serious. An inability to distinguish between substantive issues and unimportant matters gets you an F in Respectability. AND you neglect the NON agenda arguments AGAINST alarm in favor of continuing to use your argument-from-ridicule “HAHA CONSPIRACY NUTTERS” tactic-Hey, what do you know, Alinsky lives!-But I don’t think I’m going to waste anymore time on a rocks for jocks reject and I don’t think anyone else should either-not because your stupid (although you seem to want to encourage that image) but because you are so bloody thick there is no hope of getting you to understand-you don’t want to.

We’ve led you to water, but we can’t make you drink.

Excellent post @16:45:58. I was tempted to respond like you did, but I got carried away with my questions. Too bad Ben ducked them.

Ben’s answer: “But I will just hold my response because it will not be productive” is, of course, a complete cop out. That’s how alarmists generally deal with inconvenient questions from skeptics. Trying to actually answer the questions throws their Cognitive Dissonance into high gear. It’s much easier and more comfortable to just wave away any serious questions.

“My master’s is in geology, specifically looking at the chemistry of subduction zone volcanic rocks.”

Maybe you could help me out. I’ve been looking for a source of information on the contribution of sea floor volcanism to the oceanic heat budget and, since your specialty is related, I wonder If you could point me in the right direction?

I would suggest you might also want to extend that injunction to the comments and positions of those you want to respond to. The sorry seven list of positions you claim we all promote indicates to me that you are either intellectually incapable of understanding or have willfully chosen not to understand what is going on here.
In order:
1. Computer models are like video games, worthless.
My own experience here would indicate that there is great deal of respect here for the utility of computer models and even for their predictive power, but always with the caveat that relying on model predictions that have not been empirically verified is buying a ticket on the bullet train to disaster. The generalized disdain often expressed for the GCMs of the alarmist side relates almost exclusively to their miserable failure to meet that caveat. The video game allusion is interesting, because the impression I have derived from my own forays into RealClimate world is that many of the denizens there seem to believe they are actually living in a video game, where all that is required to change their circumstances is to go to the program and alter a few parameters
.2. Climate scientists (at least the ones who say AWG is real) just want grant money
I would first point out that that notion didn’t achieve wide currency here until a large mountain of adhom accusations of “oil industry shill” had accumulated in the contrary sphere. All scientists, even those rare few for which science is the purest if altruistic quests, unless they are blessed with inherited wealth, require funding, It’s hard to finance meaningful experimentation with altruism. I have seen a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that funding and publication decisions in climate science are subject to a bias against those who challenge the prevailing agenda. You may disagree. We’ll let that go.
3. Those nasty scientist “manipulate” there data or just make it up
Perhaps you can point me to a significant database, related to climate science, in which a majority of the data points are actual measurements. Some data points? Any? You may see nothing questionable in the apparent similarity in the shape of the GISS temp graph and shape of their overall adjustments graph, but I myself find it curious.
4. Political Conspiracy
Again this is an area where both sides have ventured almost equally. From my view I see a document that describes a strategy to achieve certain political goals (Google Cloward-Piven strategy). I see a group of people who embrace those goals acting almost exactly as the plan prescribes. I see in our current political environment the culmination, again almost exact, that the strategy sought. I find it hard to ascribe the situation to mere coincidence. You, of course, may again disagree, but I’d be interested to hear you counter arguments
.5. Its cold in January in the Northern Hemisphere.
Guilty, your honor!
6. Al Gore is a douche, so is that Hansen guy, therefore there is no such thing as climate change.
Incontrovertable up to the second comma, but an ending which I’d suggest would be more representative of the general view around here would be, therefore there is no need to be driven by panic to surrender large parts of your personal freedom and future financial prospects to appease these incredible hypocrites
.7. Holy Shit, Ben just said Climate change instead of global warming, which one is it? Now its climate change instead of global warming, so clearly those damn warmest are back peddling!! (when in reality, Climate change is regional, Global warming is…uh, Global!)
You should be willing to cut us all a bit of slack for our linguistic confusion, since the semantic legerdemain driving it originates almost exclusively from across the aisle. BTW, I wish you’d elaborate on your ending parenthetical, which strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf

Don’t trust them though, they just want some grant money.

Nice contribution to the discussion!

Smokey (13:15:08) :

Smokey, was really just one post, with a grammatical correction and an after thought. Honestly, I am feeling quite relaxed.

But I will just hold my response because it will not be productive. It’d be a big time investment for me to dig around, get my sources in order and provide the things you want, only to have it met with you saying “Click” to a decades worth of data or some rant about a computer model.

There are plenty of papers out there Smokey, and I’d imagine you’ve read your fair share of them. I will just keep believing my “fairy tales” and you can keep posting your decades worth of data.

Sorry to not entertain you!

Mike Borgelt (14:40:50) :

You seem like a swell chap (not?). My master’s is in geology, specifically looking at the chemistry of subduction zone volcanic rocks.

Is this a stupid post too?

Ben

“Define it as you will. I take it you are agreeing that there is almost no published science that contradicts the concensus position.”

Apparently you do not read much Published Science. I have read a number of papers where they do a very nice job of collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data in a way that disagrees with the CONSENSUS.

Then, in the Conclusion, there is the mandatory statement that this paper does NOT disagree with the Consensus and they need more money to help stave of AGW!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should also remember that there ARE straight forward papers that DO disagree with important areas of AGW. I am sure Lindzen, Spencer, and a number of others would be interested in your idea of a dearth of published science that disagrees with the Consensus. Steve McI at Climate Audit has published destroying the Hockey Stick for instance.

By the way, have you been counting the number of Scientists that have retired in the last couple of years and come out AGAINST the Consensus???

Apparently fear for job safety and financial security really DO keep mouths closed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The pretty obvious point being made about CO2 is that it is having all the effect it is ever going to have. Planet Earth’ climate is driven by water. The energy source is the Sun.
Pity for you there’s no evidence of the water vapor feedback you claim. In fact the evidence is to the contrary which you would know if you had spent any time here.
Then again there may be no significant warming (see the surface stations project of Anthony’s) which may be the reason for the lack of observed water vapor feedback. Or the tropics may really be the temperature regulator for Earth.

If you are going to make stupid posts, people here will answer as if you are stupid.
You are doing well at that so far.

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). It did strike me that it was just as well that they decided not to name themselves the National Institute of Sciences …

I understand that you are a True Believer in CO2=AGW. The conjecture is wrong, but lots of people still believe in it. Lots of folks believe in Scientology, too.

Scientific skeptics have very open minds; we’re just skeptical of claims made without any reproducible, falsifiable evidence to back them up. So if you want to convince me that CO2=AGW, then:

Show me solid evidence that rises in CO2 precede rises in temperature. There’s plenty of evidence of the reverse.

Show me solid evidence [nothing generated by computer models; only real world evidence, please] that CO2 causes measurable global warming. Where were the measurements done? And how were they done? By whom? And are the results publicly archived — or are we expected to trust them?

Show me solid evidence that CO2 is any less beneficial or necessary to life than H2O, or that CO2 in trace amounts is harmful in any way.

Show me that the sea level is gonna get Micronesia, Florida or anywhere else. Show me that the current rate of increase is substantially more than it was before the industrial revolution.

Show me that the planet’s glaciers are receding [I really hope you take the bait on this one]. Explain how the Wilkins ice shelf is breaking off, if it is receding instead of growing?

Show me that total global ice cover is declining [I wonder why the Goron contingent only picks the NH, eh? Explain that one.]

Show me that mysterious climate “tipping point,” and identify where it is. Show me. Otherwise, it’s rank speculation based on nothing but always-inaccurate models.

Show me that elusive “heat in the pipeline.” Where is it lurking?

Show me why GISS and NOAA “adjust” raw temps almost exclusively upward. Explain AGW climate catastrophe in a way that a skeptic can understand it — keeping in mind that current temperatures are no higher than they were thirty years ago. How does that work? Global warming causes global cooling?

Show me a single GCM that predicted this past winter’s unusually severe N.H. winter.

Show me that GW is bleaching corals — with solid evidence, not opinion. Show me that coral bleaching is not an entirely natural, cyclical occurrence. [Before taking the bait, see Jennifer Marohasy's debunking of AGW as the cause of coral bleaching.]

Show me solid evidence that anything blamed on CO2 by the AGW crowd is legitimate, according to the Scientific Method.

So far, every item above has either been debunked, or is still up in the air because we do not have enough information. Most of those alarming scenarios were easily discredited. That’s why we don’t hear about them any more, except on incredible sites like the agenda-based RealClimate. Ozone hole? Pf-f-f-ft. Coral bleaching? Pf-f-f-ft. Ocean acidification? Pf-f-f-ft.

In fact, all of the AGW hype is built on a house of cards. The central scam is that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, and it is all based on computer models that were programmed by the same people who stand to benefit if CO2 is labeled a pollutant. So I look with a skeptic’s eye at any system that can be gamed. And GCMs are easily gamed. As is the current climate peer-review system. What astonishes me is the ease with which some folks [who have convinced themselves that they are open minded and rational] accept what amounts to nothing more than personal opinion… as verifiable scientific fact! Karl Popper would blow a gasket.

I’ll listen to solid, reproducible evidence — but not to rent-seeking authors angling for a handout [like your pnas link], or to computer model conclusions, or to the agenda-based opinions of the IPCC political appointees. Make it empirical, falsifiable evidence, and I’ll sit up straight and pay attention.

I doubt I’ll have to respond, though, because all those things have failed to meet the criteria of the Scientific Method, every one of them. So you’ll get the last word in here. But you never know, you might be the next Einstein. Give me solid, real world, reproducible, falsifiable evidence, and you may even convince me to change my mind.

The rest of what you’ve posted is so clueless and laughable I won’t even bother.

You refuse to do mathematics. Therefore, you are doomed to talk nonsense.