# More bad poll news for the k00ks!!!



## skookerasbil (Apr 26, 2011)

Evidently.........despite having a HUGE propaganda advantge in the major media, most people think the global warming threat is pretty much BS. And think about it.........at least half of those who do are the hysterical types out there who buy anything the media says hook, line and stinker!!!



*Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat *
Monday, April 25, 2011 
By Terence P. Jeffrey 

(CNSNews.com) - Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.

Respondents were asked: How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family? They were given the options of anwering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.

Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a somewhat serious or very serious threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.

In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.

Of the 111 countries that Gallup polled, Greece ranked as No.1 for popular fear of global warming. In that southern European country 87 percent said global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

That was a far higher percentage than across the Mediterranean in Egypt, a desert nation, where only 18 percent said they believed global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Somaliland ranked dead lastwith only 10 percent of local residents saying global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Yemen ranked second to last with 13 percent.

China, the worlds largest greenhouse gas emitter, ranked 105th out of 111 among the countries polled by Gallup. Only 21 percent of Chinese said they believed global warming is a somewhat serious or very serious threat to themselves or their families.



Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat | CNSnews.com


But really........seems me and the *majority* of folks ( what does Rocks refer to them as??)......who by the way just finished freezing their asses off for 6 months after being buried in snow for 9 weeks just said when this question was posed..................










By the way............anybody else see RDeans latest solution to the gasoline prices???


----------



## konradv (Apr 26, 2011)

LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> ...But really........seems me and the majority of folks ( what does Rocks refer to them as??)......who by the way just finished freezing their asses off for 6 months after being buried in snow for 9 weeks just said when this question was posed..................


Yeah....you and a majority of uneducated, ignorant third worlders who've mostly never even heard of global warming.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Are you really silly and/or stupid enough to think that opinion polls determine scientific reality? LOL. This world wide poll reflects both the partial success of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign in fooling a portion of the population and the unfortunate  ignorance of the people in many of these third world countries. According to the Gallup poll I cite below, in the 111 countries they surveyed, 36% were "not aware of global warming" but broken down by country, most of those are in Africa and the undeveloped parts of Asia. From the article you cited regarding the Gallup poll: *"In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat to themselves and their families."* In France the percentage is 57% and in Greece, it is 87%. Countries where the percentage answering yes to that question were also very high included Ecuador and Venezuela, which have had to contend with deadly floods linked to global warming. Countries with the lowest percentage concerned about global warming included Haiti, Yemen, Somaliland and Liberia, where there is widespread illiteracy, poverty and political instability and people are probably more worried about bullets than warming.

I did a search for the new Gallup Poll and the only recent one on global warming I could find is this one. Bit of a different title than that newspaper headline, eh?

*Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans*
(excerpt)
*People nearly everywhere, including majorities in developed Asia and Latin America, are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities rather than natural causes. The U.S. is the exception...*


***


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 26, 2011)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!




S0n........not sure you're aware but you are one of these board members who should have to take a NAIVE test before stepping up from People.com Message Boards.

Chemistry and Physics and the laws attached to them are provable. Zero in the climate business is provable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ...But really........seems me and the majority of folks ( what does Rocks refer to them as??)......who by the way just finished freezing their asses off for 6 months after being buried in snow for 9 weeks just said when this question was posed..................
> ...




Actually..........I couldnt give a rats ass what other countries think. Whats important to me is that in this country, most of the people think the "man-made" myth is well............myth, which is indeed great for me because I dont have to worry about whack job climate legislation being passed which would cause me to have to pay double for my electricity. Thanks but as a homeowner, my bills are high enough.

Many on here can conveniently support all this climate shit because they dont own dick so its no skin off their nose. Many of the k00ks who support "causes" have minimal life responsibilities and virtually zero assets........ummm........its called setting the bar low.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 26, 2011)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!



Lets talk about the "laws" of chemistry and physics.  How about you start by describing the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can capture and retain energy.  Once we have that knocked out, perhaps we can discuss how you believe an object that is passively warmed can further warm its source of heat.

Hell, there are all sorts of topics regarding chemistry and physics that we can discuss.  Of course, if all you are capable of is cut and paste, I am afraid that you won't get far in the discussion.

So lets talk.  How about that CO2 heat trapping mechanism you believe so fervently in?  How does it work?


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> *Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans*
> (excerpt)
> *People nearly everywhere, including majorities in developed Asia and Latin America, are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities rather than natural causes. The U.S. is the exception...*
> 
> ...



With such a wealth of ammunition, it should be no problem for you to bring forward some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.  Lets see it.

Hell, if you can provide hard proof that increases in CO2 are driving the climate this guy will pay you $10,000.  There are several larger cash prizes out there for anyone who can prove that manmade CO2 is responsible for global climate change.  Why do you suppose none of your priests has stepped up to the plate to collect this money if the "science" is settled and the effect has been proven?

Step on up.  Prove your case.  Earn some money.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 27, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s]YouTube - Global Warming Panic explained[/ame]


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!
> ...



LOL!!!  Read up on chemistry and you'll know exactly how it happens.  Check out the part on the quantum states of the electron cloud.


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans*
> ...



Logic tells you it's true.  Waiting for the proof you or this guy wants, may be too late.  I'm certainly not going to take the word of someone who doesn't even know about electron quantum states and how energy is absorbed and released by changing those states.  I'm no fool.  You throw out a good rap, but you're either lying or are totally ignorant about the subject.  You ask for proof, but who's got time to review high school chemistry with you?  You should have that under your belt BEFORE coming here.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 27, 2011)

Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.

I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.


----------



## Rogue_Loner (Apr 27, 2011)

In the late 1960's the liberals sang a song. "Sha la la la la la, Let's live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow".  NOW, these very same liberals are worried about the future of the world. Were the "all knowing" libs wrong THEN, or are they wrong NOW?


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2011)

Rogue_Loner said:


> In the late 1960's the liberals sang a song. "Sha la la la la la, Let's live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow".  NOW, these very same liberals are worried about the future of the world. Were the "all knowing" libs wrong THEN, or are they wrong NOW?



Studied science and logic.  That's what happened.  Since we know CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is going up, how can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

I grew up.  What's your excuse?!?!


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
> 
> I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.



Glad I don't get fooled by your non sequiturs.  You examples from the past say nothing about this subject.  I think I'll stick with logic, rather than fall for your "reasonable" post that just had to use the word 'propaganda'.  Don't fool yourself, you don't actually have a clue as to who's getting roped into what.


----------



## Rogue_Loner (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Rogue_Loner said:
> 
> 
> > In the late 1960's the liberals sang a song. "Sha la la la la la, Let's live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow".  NOW, these very same liberals are worried about the future of the world. Were the "all knowing" libs wrong THEN, or are they wrong NOW?
> ...


 So the answer to the question is....The "all knowing" liberals were wrong THEN.  Thank you...LMAO!!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
> ...



On the contrary. If siding with anyone at all on the subject, I'm siding with the scientific fact that manmade warming is a real. Whether or not I believe the impact can be substantiated beyond natural occurring climate shift remains to be seen. 

In the end, living consciously and sustainably is what is best for everyone and everthing on Earth. Sure though, i have no clue.....


----------



## Rogue_Loner (Apr 27, 2011)

LOL...liberal hypocrisy has no bounds.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



hahaha, is that your new favourite phrase that you are going to put in every post now? 'electron quantum state'? why dont you give us a quick run down the important ones?

no cut&pastes, just a simple explanation in your own words. can you do it?


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> LOL!!!  Read up on chemistry and you'll know exactly how it happens.  Check out the part on the quantum states of the electron cloud.



Read it; years ago.  Now feel free to explain how you believe the quantum state of an electron cloud has anything to do with CO2 being able to capture and retain IR energy even though the emission spectrum proves conclusively that the precise amount of energy the molecule absorbed has been emitted.  

It is because I do understand the physics and chemistry that I am confident that you will have no answer to my questions.

So lets hear your explanation regarding electron clouds, quantum states, and how they might relate to energy being retained when emission spectra prove that energy is not being retained.


----------



## editec (Apr 27, 2011)

REALITY truly doesn't care what a poll of humans thinks.

We're not going to be able to VOTE AWAY global warming by proclaimation.

The amount of barbon 14 in the atmosphere is the smoking gun that proves that most of the change in the atmosphere is the result of us burning hydrocarbons.

Such evidence is not refuted by a poll.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Logic tells you it's true.



Wrong.  Logic tells you that it is untrue.  A CO2 molecule has no mechanism by which to absorb and retain IR energy.  That being a fact, logic tells me that CO2 can not be a climate driver whereas H2O can trap and retain energy and therefore can be a climate driver.

Logic can only tell you that your version is true if you have a flawed understanding of the basics which you have proven beyond doubt to be the case.




konradv said:


> Waiting for the proof you or this guy wants, may be too late.



So you admit that there is no hard proof to support the piss poor hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change?




konradv said:


> I'm certainly not going to take the word of someone who doesn't even know about electron quantum states and how energy is absorbed and released by changing those states.



I have asked for your explanation, feel free to step on up and prove that you know what you are talking about.  I was ready with explanations, IN MY OWN WORDS for all your questions, lets hear what you have.



konradv said:


> I'm no fool.



Of course you are.  You proved it when you tried to bluff me with electron clouds and quantum states and their relation to energy supposedly being retained by a molecule that has no mechanism by which to retain energy.




konradv said:


> You throw out a good rap, but you're either lying or are totally ignorant about the subject.



I throw out fact and am able to explain my statements.  You, on the other hand spend most of your time shuckin and jiving and aren't even able to find a credible cut and paste to support your claims.



konradv said:


> You ask for proof, but who's got time to review high school chemistry with you?  You should have that under your belt BEFORE coming here.



I certainly had time to review junior high chemistry with you when you had no idea how or why water vapor could trap and hold IR when other "ghg's" could not.  You tipped your hand right HERE when you acknowledged that you don't have the slightest grasp of the basics.  

Don't try to bluff me with electron clouds and quantum states when you have already acknowledged a complete ignorance of the energy balance equation of the phase change of water.  You have proved that you don't know jack and you will further prove it by your complete inability to form a coherent explanation as to how the quantum state of an electron cloud might somehow retain energy when the emission spectra (which is the precise opposite of the absorption spectra) of the molecule proves conclusively that no energy has been retained.


You have shown at an intellectual gunfight armed with a fingernail file.  Sorry guy, you loose and you will continue to loose so long as you hold a faith based position in the face of hard science that says you are wrong.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Studied science and logic.  That's what happened.



In all classes, someone graduates at the top and someone must occupy the bottom.  IF and that is a very large if, you studied science, you were at the bottom.  You proved that when you acknowledged HERE that you had no knowledge of the phase change of water and how it relates to water vapor's ability to trap and retain energy.



konradv said:


> Since we know CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is going up, how can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?



We know no such thing.  The fact is that the emission spectra of CO2 is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectra.  The fact is that since they are precisely opposite, that is proof that no energy is retained.  X amount is absorbed and the same X amount is emitted.  No energy retention at all.  

Once more, step on up and describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 to be able to absorb and retain energy.



konradv said:


> I grew up.  What's your excuse?!?!



You grew older.  Clearly, you have not grown up.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> On the contrary. If siding with anyone at all on the subject, I'm siding with the scientific fact that manmade warming is a real.



Can you provide the hard, observed evidence upon which you make the claim that AGW is a scientific fact?  Any hard observed evidence that constitutes  unequivocal proof that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate will do.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> no cut&pastes, just a simple explanation in your own words. can you do it?



Not a chance in hell.  He was completely unaware of the fact that water vapor can absorb and retain energy due to its various phases.  If he doesn't understand that most basic chemistry, he isn't going to have a clue as to the quantum states of electron clouds and how they may give a gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy the ablity to do it anyway regardless of the evidence that the absorption and emission spectra of the gas says.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

editec said:


> REALITY truly doesn't care what a poll of humans thinks.
> 
> We're not going to be able to VOTE AWAY global warming by proclaimation.
> 
> ...



Sorry guy, proof of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is not proof that manmade CO2 or any CO2 for that matter is the cause of climate change.  Confusing cause and effect with correlation is a most elementary error and, in effect, disqualifies the one who made the error from any technical discussion.

Now, if you have some hard observed proof that CO2 is a climate driver, by all means, step on up to the plate and present it.  I, for one would be damned interested in seeing it.


----------



## konradv (Apr 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > REALITY truly doesn't care what a poll of humans thinks.
> ...



CO2 absorbing energy isn't correlation, that's fact.  If it keeps absorbing energy, that would seem to indicate a rise in temps.  You can ask for all the proof you want, but if you don't get the logic, there really isn't much poimnt in discussing it with you.  You may fool others with claims of knowledge of the chemistry, but you're not fooling me.  What about Conservation of Energy?  If energy is trapped it has to go somewhere and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space.  Tell me.  Where does it go?  You constantly ask for proof.  How about answering a simple question?


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2011)

lets see if we cant sum up konradv's position for him.

1. CO2 is increasing
2. CO2 can absorb infrared photons of ~5 and ~15 units, which it then almost immediately re-emits as the same 5 or 15 unless rotational or collision effects change the wavelength. because these photons are emitted in a random direction half goes earthward (only the up/down component matters because the escape route sideways is so much longer). this scattering of the direction of the photons makes up greenhouse effect. at low altitudes the CO2/H2O absorption is 'saturated' and radiation of IR is mostly limited to photons that have been transformed into ~10 units. The vast majority of heat is taken aloft by latent heat (phase change from liquid to vapour) that rises because humid air is lighter than dry air. this latent heat is released as the air pressure becomes less at higher altitudes and by precipitation (phase change from vapour to liquid or solid).
3. because CO2 increases the retention of heat at the surface there is more evaporation, therefore more H2O greenhouse gas scattering of IR emitted at the surface boundary, even though the lower atmosphere is already almost completely saturated there is always a little more that can be scattered.
4. above the clouds any released latent heat in the same ~5 or ~15 units is slowed down from escaping by back scatter.

as anyone can see it is water that does the heavy lifting here. radiation only becomes a relevent method once the energy is released upwards from the top of the clouds. of course clouds have effects on albedo and other things as well. climate modelers admit that they do not understand the water system very well but they choose to consider it a positive feedback because they CAN understand what happens at the surface boundary. the main problem with climate science is that they place too much importance on the simple mechanics that they do understand a bit but just ignore the complex mechanisms that are beyond their ken. like looking at a handful of pocket change through a blurry lense, they can pick out the pennies by the colour but cant tell the difference between a nickel or a quarter. unfortunately the pennies dont really count much for the overall total.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 27, 2011)

Ohh I thought from the title that this was another Palin thread.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!
> ...



So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact? 

Halfwits like you can post all the spam in the world, and it will not change the reality of the warming, and the resultant climate change one whit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!  Kooks thinks the Laws of Chemistry and Physics are up for a vote!
> ...



Well, dumb fuck, you have been told many times. Here is the explanation by the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Realizing that it is an article written by real scientists, therefore you will not read it. But for others, this is a definative article, with many links, written by physicists. Not some idiotic political opinion peice written by some doped out fat radio jock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
> 
> I'm glad you didn't get roped into the propaganda of inevitable climate shift though.



Yes, seeing is believing. And I have seen nearly seven decades on this planet. I have seen major changes in what grows at what altitudes in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. I have seen the shrinking of the glaciers in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and ever ealier melts in the Blues.

Many people that I know whose career is in geological fields have witnessed first hand the melting of the Arctic Ice and Permafrost.

Seeing is not believing for all too many here who purposely close their eyes to the changes around them in order to maintain their alternative universe version of reality.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




do any of those societies actually give their reasoning? or do they just say that mankind's production of CO2 obviously has an impact on the climate (with no values given) and therefore we must acknowledge the possibility of negative (or positive) changes to future climate?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

Rogue_Loner said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Rogue_Loner said:
> ...



Really? Like the present rate of tornados? How about the melt of the ice caps, both north and south? 

Yes, you will ignore all evidence of the change and remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Well, if you need more information, here are some sites that are written by scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

Philosophical Transactions A - Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of four degrees and its implications


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > no cut&pastes, just a simple explanation in your own words. can you do it?
> ...



Oh boy, here we go again. Once again, dumb fuck, water vapor is the primary GHG. However, it's residence time in the atmosphere is less than 10 days. The residence time of CO2 is about two centuries. By heating the atmosphere, CO2 causes more water vapor to be evaporated into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the heat retained in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a feedback, same as the natural source of CO2, the oceans, are in the Milankovic Cycles. However, man production of CO2 from fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric load of CO2 by 40%, and that of CH4, by 150%. And we have added many industrial compounds that have thousands of times the ability to retain heat that CO2 does.

I started this with an insult, and will end it with and insult. You claim scientific knowledge, but I have yet to see any demonstrated. All you do is post silly yap-yap. With absolutely nothing to back that yap-yap. You are, and probably always will be, a dumb fuck.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> ohh i thought from the title that this was another palin thread.



lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Ian, you are being purposely obtuse. Something you are very good at. There has been hundreds of sites posted here where the scientists give the reasons for the increasing warming from GHGs. A few of them have already been posted in this thread. Many more can easily be posted, not that you or most here will even bother to read them. Willfull ignorance is your stock in trade and that will not change.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat | CNSnews.com



Looking over this silly thread again, I noticed that none of the deniers seem to have read the actual *Gallup poll* but instead are just going by an article _about_ the poll. They apparently just accepted the somewhat biased editorial selection provided by Conservative News Service(CNS) of  a small part of the information in the poll without bothering to actually look at the source. If you read it, the poll actually shows that, worldwide, the number of people who see global warming as a threat has gone up slightly and although some people in some countries don't see global warming to be as big a threat as they did a few years ago before economic hard times or other troublesome stuff arrived on their plate, in a lot of other countries, like most of South America, *more* people see it as a bigger threat, and, in the majority of countries, the majority of people still see global warming/climate changes as a threat to their families. Moreover it is the most educated nations, for the most part, where people perceive AGW to be the more threatening and the poorest, least developed, least educated nations where the threat is not high on their list. Puts the denier cultists in appropriate company. 

If you liked that Gallup poll though, perhaps you'd be interested in another poll they came out with two days after the one referred to in the OP.

*Gallup - Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 27, 2011)

So, what's up with that Himilayan glacier lie?

Why do these global warming weirdos constantly get caught lying about their data and such?

Why is Algore continuing to make millions off these gullible fools?

It truly does boggle the mind that these lefty idiots continue to buy into the bullshit....But then, they're lefty's so, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Rogue_Loner said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




LMAO........hysterics. Thats all these people can ever talk in. Shit........even the weather guy the other night was talking about the midwest storms being an "every 50 year event". These dolts make like outbreaks of tornado's are something brand spanking fuckking new!!!


http://www.wildwildweather.com/united_states_tornado_history.pdf


HISTORY OF MIDWEST TORNADO'S










Environmental k00ks never like you to know about climate history.............


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 27, 2011)

I love this place..........far more of a hoot even than the POLITICS forum. Here........its like they plant their face right on a big baseball tee for you, hand you the bat and say, *"BATTER UP!!!!"!!*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> So, what's up with that Himilayan glacier lie?
> 
> Why do these global warming weirdos constantly get caught lying about their data and such?



And another clueless dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign spews more lies and spin. 

It is one of your denier cult myths that climate scientists have been "_caught lying about their data_". 

Some minor mistakes were discovered and corrected. A very common occurrence in scientific research. 

*Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong*

*It's still not clear exactly how the error made it into the IPCC's assessment, though climate scientists point out that the document was thousands of pages long and that the Himalaya claim wasn't included in the summary of the report, which was boiled down for policymakers and received the most attention from reviewers. "Honest mistakes do happen," admits Benjamin Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "The bulk of the science is clear and compelling and rests on multiple lines of evidence," he says, not just one case.

Indeed, while Himalayan ice will almost certainly still be here in 2035, it is definitely melting  and that will have a serious impact on the billions of people in Asia who depend at least partially on Himalayan meltwater. Yao Tandong, head of China's Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, has done on-the-ground research on the Chinese side of the Himalayas  the world's biggest collection of ice outside the two poles  and reported last year that by the end of the century, as much as 70% of the mountain range's glaciers could disappear. And far from providing evidence against climate change, nearly all alpine glaciers worldwide that have been tracked have shown significant melting over the past several decades  often documented in photographs. "It's happening globally, in Europe, North America, China and the Himalayas," says Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University. "More than 90% of the world's glaciers are retreating. Glaciers have no political agenda." *


*United States Geological Survey - Glaciers Retreating in Asia*
8/25/2010

*Many of Asia's glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change. This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea level rise. 

Of particular interest are the Himalaya, where glacier behavior impacts the quality of life of tens of millions of people, said USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. Glaciers in the Himalaya are a major source of fresh water and supply meltwater to all of the rivers in northern India.

As glaciers become smaller, water runoff decreases, which is especially important during the dry season when other water sources are limited. Climate change also brings warmer temperatures and earlier water runoff from glaciers, and this combined with spring and summer rains can result in flood conditions. The overall glacier retreat and additional melt can increase the amount of water dammed in the vicinity of a glacier, and the added pressure enhances the likelihood of disastrous outburst flooding.

In Bhutan, 66 glaciers have decreased 8.1 percent over the last 30 years.  Rapid changes in the Himalaya is shown in India by the 12 percent retreat of Chhota Shigri Glacier during the last 13 years, as well as retreat of the Gangotri Glacier since 1780, with 12 percent shrinkage of the main stem in the last 16 years.*


***


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > So, what's up with that Himilayan glacier lie?
> ...





*BATTER UP!*

http://www.usgs.gov/features/glaciers.html

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph

Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx

Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study &#8250; News in Science (ABC Science)

SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World

And its out of the park!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Ya' beat me too it, dammit!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 27, 2011)

Now, what up with that E-mail shit?

The greeinies just hate it when ya' bring that lil' fiasco to light.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> CO2 absorbing energy isn't correlation, that's fact.



CO2 immediately emitting precisely the same amount of energy it absorbed is also fact.  No energy is trapped by CO2.




konradv said:


> What about Conservation of Energy?  If energy is trapped it has to go somewhere and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space.



Energy is not trapped by CO2.  It is absorbed and then immediately emitted.  Conservation of energy is just more evidence that the AGW hypothesis is BS.  Conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created  or destroyed.  In the hypothesis of AGW a certain amount of energy emitted by CO2 is radiated towards the surface of the earth and this "extra" energy supposedly further warms the earth.  There is no "extra" energy.  In order for there to be "extra" energy that warms the earth to a greater degree than the warming recieved from the sun, that energy must come from somewhere.  If it is "extra" energy, then it must be created.  Conservation of energy clearly states that energy can not be created.   

Where do you believe the "extra" energy comes from?



konradv said:


> Tell me.  Where does it go?  You constantly ask for proof.  How about answering a simple question?



No energy is "trapped" by CO2.  Energy is absorbed and the same amount of energy is then immediately emitted.  You are claiming that energy is absorbed and held.  If you believe that to be happening when the emission spectra clearly shows otherwise, then lets see the proof.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...




West bro...............laugh.........my..........balls...........off


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?



And yet, you and yours are completely unable to provide the claimed proof.  How silly does that make you feel?  If it is a proven fact then lets see the proof.

By the way, your claim of all scientific societies stating that AGW is real smacks of intellectual dishonesty.  The political heads of the societies state that AGW is real.  Survey the scientists who make up the scientific society and you get an entirely different story.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, dumb fuck, you have been told many times. Here is the explanation by the American Institute of Physics.



I hate to break it to you but your link isn't to any sort of proof.  Your link is to an explanation of a very poor hypothesis that is disintegrating as we speak.



konradv said:


> Realizing that it is an article written by real scientists, therefore you will not read it. But for others, this is a definative article, with many links, written by physicists. Not some idiotic political opinion peice written by some doped out fat radio jock.



Which part of that article do you believe is difinative and explain how you come to that conclusion.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh boy, here we go again. Once again, dumb fuck, water vapor is the primary GHG. However, it's residence time in the atmosphere is less than 10 days. The residence time of CO2 is about two centuries.



For a guy who doesn't have a clue, you sure like to call names.  Who told you that the residence time in the atmosphere is two centuries?  I already shot that claim down once, but will gladly do it again.  Here are 36 peer reviewed studies dating back as far as the 1950's that state pretty clearly that the residence time in the atmosphere is less than 20 years.  How many actual peer reviewed studies can you provide that state otherwise?








Old Rocks said:


> By heating the atmosphere, CO2 causes more water vapor to be evaporated into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the heat retained in the atmosphere.



CO2 does not heat the atmosphere.  It has no energy and therefore is not a heat source.  Any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted.  No net gain.  The idea that CO2 is an energy source is pure idiocy.



Old Rocks said:


> And we have added many industrial compounds that have thousands of times the ability to retain heat that CO2 does.



CO2 has zero ability to absorb and retain heat therefore a million times zero is zero.  No gas other than water vapor can absorb and retain energy.  If you believe otherwise, by all means provide some proof.



Old Rocks said:


> I started this with an insult, and will end it with and insult. You claim scientific knowledge, but I have yet to see any demonstrated. All you do is post silly yap-yap. With absolutely nothing to back that yap-yap. You are, and probably always will be, a dumb fuck.



More baseless bloviation.  Interesting how you fail to note that I support my arguments with peer reviewed data while you support yours with blogs.  Insult and shuck and jive are clearly all you have.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


...And the walleyedretard knocks his brains out of the park once again. 

LOLOLOL.



westwall said:


> Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska


*Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report*
Released: 10/6/2008 
*Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.
*




westwall said:


> Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph


From the article: (excerpt) - " *This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking. We wish to confirm, as was made clear further on in the original article, that this finding related to only one of the areas studied, the Karakoram range, where it was found that rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers are helping to protect them from melting.*"




westwall said:


> Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum


Once again - *Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report*
Released: 10/6/2008 
*Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.
*





westwall said:


> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx


From the article: (excerpt) - "*They found wide variations in the response of glaciers in the different parts of the Himalayas to climate change.

The research paper argues that the variations are a result of differences in the debris cover enjoyed by different glaciers  a factor that has so far been neglected while studying the impact of climate change on glaciers.

The scientists found that while more than 65% of all Himalayan glaciers studied were retreating, the glaciers in the Tibetan plateau, where debris cover is largely absent, are retreating fastest.*"




westwall said:


> Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study  News in Science (ABC Science)


From the article: (excerpt) - *Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat...The report says 58 per cent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing, perhaps because they were influenced by cool westerly winds than the monsoon from the Indian Ocean.

Elsewhere in the Himalayas "more than 65 per cent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers ... are retreating," they write in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris.

"Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating," says lead author Dirk Scherler of the University of Potsdam in Germany.

Worldwide, most glaciers are shrinking from the Alps to the Andes in a trend blamed by the IPCC on greenhouse gases from human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels.

Debris in the Himalayas - darker than ice and so soaking up more of the Sun's energy - tended to quicken a thaw if it was less than 2 centimetres thick. But a thicker layer on some Himalayan glaciers acted as insulation, slowing the melt.

Among complexities, some debris-covered glaciers that are stable in length might be getting thinner and so losing water overall, he says. That trend had been shown by past studies of the Khumbu glacier on Mount Everest, for instance.*

© 2011 ABC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)






westwall said:


> SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World


*Swiss glaciers melting faster than ever before: study*
 Jun 22, 2009
(excerpt)

*Switzerland's glaciers shrank by 12 percent over the past decade, melting at their fastest rate due to rising temperatures and lighter snowfalls, a study by the Swiss university ETH showed Monday.

"The last decade was the worst decade that we have had in the last 150 years. We lost a lot of water," said Daniel Farinotti, research assistant at the ETH.

"The trend is definitely that glaciers are melting faster now. Since the end of the 1980s, they have lost more and more mass more quickly," he said.*

© Thomson Reuters 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


***


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Wow, four year old stories.  I guess you aren't too capable huh?  There's way more accurate stories out there that are actually current.  Try using those.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 
Wow, that's really lame.

Step up, prove the case, earn some money.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

"Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Wow, that's really lame.
> 
> Step up, prove the case, earn some money.



There is a great deal of money up for grabs out there for anyone who can offer up any actual observed proof that man is responsible for the changing climate.  You would think that the climate wackos might wonder why none of their priests step up to claim it if any such proof exists.

They talk about logic, but logic dictates that if proof exists, then it should be easy to collect the money.  Why is it still up for grabs?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......too, too funny...mostly I was quoting from the articles that you had cited in your mistaken belief that they supported whatever point you imagine you're making.

So, my funny little retard, let's see you come up with these "_more accurate stories that are actually current_" and that supersede all the previous science. Go ahead, "_try using those_". LOLOLOL. Your inevitable inability to back up your wild and very idiotic claims is one of the funniest things about you.


----------



## editec (Apr 28, 2011)

You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

BUT, regardless of who you fool, REALITY doesn't give a rat's ass.

*Reality doen't care what people think about it.*


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

editec said:


> You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
> 
> BUT, regardless of who you fool, REALITY doesn't give a rat's ass.
> 
> *Reality doen't care what people think about it.*



The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

wirebender said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
> ...



That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.

Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

*In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect*
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)

*The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.*


***


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 28, 2011)

Funny thing is, these GW threads always turn into mirror images of the loony troofer threads

The gullible GW loons are just as funny as the troofer loons. And like the troofer loons, they have a bunch o' shysters making big bucks off of the gullible.....Algore is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?
> ...



Now Bender, were you to read what the scientists have really said, you would see that they proved the corelation between GHGs and atmospheric heat well over a century ago.
Once again, you fail to back your so backward opinions with anything from real scientists. You are just another freaked out ditto-head without the slightest knowledge of what you are talking a about. A broken sewer pipe spewing 'talking points'.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"
> 
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Now Allie, there is plenty of articles that present the case for AGW. But you will not read them as they would collide with your alternative view of reality. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Funny thing is, these GW threads always turn into mirror images of the loony troofer threads
> 
> The gullible GW loons are just as funny as the troofer loons. And like the troofer loons, they have a bunch o' shysters making big bucks off of the gullible.....Algore is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.



Stupid ass. Gore made most of his money on Google stock. And nothing at all to do with the ongoing research concerning climate.

As for the rest of your twaddle, you reveal yourself to be a ignorant ass.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 28, 2011)

Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.

Once the Himilayan Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.

It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2011)

And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess. 

Global glacier retreat


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.
> 
> Once the Himilayan(sic) Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.
> 
> It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.



Like most braindead denier cultists, you continually repeat nonsense that has already been debunked many times. 

Try going back and re-reading post #42 again before you make yourself look like such an idiot again.


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess.
> 
> Global glacier retreat








*BATTER UP!*

Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph

Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx

Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study  News in Science (ABC Science)

SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World

*Going, going, going....GONE!  It's outa da park!*


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.
> ...







But we're trying so hard to descend to your level!  Which is bloody hard!  It's hard for smart people to lower themselves to your level, slightly above a gnat.  It really is!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 28, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Evidently.........despite having a HUGE propaganda advantge in the major media, most people think the global warming threat is pretty much BS. And think about it.........at least half of those who do are the hysterical types out there who buy anything the media says hook, line and stinker!!!
> 
> 
> Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a &#8220;somewhat serious&#8221; or &#8220;very serious&#8221; threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.
> ...




*I love that picture.*










..is it Okay with You if I borrow that some day?

You must have killed another sacred cow here, or made road kill out of another flock of headless chickens which were in the fast lane...
All I could see when I passed by was feathers flying...so I have only sparse details about Your vehicular homicide here...:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Old Rocks (Yesterday)
View Post Old 04-26-2011, 04:17 PM
RollingThunder
This message is hidden because RollingThunder is on your ignore list.
Old Yesterday, 01:15 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post  Yesterday, 01:19 PM
Old Yesterday, 01:31 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:34 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:44 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:46 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
RollingThunder
This message is hidden because RollingThunder is on your ignore list.
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:31 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:39 PM
Old Rocks
This message is hidden because Old Rocks is on your ignore list. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


But It`s not all that hard to figure that out
They were already on their "New York is flooding soon " Noah`s Ark which they built at great expense







and were waiting for the ocean to rise 3 millimeters + or minus 0.4 millimeters per Year:













Waiting and waiting and waiting for their prophecy to become a reality ...in vain,..then one of them decided to piss into the ocean and noted the increase...it wasn`t quite as they hoped...
Then the other one pissed overboard too...
With Glow Ball Math...:






You can show that the increase in ocean water level had doubled just then...and so did the piss content in the ocean...

A vote was taken amongst the passengers of their Ark and X % who were asked in a Gallup Poll sample of XYZ  agreed with these findings...

Of course no one dared asking how many %X is out of Y and Z...:






Nor would they be able to figure out anything beyond their milk maid mathematics :

What is N where N=X times (X-1) for the entire range from X=any number N to X=1 ?

And that`s exactly where they are heading as well


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....





> To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
> 
> Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket &#8211; real or greenhouse &#8212; doesn&#8217;t actually create the separation between hot and cold&#8230;it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
> 
> In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. *(Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in&#8230;e.g. thunderstorms&#8230;and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect &#8216;wants&#8217; to make it.)*



and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 28, 2011)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



By now after all these posts in all these threads  everyone should know how radiation of any kind is absorbed and how it is actually measured, versus Glow Ball computer models.

If a gas absorbs energy the spectral range where it can everything outside that narrow frequency band goes right by it as if this gas was not even there.

And every body should be familiar by now just how narrow that CO2 IR spectral band is.

But it seems no-one is realizing that the portion of the radiation that the gas did absorb *never made it through to the other end either*

After all, that`s how any spectroscpic instrument does measure % absorption.
You compare a reference beam at the same wavelength that did not pass through the gas with a second beam from a "beam splitter" and measure the amount of energy that did not come out at the other end of the second path which did pass through the gas.

The difference in transmitted  between the 2 beams is % absorption...
Glow Ball "physics computer models" however have the "sample beam" passing through the absorbing gas then encountering the earth`s surface as if nothing of the energy was missing at all and then either heating up a surface or reflecting it back and doing the same magic again on the way up as if nothing had been subtracted from the energy on the first pass coming down...

*I do know,* because 
1.) I do know how Spectroscopy works, how to use it, calibrate it and apply it.
2.)* I follow up on the math EVERYONE of these screwy computer models does apply...*
*and get regular e-mail updates,...*.

That`s easier than You think...all You have to do is write a few blogs posing as yet another interested idiot who believes this crap and the authors of these fuck head models oblige You eagerly, *just as long as you keep it up blogging their crap in a convincing manner..*

Try it out, it worked for me, just don`t expect me to tell You which of these blogs is mine...
because I do love these e-mail updates


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And you are one fuckin' dumb ass, Jess.
> ...


The only thing "gone" is your brains, you silly retard. You just posted this nonsense and I reamed your ass over it in post #51, remember? I guess you can't remember but what can we expect from someone as retarded as you obviously are. So here it is again, just for the morons who didn't read it the first time. The articles you cite, walleyed, don't even support your idiocy and the science is totally against you. Why did you imagine that cutting and pasting this nonsense from some denier cult blog would be any more believable after it's been debunked than it was before? Perhaps you're not just retarded, perhaps you're actually somewhat insane.



westwall said:


> Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska


*Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report*
Released: 10/6/2008 
*Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.
*




westwall said:


> Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph


From the article: (excerpt) - "&#8226; *This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking. We wish to confirm, as was made clear further on in the original article, that this finding related to only one of the areas studied, the Karakoram range, where it was found that rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers are helping to protect them from melting.*"




westwall said:


> Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum


Once again - *Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report*
Released: 10/6/2008 
*Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.
*





westwall said:


> http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx



From the article: (excerpt) - "*They found wide variations in the response of glaciers in the different parts of the Himalayas to climate change.

The research paper argues that the variations are a result of differences in the debris cover enjoyed by different glaciers &#8211; a factor that has so far been neglected while studying the impact of climate change on glaciers.

The scientists found that while more than 65% of all Himalayan glaciers studied were retreating, the glaciers in the Tibetan plateau, where debris cover is largely absent, are retreating fastest.*"




westwall said:


> Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study &#8250; News in Science (ABC Science)


From the article: (excerpt) - *Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat...The report says 58 per cent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing, perhaps because they were influenced by cool westerly winds than the monsoon from the Indian Ocean.

Elsewhere in the Himalayas "more than 65 per cent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers ... are retreating," they write in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris.

"Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating," says lead author Dirk Scherler of the University of Potsdam in Germany.

Worldwide, most glaciers are shrinking from the Alps to the Andes in a trend blamed by the IPCC on greenhouse gases from human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels.

Debris in the Himalayas - darker than ice and so soaking up more of the Sun's energy - tended to quicken a thaw if it was less than 2 centimetres thick. But a thicker layer on some Himalayan glaciers acted as insulation, slowing the melt.

Among complexities, some debris-covered glaciers that are stable in length might be getting thinner and so losing water overall, he says. That trend had been shown by past studies of the Khumbu glacier on Mount Everest, for instance.*

© 2011 ABC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)






westwall said:


> SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World


*Swiss glaciers melting faster than ever before: study*
 Jun 22, 2009
(excerpt)

*Switzerland's glaciers shrank by 12 percent over the past decade, melting at their fastest rate due to rising temperatures and lighter snowfalls, a study by the Swiss university ETH showed Monday.

"The last decade was the worst decade that we have had in the last 150 years. We lost a lot of water," said Daniel Farinotti, research assistant at the ETH.

"The trend is definitely that glaciers are melting faster now. Since the end of the 1980s, they have lost more and more mass more quickly," he said.*

© Thomson Reuters 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)





westwall said:


> Wow, four year old stories. There's way more accurate stories out there that are actually current.  Try using those.


So, walleyedretard, just when are you going to show us all these "_more accurate stories that are actually current_" and that supersede all the previous science. Go ahead, "_try using those_". LOLOLOLOLOL. As I said before, it is "your inevitable inability to back up your wild and very idiotic claims is one of the funniest things about you." And you still can't back anything up with evidence.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
> 
> Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.



And yet, he can't offer up any proof that he is right.  He has attempted experiments to prove backradiation but they have all failed.  He states that he believes it even though he can't prove it.



RollingThunder said:


> *The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.*
> 
> 
> ***



Translate = models tell us it is true so it must be true.  There is no proof there.  All that statement says is that your "scientists" have faith in models and we all know that the models are notoriously inaccurate.

By the way, the vertical temperature profile produced by models your "scientist" speaks of is not at all like the vertical temperature profile observed in nature as evidenced by the missing hot spot that all models predict.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Bender, were you to read what the scientists have really said, you would see that they proved the corelation between GHGs and atmospheric heat well over a century ago.



And yet, you are completely unable to provide any actual proof to support your statement.  I keep asking for proof and you remain unable to provide it.  Get a clue.  The proof you believe in simply does not exist.  

You claim there is proof, then post it.  Or admit that your position is simply one of faith.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"
> ...



Which part of that blog that you keep linking to do you believe constitutes proof?  You want some actual, peer reviewed science regarding the greenhouse hypothesis?  Here, have a look.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


----------



## wirebender (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Climate models don't include clouds or water vapor as there is not enough computer power available at this time, or sufficient knowledge of the atmospheric system to include them.  Any model that fails to include the most signifigant climate forcings simply can't be trusted.  

Climate models also do not include soot and black carbon,  or the effects of forest or grass fires, they don't include the dying off of vegetation, hell, they don't even include the rotation of the earth.  They don't include precipitation and its various effects, they don't include decadal variability, el nino, la nina, or the pacific decadal ociillation.  They don't include volcanic effects or solar variability.  They don't include deforestation and land use changes, white TSI noise, earth albido noise or any other forcing noise.  they don't include  Milankovic cycles, or even convection and a host of other atmospheric effects that are not well understood.  

The easier question to answer is what do climate models include?


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend.  You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago.  The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.

In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis.  It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried.  That means the hypothsis itself is a failure.  It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd.  No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week. 

They all fail miserably.  Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future.  An intelligent person can understand that.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 28, 2011)

Hell, I still want to what happened to that damn Ice Age we were promised back in the early seventies.

The nutters were promisin' it, but where did it go?

What up wit dat chit?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend.  You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago.  The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.
> 
> In the scientiic community following the Scientific Principle the computer model is the hypothesis.  It has been tested and it has failed every time it has been tried.  That means the hypothsis itself is a failure.  It does not accurately represent what is observed in the actual wolrd.  No climate model is capable of predicting even the simplest sequence of events for a period of one week.
> 
> They all fail miserably.  Until they can create a model that can do just the simplest re-creation of past weather or climate there is zero chance they can predict the future.  An intelligent person can understand that.



As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.

*How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate? 
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society* 
March 2008  
Dr. Thomas Reichler,  Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences 
and 
Junsu Kim
Department of Meteorology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah  

*Abstract

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.*


*Climate Models & Accuracy*
(excerpt)

*3 - These models are able to simulate past climate. According to the IPCC (2007): "Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago. They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 6.2) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period."*






Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Hell, I still want to what happened to that damn Ice Age we were promised back in the early seventies.
> 
> The nutters were promisin' it, but where did it go?
> 
> What up wit dat chit?



LOLOLOL....did you just fall off the turnip truck or something? Where you been, boy? Are you going to try out every one of the debunked denier cult propaganda memes on us? LOL.

OK, just this once because you're so amusingly naive and clueless.

*Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s*
By Doyle Rice 
USA TODAY
2/22/2008
(short excerpt - see main article for much more)

*The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s  frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds  is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." 

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson*

Copyright 2011 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You have just made the ultimate mistake my friend.  You rely on the alarmists climate models and they can't re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago.  The models are completely incapable of accurately recreating what we know occured.
> ...






*BATTER UP!*


BTW the first one is from a warmist alarmist.....

"Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published  it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates  one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all? That is a really difficult question.
...
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict  the chaotic component of the climate system  which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.
...
Freeman Dyson has made a critique of models. I don't know Freeman Dyson; I've met his children. He seems like a very smart person. He has done some very interesting physics. He seems like a guy I would like to know. Yet his statements about climate, climate models, climate modelers, Jim Hansen in particular, are not the statements you would expect a smart person to make. It's like Shakespeare writing a play and then pulling a quote from a penny dreadful sheet that he found in the street. It just seems very inconsistent that somebody who thinks so hard and is so smart about so many things says dumb things like, oh, climate modelers think that their models are real and can't see the real world. I paraphrase but he said something very similar. It betrays a complete ignorance of either climate modelers, climate models or what it is that climate science is all about. His statements about Jim Hansen were very similar." 


Edge: THE PHYSICS THAT WE KNOW: A Conversation With Gavin Schmidt

Junk Science Week: MIT

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dice-games.pdf

C3: Climate Models


----------



## wirebender (Apr 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> As usual, you're quite deluded and quite wrong. This is another one of the myths of your denier cult that you all accept as gospel but that really has no connection to reality.



As usual, your beliefs have little to do with reality.  Here is some peer reviewed science regarding climate models for you to chew on.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data - Hydrological Sciences Journal

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions - Douglass - 2007 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

[0905.0445] An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

Do deep ocean temperature records verify models?

Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 028501 (2002): Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability

Inter Research » CR » v18 » n3 » p259-275

AMS Journals Online - Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models

ScienceDirect - Applied Energy : Shortcomings of CO2-climate models raise questions about the wisdom of energy policy implications

SpringerLink - Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 135, Number 1

There are plenty more if you care to look.  Ever notice how it is the skeptics who back their arguments with actual published, peer reviewed data as opposed to the blogs that you guys so depend on?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2011)

So glad some of the Repugs love polls so much..



> Gallup poll: John Boehner's favorable numbers slide
> 
> House Speaker John Boehner has become less popular with Americans across the political spectrum since taking the gavel in January.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2011)

> House Speaker John Boehner, a day after saying Congress should consider scaling back tax breaks for big oil companies, appeared to reel in that political olive branch Tuesday as the White House and congressional Democrats seized on his remarks.
> 
> The Republican speaker at first seemed to open the door to negotiations with Democrats, saying in an interview Monday that lawmakers "ought to take a look" at President Obama's call to save billions by ending those benefits.
> 
> ...



That's Republican "leadership" for you..  Taking their ques from the teapartiers on every issue.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead (Apr 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing is always believing with humans. At one time, the worlds population believed the earth was flat too. and that the sun rotated around the earth.
> ...



One of the problems I have with this issue is, had you been here for the past seven *million* decades, you would have seen considerably more (and much more drastic) change to those same places you mentioned because climate change is also a naturally occurring thing.  So, to me, this issue is about how much control over our lives we should be willing to cede to these scientists and politicians (who have a huge stake in the movement).

And I dont buy into the notion that we are entitled to keep everything exactly the way it is right now simply because we like it (or are used to it) that way.  Nope, if the polar bears (or human beings) cant survive on the earth that evolves tomorrow, they simply have to wind up in the same place as so many other species that could not keep up wound up.  Thats natures way and, regardless of what we (who are here only at this one instant in time) might want, we cant stop it.


----------



## editec (Apr 29, 2011)

Kids...the climate doesn't CARE what you or I_ think_ is happening.

A POLL doesn't dictate reality.

Believe whatever the hell you want, the climate will do what it must.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2011)

Computer models are gay.............










*LMAO*


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2011)

Mr_Rockhead said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...





Hey Rockhead............I saw that your state gave the Cap and Trade legislation the big old kick in the ass back in February. I thinking the vote was 246-104............very comforting to know!!!


Welcome aboard Rockhead...........and c'mon back in real soon. This place is a hoot if you want to be a part of publically humiliating far left asshole environmental k00ks. What makes it even more fun is that these jarheads get humiliated on a daily basis and keep coming back. IM telling you........its a hoot.


Anyway.........your point is so spot on its almost laughable. In fact, it is laughable.........and to think. The nutters on here actually think humans have to power to control nature. Its fascinating.........but also proof that these folks have a significant amount of mental fcukkedupedness going on in the old nogin. This is the Jim Jones crowd but the potion here is this bogus science.










If Gore said to drink the red stuff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Is this what you say every time you get your ass kicked? LOL.




westwall said:


> BTW the first one is from a warmist alarmist.....
> 
> "Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published  it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates  one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all? That is a really difficult question.
> ...
> ...


Yeah, so??? So what, walleyed? It's a climate scientist discussing the complexities and difficulties of modeling the climate. This is not a secret. The fact remains that the current models have gotten very good at accurately modeling past climates and predicting future developments. As the recent paper that studies modeling results that I just cited says: *"...we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere."* 

Gavin Schmidt also says in this article you're quoting:
*"We have been quite successful at building these models on the basis of small-scale processes to produce large-scale simulation of the emerging properties of the climate system. We understand why we have a seasonal cycle; we understand why we have storms in the mid-latitudes; we understand what controls the ebb and flow of the seasonal sea ice distribution in the Arctic. We have good estimates in this regard....It turns out that the average of these twenty models is a better model than any one of the twenty models. It better predicts the seasonal cycle of rainfall; it better predicts surface air temperatures; it better predicts cloudiness."*





westwall said:


> Junk Science Week: MIT


LOLOLOLOL.....let me get this straight....I cite a peer reviewed paper published in a climate related scientific journal - the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, written by a professional climate scientist and professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University, that directly studies models and their accuracy and concludes that they are pretty accurate....and you try to refute that with an (non-peer-reviewed) article in the Financial Post written by two guys who are definitely not climate scientists - Kesten C. Green who has a degree in Management Science and J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School with degrees in industrial administration and management - who claim that the models are no good. LOLOLOL. Dr. Armstrong was so sure of himself that in 2007 he offered to bet Al Gore $10,000 that temperatures would not increase in the next ten years. Then, in the real world - *2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows.* & *According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880.* From the Wikipedia page on Armstrong: "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than on climate change.[17] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole."

There was a *published rebuttal in the journal Interfaces* to Armstrong and Green's articles that said: "*Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... *".





westwall said:


> http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dice-games.pdf


Sorry bozo, I never open pdf files from denier cult blogs. Quote from it if you want but, considering the source, it's almost certainly just more denier cult drivel and pseudo-science anyway.





westwall said:


> C3: Climate Models


This has got to be the funniest one of all your "rebuttals". Perhaps in your case we should call them "re-buttheads". 'C3' is a denier cult blog and it is as wacked out wrong as the rest of them. On the page you cited they say: "_...the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years._"

The reality: *Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities, published in 2009 in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.*
(excerpt)

*Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmospheres total moisture  content. 

When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture, said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorys Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. The atmospheres water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just cant explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that its due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.

Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric  scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the worlds oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this atmospheric moistening is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate model results all show that the increase in water vapor is roughly 6 percent to 7.5 percent per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 29, 2011)

What, no Ice Age?

Damn, I  was lookin' forward to some serious snow boardin' action.

Were the nutters just lyin' to us?

Seems to be a pattern with those junk science eatin' idiots.

But then hey, those morons believe anything Algore tells 'em so, we shouldn't really be surprised.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> What, no Ice Age?
> 
> Damn, I  was lookin' forward to some serious snow boardin' action.
> 
> ...


Is your brain asleep or are you just really retarded? I just debunked your nonsense in post #83. Most scientists considered AGW the problem, not cooling, even back in the 70's. Try to keep up as best you can, numbnuts.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Apr 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > What, no Ice Age?
> ...


Most scientists?.........Yeah, ok!

Would those "most" scientists be the ones who completely blew you loons and your fantasies out the water through exposed E-mails admitting it's all a fraud?

Or were they the "most" scientists who got caught lying about the Himalayan glaciers?

Oooooooooor, could they be the "most" scientists who went through Algore's fiasco of a film and debunked it point by point?


----------



## IanC (Apr 29, 2011)

even Trenberth admits that the GCMs will have increased uncertainty once they start adding more factors like clouds, etc


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







No, I use BATTER UP! when I'm going to partuicularly blast one of you or olfrauds ridiculous assertions out of the park.  You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather.  Please provide a link to that assertion.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s]YouTube - Global Warming Panic explained[/ame]


----------



## polarbear (Apr 30, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
> ...



I also want to add this, which I spotted in another quote here and then we shall address both statements here, and place the cross-hairs squarely on target, all You have to do is squeeze the trigger afterwards...



> How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
> Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
> March 2008
> Dr. Thomas Reichler, Associate Professor - Department of Atmospheric Sciences
> ...



I clipped the statement and will put the rest of this statement in all fairness inside quote html tags after I finished and You can judge for Yourself to see if the rest was true ...

Most Americans have absolved at least high school* and do in fact  know the difference between linear and non linear functions..*
Some have not and don`t know,... except making retard remarks ,   *we all know who they are, and their re(tard)marks will surely follow *....

All functions where Y is *directly *or even just indirectly proportional to X are linear functions...no matter if Y= simply X, or Y= 2times X, or Y= Z*X/2, or Y= X * Z-whatever...each of these are linear no matter how complex You make the expression.

So if on any graph the "average global temperature" follows the Carbon di-Oxide concentration then the person who plotted this graph has stated that the temperature was in a* DIRECTLY LINEAR PROPORTION *with the CO2 concentration...*there is no way out of this noose...so let`s pick up the loose end and pull it tight right now :
*






as You can see he plotted it, choosing the scale for each so that Temperature increase matches exactly CO2 ppm...in other words he just made the statement that Y=X...

This guy wanted to add a point on top of it all and chose a 2.5 times larger scale for his temperature to "show" how CO2 will cook this planet..:






But to conceal it he did not make it Y=X times 2.5...he also stayed with Y=X

And so far with no exception every "climate scientist" has been using this as empirical "proof" that it is CO2 driving the temperature and not anything else, because of this simple proportionality in any of these graphs they fabricate and as they also say...that if they plug in the radiative "forcing effect" of CO2 into their "climate computer model" they have a good match...and this is why I sat on the last part of the quote till I got to this point..:



> In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.




*So now let`s tie up the loose end to something more solid and get on with the business at hand...*

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> IPCC usage
> 
> The term &#8220;radiative forcing&#8221; has been used in the IPCC Assessments with a specific technical meaning, to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of Earth&#8217;s climate system, which may lead to changes in climate parameters.[1] The exact definition used is:
> 
> The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.[2]




Then they revised it...:



> In a subsequent report,[3] the IPCC defines it as:
> 
> "Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)."
> 
> ...



*They should have never published this equation*

All it takes is just a few minutes to write a short little program which shows that they DON NOT EVEN APPLY THEIR OWN OVERSIMPLIFIED EQUATION in any of these graphs where they wish to show that CO2 concentration and temperature are directly PROPORTIONAL, because this is no longer a LINEAR FUNCTION...
The reason why they don`t employ this equation when it comes to making these grossly falsified graphs showing a connection between CO2 & Temperature they CAN`T AFFORD TO USE THIS EQUATION, BECAUSE THE *calculated  RADIATIVE FORCING EFFECT using their own equation* dives way down from the "average temperatures" they claim to have measured..:






      WindowHeight = 800
       WindowWidth = 1000
       UpperLeftX = 150
       UpperLeftY = 25
    open "graph" for graphics as #h
    startred=1000:startblue=669:c2=330:c1=c2
    limit=1000
  for c1=c2 to limit
    'display both functions from 330  to 1000 ppm CO2
[calculateWatts A sNatural Log (ln) function of CO2 concentration ratio]
*' REMARK the synthax for ln is log, in any programming language the 
'synthax log IS NOT the base 10 decade log*
   df=5.35*log(c1/c2)
[calculate Watts/m^2 Aslinear CO2 Function]
   gosub [graph]
   'graph linear as red ;graph Natural Log (ln)function as blue
   next c1
 gosub [vertical]
   wait
[graph]
   'mag=50
   mag=53.5:   x1=c1-279:x2=x1
   y2=mag*df:y2=startblue-y2:y1=y2-1
   print #h,"size 2"
   print #h,"color blue"
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h, "flush "
   print #h,"color red"
   y2=startred-co2
   y1=y2-1
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h, "flush "
   return
[vertical]
   x1=50:y1=startblue:y2=10:x2=x1
   print #h,"color black"
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h, "flush "
 x1=662:y1=startblue:y2=10:x2=x1
   print #h,"color black"
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h, "flush "
'vertical calibration divisions
 x1=50:x2=700:yscale=6.1
 for z=0 to 100 step 10
   y=startblue-(z*yscale)
   y1=y:y2=y
 print #h,"color black"
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h, "flush "
  next z
 'horizontal calibration divisions
   xscale=6.1:y1=startblue:y2=startblue-611
 b=50
 for z1=0 to 100 step 10
    d=b+(z1*xscale):x1=d:x2=d
   print #h,"color black"
   print #h, "down"
   print #h, "line ";x1;" ";y1;" ";x2;" ";y2
   print #h,"flush "
 next z1
   return

*The blue line is what You would get if You did apply their equation, but for all the temperature graphs they had to straight-line it and simply made Temperature proportional to CO2 ppm as in Y=X*

What does the "radiative forcing Watts per squ.- meter" have to do with temperature, You may ask,...
Well the mass of the earth`s atmosphere stays constant and if You increase the Watts which are 0.24 calories per second for each Watt then *that translates instantly to temperature increase per second by dividing the Watts by the specific heat or 1 Cubic meter air *

*Even the milk maid math Glow Ball graph fabricators realized that and pushed *



*aside for Y=X, where Y is the "average temperature" they claimed to have measured and X the ppm CO2 as per Mona Lua*

But that`s not all they have simplified...take a look at the rest of their "Global Warming Math"...:

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> ..... For the case of a change in solar irradiance, the radiative forcing is the change in the *solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight*.



*So solar radiation is a constant...and not a factor at all and simply by diminishing that "none factor" this huge nuclear reactor we call our sun   further down to  70% which in their pea brains takes care of "the geometry of the earth...
*

So Yes of course they would have to keep insisting that solar activity has next to no effect on* THEIR* "average global temperature" when compared to the "radiative forcing effect of man made greenhouse gasses".....

*And that`s the operative here "THEIR" world...which has absolutely nothing to do with the real world *


*Like most here said all along, this is what we are dealing with here...:*







;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




To quote Westwall..:


> strike 3..Next batter up



Except that baseball is not really a German thing...
and anyone striking out playing games with us, The words "NEXT UP !!!" are to be understood quite literally .German is a very unambiguous language
*and we do insist on the true meanings of words !!
*






And I `m an old fashioned German


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm afraid that you're getting all delusional on me again, walleyed. You've never managed to successfully refute any of the scientific information that I've posted, except maybe in your own very confused and delusion brain (what there is of it).




westwall said:


> You claim that they have computer models that can recreate the past weather.  Please provide a link to that assertion.


Nice try, slick, but no, I've said that computer models can accurately model *past climate patterns* not past day-to-day _weather_. So either you were trying to set up a 'strawman argument' like you usually do when you don't have a leg to stand on, or you just don't know enough about modeling to know that 'climate modeling' specifically deals with longer term trends in global and regional climate patterns over longer periods of years, decades, centuries and millennia and these trends can be accurately modeled. On a shorter time scale of weeks or months, the factors tend to be too chaotic for accurate modeling. As it happens, as climate models have developed and improved due to the intense research into all the different physical factors involved, the knowledge gained has bled over into significant improvements in the computer models that meteorologists use for weather forecasting so that forecasts have gotten more accurate and longer range over recent decades.

Here's some confirmation of the fact that climate models can accurately model past climate patterns. The chart and the paragraphs above and below are the most relevant but I'm going to include the whole article so you can see that the limitations and errors in the models are recognized and understood but don't overwhelm the basic overall ability of the models to accurately reflect both past and current climate changes and also because *this material is freely available for reproduction and is not under copyright restrictions.*

*How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?*

*There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.

A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model intercomparisons. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern annular modes). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction  see FAQ 1.2.)

A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (see FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1).






FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Since confidence in the changes projected by global models decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue to develop, and their resolution continues to improve, they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation are expected with increased computing power. Models are also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales. Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in some global climate models.

In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases. 
*


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 30, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 30, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
> But Your comment gives me a general idea what it was that he said again..
> 
> _(Blah, blah, blah blah, BLAA). (Babble......drivel.....zzzzzzz)_



And another meaningless 'blizzard of bullshit' from good ol' head-in-the-sand PeanutBrain who puts all of the inconvenient facts in this world on 'ignore' because he can't handle having his cherished delusions and myths blown out of the water by actual scientific evidence and the testimony of the real climate scientists who work in the various fields of study and who publish papers in major scientific journals. PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 30, 2011)

And all the ignore retards *cooookies * cookies the US Message board stores, have not all been downloaded...
But I did not mind at all, because after yet another "non linear Climate Model day" in Canada I needed a good laugh



RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
> ...



The entire* non-linear real world* is a delusion  for this crackpot...

*If it ain`t "linear" his little mind gets totally bent out of shape*

Well here is what this "Climate Science Computer Model linear milk maid math delusion" looks like right now in the "non linear climate science" REAL WORLD ...:

Global warming spring time in Manitoba Canada. 
*Nothing to see here for Al Gore and computer climate model IPCC folks,...* 
*just another ordinary day in  REAL WORLD Manitoba, Canada. *
Also not far north from where I live, in the non delusional world the polar bears are neither drowning nor starving. 

Although they do eat a lot better when they can snack on the occasional "the ice is too thin"  gawking Global Warming "Science" tourist who wasn`t fast enough.

Up North we call these "slow food" and we don`t mind at all if they want to visit us and 
see for themselves. Because then at least , the bears quit snacking on our back yard house pets

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkuVuy3s-4g]YouTube - echt Canadischer Fruehling[/ame]

It was not meant for morons like you, because I`m certain you can`t babble anything but your low life gutter slang, least of all speak a second language ...
You can`t even build one single sentence without a major accident...
At least get yourself a spellchecker


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Please provide a link to where a computer model has been able to recreate past climate.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Sarah, I must have missed out on one of this guy`s typical "scientific counterarguments"...because I clicked on the "ignore" button which was next to his user name...
> ...





s0n...........political correctness is so gay..............


March 2, 2007
*How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing*

Congratulations to researchers at the University of Bristol for finding a simple way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as discerning the ultimate objective of environmentalism. Let's hope a check is in the mail from Richard Branson, who offered $25 million to whomever could solve the supposed CO2 problem.

Their concept: humans need to stop breathing. If people insist on continuing to breathe, they must at least cut down radically. According to Dr. Mark Steer:

If we merely cut out one breath in three, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year by a staggering 0.63 gigatonnes. That's the same effect as saving five million acres of land (an area the size of Wales) from deforestation.
The UN had better step in and impose a worldwide ban on exercising. As the researchers write:

[T]he average person exercising at the recommended level of 30 minutes five times a week could be adding as much as 1.3 kg of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year.
Multiply that by a 6.5 billion people and you get 14 million tons, more C02 than Al Gore's mansion produces in a month.


Moonbattery: How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing


Thunder is an advocate................


----------



## RollingThunder (May 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


You saying that is even more gay.






skookerasbil said:


> March 2, 2007
> *How to Solve Global Warming: Humans Must Stop Breathing*
> 
> Thunder is an advocate................


LOLOLOLOLOL....I'll "advocate" that _you_ stop breathing, kooker. Please. It wouldn't have any effect on CO2 levels but it would stop all that stupid drivel from spewing from your mouth.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I just showed you one for the last century where there's a good instrumental record to compare the results to and it even had a graph showing the observed temperature record vs the model results. Are you blind or just blinded by your ideology? That article also contained a reference to other studies. Did you miss that too? Take another look.
A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes. Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6).

But OK, just for you walleyed, here's an even bigger and more recent study.

*New Cause for Past Global Warming Revealed by Massive Modeling Project*
July 16, 2009
(excerpt)

*To launch the experiment, scientists jump-started the CCSM with known changes in Earth's orbit and in carbon dioxide concentration deduced from ice cores and other evidence. They then observed how the atmosphere and ocean responded. The results were in close agreement with temperatures, sea levels, and glacial coverage as deduced from fossil and geologic records.

"We've never been able to recreate climate over this long a period with so much detail and accuracy," says Otto-Bliesner. "Being able to successfully simulate thousands of years of past climate for the first time with a comprehensive climate model is a major scientific achievement."*


***


----------



## polarbear (May 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




As if this : 01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100
would have a link to a computer model.
He does not even know the difference between a "computer model" and the simpleton graphic predictions he keeps quoting here.

*I`ld like to see him produce 1 single computer model equation or a few lines of algorithms *
"OldRocks"  had "addressed this"...by copy&pasting Wikipedia equations in here and had no idea what they actually expressed either

This guy, ... You asked him for a link to a published computer model algorithm, all he does is he keeps coming  back with these usual linear milk maid math graph using only one input variable, as usual the OH MY GOD CO2 concentration.

And now his "newest"  one, which every Jim Dick and Harry knew long before he found it finally too... 

with  El Chichon & Pinatubo on it "explaining" the drop in delta Temp/time increase *which none of their ACTUAL computer models had factored in*...
All they did is when they were caught with it was the usual crap, they used Ducky Adobe photo shop and drew in "computer model output lines" with a PS-2 mouse

So all over sudden the fact that if there are radiation absorbers and reflectors in the atmosphere, then this bogus "computer model" did it right and subtracted this missing energy...
But when it gets back to CO2 then it all comes through again and heats up a flat earth model which has been "geometry corrected" by 


> solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.



This guy who is calling other people "retards" or "pea-brains" simply can`t understand what the IPCC publicly said* how all their official computer models work...*

*The algorithm, that is,...NOT THESE RETARDED MSPaint drawn graphs he keeps posting here*



> ...the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with *no changes in stratospheric dynamics,* *no surface* and *tropospheric feedbacks in operation* (i.e.,* no secondary effects induced* because of changes in* tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic stat*e), and* no dynamically induced changes* in the* amount and distribution of atmospheric water* (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).



ALL OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS ARE HELD CONSTANT...
He`s simply not able to comprehend this simple statement

He just  keeps coming back here over and over and over again with MSPaint or Adobe Ducky PS2 mouse drawn "Climate model graphs"... 
just like "OldRocks" kept doing with his URL to this medieval British oven stoker Tyndal who knew more about physics than Roentgen, Hertz and Max Planck put together about
thermodynamics, Wavelength & Energy correlations, by having "observed" the relation ship between heat and motion...as he noticed that when he tried climbing a mountain he started sweating..and with that brilliant observation he became the "grand daddy" of this Glow Ball "science"



This guy keeps throwing buzz words around, being totally ignorant of what they mean...
*Exactly like "Old Rocks" does too*
*It`s like watching an old Abbott and Costello comedy,* or  almost as funny as watching 2 retards playing hop-scotch in the mine fields..but call the amused spectators who know where the mines have been planted "retards" and  "pea-brains"..

Hey, 79 6F 75 20 66 75 63 6B 69 6E 67 20 6D 6F 72 6F 6E , yesterday somebody just dropped off a 2 month old Toshiba Laptop at my place...
I fix these when I feel like it...
Here are  a few "pea- brain" pictures...:











I bet You any of these would win a game of chess hands down against a watermelon brain like your`s...:







So "Rolling01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100 "

Why don`t You try it out, go download a free "chess.exe" program like this one...:

http://www.download3k.com/DownloadLink1-Multiplayer-Chess.html

and let us know how you made out...

Hey 01110111 01100001 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101101 01100101 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100010 01110010 01100001 01101001 01101110

Do You know how to add up 0`s and `1`s ?
I`ll teach you...: 0+0=0, 0+1=1,1+0=1
*and shit you already fucked up, by guessing  that 1+1=2*
because it is...0 + CARRY a 1
Don`t believe it..? of course that would not be so in the linear Glow Ball you call your "real science world"..
but in the *REAL WORLD 2^0 +2^0=2^1 which is the same as 00000010*

first digit (left) = 2^8 and the right most would be 2^0...of course You would'nt even have a clue that 2^8 = 128
So the first letter in your name would be 0*128+1*64+1*32+1*16+0*8+1*4+1*2+1*1...
still don`t know to what that adds up to...it`s ASCII(119), American Standard Code for Information Interchange ...aka ASCII, *the whole REAL WORLD * all around your little delusion has been using it for over 50 years now...
so the first letter would be a *w* ...I`ll give you a few more freebee letters...:

*01110111* 01100001 01110100 01100101 01110010* 01101101* 01100101 *01101100* 01101111 01101110* 01100010* 01110010 01100001 01101001 *01101110*----w....m.l..b...n 

I bet you anything that this "pea-brain"  ;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 can do it in 1/(2.93*10^9 )seconds *what you can`t do even if you were at it all day long*
*But You sure as shit can beat any of these "pea brains" by a long shot how much garbage you can post here in no time at all*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 1, 2011)

Polar bro............when the k00ks start getting angst, miserable and pissed, you know you're doing your job!!!!


In fact, this thread is becomming an utter blowout for the SKEPTICS. I think an Environmental Forum Scoreboard check is in order..................


----------



## editec (May 1, 2011)

"I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"

President George W. Bush


----------



## skookerasbil (May 1, 2011)

editec said:


> "I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"
> 
> President George W. Bush





Hey.......the guy is right. Cant do shit about it so no use in obsessing!!!


----------



## editec (May 1, 2011)

Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.


----------



## wirebender (May 1, 2011)

editec said:


> "I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"
> 
> President George W. Bush



Like we get used to the sun coming up and the moon having phases; rain, snow, wind, fall, summer, winter, and spring.  All are natural phenomena and there is nothing we can do to change them.  The overall warming trend has been going on for 14,000 years now.  

What, precisely, does anyone find upsetting about the fact that it continues; and if earth history is any indication, will continue until such time as there is no ice at one or both poles?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 1, 2011)

editec said:


> Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.





Hey what can I say? One has to out absurd the absurd..........thats my motto.


Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.


----------



## The T (May 1, 2011)

editec said:


> "I guess we'll all just have to get used to global warming"
> 
> President George W. Bush


 
In other words? "_Welcome to Planet Earth...enjoy your stay..."_


----------



## RollingThunder (May 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


> (blah, blah, blah, blah and BLAAA.) (blather.....bs.....drivel.....zzzzz)]



I said it before but it seems to be worth repeating.

*"PeanutBrain is another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as are so many AGW deniers and tea party twits. He is too ignorant and unintelligent to realize just how ignorant and dumb he is compared to the professionals. But you notice he posts his nonsense here instead of confronting the peer review process at an actual science journal and making his name in science by 'proving' all of the crazy contrarian crap he comes up with to the world science community. Of course if he submitted his rants to a science journal, all he would get would be some hearty laughs and maybe a little pity. The only people he can fool with his drivel are the other politically-persuaded rightwingers on a forum like this who are pretty ignorant of science in general and often seem somewhat suspicious of it to begin with, perhaps in many cases from growing up in 'faith-based' fundamentalist households.

In any case, PeanutBrain's mishmashes are sometimes good for a laugh but otherwise it's all just quite ignorable and very silly pseudo-science and psychotic rants."
*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Continuing to add by quotes the same huge posts time after time, makes continuing these discussion rather difficult.
> ...


You won the 'absurdity contest' a long time ago, kooker. The 'delusional idiot' contest too, hands down. Your real motto which combines ignorance, idiocy and apathy, just like you do, is actually: '_I don't know, I don't wanna know and I don't care_'.





skookerasbil said:


> Its like this..........if you see a guy walking down the street in his birthday suit waving a bananna over his head while advocating for some gay cause, you dont join him. You walk behind him in full garb waving a HUMONGOUS bannana over your head.


Is that how you wound up walking around with "_a HUMONGOUS bannana_" up your ass? I was thinking your repressed homosexuality, that you make so obvious, probably had something to do with it being there.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...






*gay*

Indeed..........I dont know much, but what I do know is that I wont be drawn into the world of the PC zombies like the left in here.

Guys like Rolling Thunder? Thinks there is a solution to anything and everything if the passion and effort is concerted enough..............

..........for example..............a few years back, a rather vocal band of far lefties started lobbying the Connecticut state capitol!! Why? They were pressing for the state to widen the I-95 highway due to a terrible accident. At a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. You see.......a family of 8 or 9 was killed when their van was rammed from behind while parked on the shoulder of the highway. The liberal thinking? The widening was necessary to prevent a similar tragedy.

Asshats like Rolling Thunder and Old Rocks are all over that kind of shit. Its a neurological fcukk-up thing, but to them, the dynamic is, "Of course this is the right thing and the only thing to do. If it costs 1 billion and is over cost.............so be it!!"


Of course, if one had half a brain, they've already figured out that the legislation was rejected by a laughable margin. Of course.........its called understanding the necessary tradeoffs in life. Something the liberal mind is incapable of doing. k00ks like Rolling Thunder, Chris and Old Rocks would be beyond appalled.


Rolling would happily buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000.00 a pop if it was packaged up just right!!!! ( since you're a homophobe s0n, I threw in the BOOBIES just for you!!!)


----------



## RollingThunder (May 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


LOLOLOL. People who use that word the way you do are usually very gay but in denial.





skookerasbil said:


> Indeed..........I dont know much


Everybody knows that!!! You make that point clear every time you post your braindead drivel.


----------



## polarbear (May 2, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> what I do know is that I wont be drawn into the world of the PC zombies like the left in here.
> 
> Guys like Rolling Thunder? Thinks there is a solution to anything and everything if the passion and effort is concerted enough..............
> 
> ...



Man makes rules, mother nature has laws which we can`t change. Nature doesn`t give a rat`s ass what we want and that she does on occasion dish out the  death penalty for being so stupid like parking on the shoulder of I-95  should not surprise anyone. Shit there are nice pullouts with all the facilities from one end of I-95 to the other one.
But that example nails the very pudding liberal mind are made off on the wall.

Wall...yes Westwall had asked every one of them to post a link to any one computer model, not just graphs or statements what these models supposedly calculated, ...
and now we have silence...
I had a lot of good laughs how "OldRocks" was trying to piece the "math" together quoting bits and pieces from "Wikipedia references" these glow ball models claim to incorporate, but in reality don`t....aside from quoting an equation from wiki to dazzle the reader there is never anything else behind it...
When real science publishes something on the net they do it in html format, (Hyper Text Markup Language) and the Hyper Text is simply a text superstructure which can link to a referenced base text with a quick mouse click...
But the stuff they read is not Hyper Text it is strictly Hyped up Text, and in that realm ASCII has nothing to do with "American Standard Code for Information Interchange" but has been degraded from Information Interchange to Information Intercourse and it sure worked on them...they have become totally  "Intercoursed" in the head by this Hyped Text Markup Liberal Information Intercourse.

Anyways, I can tell You all what very definitely is not in these "climate fore cast models" as far as the math is concerned.
Math was always my favorite subject, naah even an obsession for my entire life.
And computers, well...for someone who is a math addict it`s like giving "Dirty Harry" an A 10 Warthog with a gatling gun...








So then let`s get the ammo belt and start a turkey shoot..

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> For the case of a change in solar irradiance, the radiative forcing is the change in the solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.


 Glow Ball "Climate math"...officially  announced...
multiply a "constant" by 2.8 and that "took care of the geometry of the earth"...

Just as a joke I`ll start out with the smaller mistakes first...
I like "knee capping" my victims before they finally  get the mercy shot..:

Sunlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> To calculate the amount of sunlight reaching the ground, both the elliptical orbit of the Earth and the attenuation by the Earth's atmosphere have to be taken into account.
> The extraterrestrial solar illuminance (Eext), corrected for the elliptical orbit by using the day number of the year (dn), is given by



Humor me please and click on the "Start" button lower left on Your display
On the popup click on "run"....then type in calc.exe , then on the OK button.
On the calculator which popped up click on "*view*" and then select *Scientific*
then set the little radio buttons so the ones for "*Dec*" and "*Degrees*" are black

let`s just run 2 sets, one for day #365  of the year and the second one for day# 4

Then click on the top right red C button to clear the calculator read window.
365 as the day number...
type in 362 click /  then 365 then * 2* pi +1.033412
So before you proceed click on the red M+ button and store this number.
It should be *1.033211528*
Then click on the top right red C button to clear the calculator read window.

 Now we do day #4,...
so  4-3 only OldRocks would type that in, we just put in a 1 then *2 * the blue "pi" button then  / 365  then on the left side click on the cosine button, after that + 1.033412 then click on =
You should have *1.033408658* ...don`t worry about more digits or the "E" factor on the left..after the cosine function was done the rest is linearly proportional and we are going to differentiate between day 4 and day 365...

Now click on this tiny red - sign which almost looks like a dot, after that click on the red RM button (recall memory) then click on =
and You should have* 0.00019713 *....the rest of the digits we won`t care about, but just leave them where they are..

now click in *100/  then the red RM button
You should see * 0.019713 * ......expressed as percent difference of the Energy ...which we shall address just below here
So the difference in sunlight hitting the entire half of our planet is  0.019713 % absolute delta units of the E factor as we make one orbit around the sun...taking this equation  to correct for the fact that we are not in a circular orbit..
Seem like sweet fuck all 0.01907  %......????
But You could say whenever you like to "OldRocks"
0.00019713 + 1 000 000/100  that`s a difference of * 190.7  ppm*

Like they are doing it with the  ppm CO2 on the Mauna Lua Web site...
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

and that only changes by a few ppm not hundreds in one year as this does..

But before You get too generous with the figures You just calculated here consider that:
* ~ 191 ppm of  173 peta watts isn`t exactly "small change"*

 173* 191/1000000 * 1.0E+15 watt = 33389 *1.0*E+9 = *33 389 000 000 000 totally natural Watts so far that their Glow Ball "math" credits us CO2 sinners so far
and in terms of heat that`s 7 974 825 642 479 calories per second (cal/sec)
which can bring bring a river that has a flow rate of  8 860 917 cubic meters per second from a cold 10 C to the boiling point all day long without even breathing hard...*

Now take a look how the "climatologists" trumpet when Manitoba Hydro dumps The Nelson river reservoirs into the Hudson Bay and the ice is gone for ~ 24 hours..as a comparison of these 191 ppm of 173 Peta watts..:
Nelson River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The Nelson River is a river of north-central North America, in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Its full length is 2,575 kilometres (1,600 mi), it has mean discharge of 2,370 cubic metres per second


It`s got a flow rate of 2370 cu. meters/second and is ~ +10...
*so imagine what would happen to the Hudson Bay Ice if 3739 Rivers the size of the Nelson River would discharge scalding hot 100 deg C (=212 F) water EACH SECOND
* before You let OldRocks or the likes have the figures you just calculated as if that`s just small change..!


And the 173 Peta Watt figure You got it from here if they ask You to back up your claim..:

Earth's energy budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But the global warmers simply used :
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> For the case of a change in solar irradiance, the radiative forcing is the change in the solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.



Enough knee capping pot shots, lets go for the kill and pop one right into their water melon brains:

Because so far we have not even considered how much the received solar radiation energy decreases as we go up north from the equator...*where the previous calculations have applied
*

*And the math You just did gave so far You the numbers behind *this "harmless little sentence" posted at Wikipedia:


> But the seasonal and latitudinal distribution and intensity of solar radiation received at the Earth's surface also varies.[11] For example, at latitudes of 65 degrees the *change in solar energy in summer & winter can vary by more than 25% as a result of the Earth's orbital variation. *Because changes in winter and summer tend to offset, the change in the annual average insolation at any given location is near zero, but the redistribution of energy between summer and winter does strongly affect the intensity of seasonal cycles. Such changes associated with the redistribution of solar energy are considered a likely cause for the coming and going of recent ice ages *(see: Milankovitch cycles).*



And that`s what Glow Ball warming continues to downplay on every web page they have on the internet...so that other water melon brains start ridiculing everyone who mentions the Milankovitch cycles or natural seasonal solar energy variations...*a whooping 25 % variation over and above the numbers we just cranked out
*

*But now it gets way way more serious*

All math and no pretty pictures might not turn everyone on the same it turns me on, so this picture should stimulate the desire to go for the kill shot with the math that follows..:





Picture description:


> Two images showing the amount of reflected sunlight at southern and northern summer solstices respectively (watts / m²).



So You could just eyeball it from the color scale and walk away, or You could stay and y see how  "Glow Ball scientists" water melon brains splatter with a 50 cal head shot..:

Here is another hint where this is going...:


> Day length as a function of latitude and the day of the year












[/IMG]
Don`t worry it`s not nearly as complicated as it looks at first glance...
If You are not familiar with Trig functions, don`t sweat it, they are easy to learn..:






Every carpenter is familiar with these and they are easy to understand..

If You start heading up north as You can see from the pictures above the angle at which the # or watts is distributed changes the # of watts per *1 squ meter* by diluting it way down as the number of square meters *You have to divide these watts by gos WAY UP
*

If You study this Trig Function picture just a few minutes and/or make a few pencil drawings along the math You will notice that it works like this..:

We know that at mid summer the maximum sun elevation angle at the North Pole is 23.5 degrees altitude, and we also know that the North Pole is 90 degrees Latitude...so...:
The number of square meters 1 original watts were when they were concentrated on 1 square meter have to be stretched out over...:

 (sin (23.5+(90-latitude))^2  square meters...
so already before You step over the arctic circle which is at 66° 33&#8242; 44&#8243;  (we just use 66.5 degrees) ...
the 1/(m^2) value changes to ...
clear your calculator...
then punch in  90-66.5+23.5 then hit the purple sin button, next hit the red MC button (clear memory) then hit the red M+ button then hit the  * button, then hit the red MR (memory recall) button, then hit the = sign...and there You have it
at the edge of the arctic circle You* only have 0.561 of the number of watts per 1 square meter* you would have had at the equator

And I do know that this what follows here in fact so, because I have been in Iqaluit, Thule and CFS Alert for the better part of my professional life...
I have posted pictures here in this forum showing how we have to wear thick parkas in July on Ellesmere Island and on Greenland...

So now You can compare
New York 23.5+(90-40.75)=72.75  hit the "sin" function button then   square that number and  you have   a reduction factor for New York as 0.912  at the very height of summer...NewYork is latitude ~40.75 degrees North...
Churchill= 23.5+(90-58.75)=54.75    solar factor= (sin (54.7))^2= 0.666 (all are summer)
Iqauluit ( 63 45)......................................................................... 0.586
Thule Greenland (77 30)..............................................................0.345  
CFS Alert (82 deg 30 min North).................................................. 0.265

See how fast that energy drops...just to put it in a word perspective how little heat is
in the sun when you face it at a mid polar "summer day"  while you "bask in the sun" in *Iqaluit  it  "warms" you about the same as it does in New York on January first*

And so far we only pitched only "calc.exe" which in turn resides as a microscopic spec on this "pea brain".....;





*against the WATER MELON BRAIN *...

*Just using single shot  calc.exe it went way beyond a Turkey shoot...was the same as  a 7 cm canon  point blank Water Melon head shot..*











*imagine what happens if you set the trigger to full auto firing mode and  the other little specs on "pea brain"  start ripping with  the other 2.5 giga bits per second  WATER MELON BRAINS into bits *





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoPq8QceeZA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoPq8QceeZA[/ame]





There are shit loads water melon brains, that have  in their pity full little existence ever even been in Canada, never mind the high arctic where  the   flat earth "math" has the sun glaciers "melting at an alarming rate"...You do need to set Intel Extreme into full auto firing mode to take care of them...and I do have the programs, *it was my job to write programs* which "household"  and power up stuff  like that in the arctic..:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M[/ame]

*As if I`d be intimidated by some simpleton Glow Goofball "Wikipedia" equations, even  using just an old fashioned slide rule would already be "overkill" *


I  noticed the Melon Heads have fled this thread and are now rolling around in a new one they spawned...like the fucking back shooting communist Partisan Schweinehunde which they are

But as I can see* Waffen SS Oberscharf F&#369;hrer Skookerasbil *is already on a Blitz Krieg offensive taking good care at the eastern front chasing the same old communist swines right back to Moose Cow while* Feld Marschall Erwin Westwall Rommel* is very capably handling the West.

*Sieg Heil Kameraden*






;


----------



## keee keee (May 2, 2011)

coldest winter in years,Record cold and snow, now the coldest spring in 48 years what a bunch of total bullshit!!!!! PS where is Waldo hiding I mean Al The fraud Gore?


----------



## polarbear (May 2, 2011)

keee keee said:


> coldest winter in years,Record cold and snow, now the coldest spring in 48 years what a bunch of total bullshit!!!!! PS where is Waldo hiding I mean Al The fraud Gore?



Hey I`m still up too...our highways in Manitoba were closed...that snow storm I posted here just yesterday...uploaded that video to You tube..so I have to wait till my wife and kids make it home on the back roads...They are Okay, in the trusty old  4 X 4 Lariat Diesel..

So I killed the time to do some more math...
Up top that post, was just a "warning shot" across the bow of their fucking IPCC fuel tax ripoff gravy boat..
I had been saving the best for last...
Most people think that these solar angles values  stay put where are...in fact they don`t..
The changes are seemingly small, but if You have to work with precision Satellite telimetry then You are well aware of that...
The numbers are as follows...bear with me now, because it will knock your socks off what the final result will be...:

First though another huge fuckup by the IPCC model numbers they have been using...:
Wiki...:


> Total Solar Irradiance upon Earth (TSI) was earlier measured by satellite to be *roughly 1366 watts per square meter *(kW/m²),[2][3][4] but most *recently NASA cites TSI as "1361 W/m2 as compared to ~1366 W/m2 from earlier observation*s [Kopp et al., 2005]", based on regular readings from NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) satellite, active since 2003,[5] noting that this "discovery is critical in examining the energy budget of the planet Earth and isolating the climate change due to human activities." Furthermore the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) has found in the same period that spectral solar irradiance (SSI) at UV (ultraviolet) wavelength corresponds in a less clear, and probably more complicated fashion, with earth's climate responses than earlier assumed, *fueling broad avenues of new research in "the connection of the Sun and stratosphere, troposphere, biosphere, ocean, and Earth&#8217;s climate".[5]*



*Although we do have a lot of square meters on this planet You could make a pretty good scandal out of this, a "minor difference" of 5 watts per square meter "assumption fuck up" is a shitload more than their idiotic  "CO2 temperature forcing factor" the IPCC sacred cow, without which they seize to exist...*

I`ll leave it up to You guys who`s  water Melon brains You wanna blow out with that..
The URL reference to it is...:

*Sunlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

Go there hold down the control key and press the letter f..
then write in the little popup at the bottom left on your screen  the words
NASA cites TSI
You can just copy and paste it from here...
This will lead You straight to the line which this Windows OS will now highlight green to:


> NASA cites TSI as "1361 W/m2 as compared to ~1366 W/m2 from earlier observations [Kopp et al., 2005]", based on regular readings from NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) satellite, active since 2003,[5] noting that this "discovery is critical in examining the energy budget of the planet Earth and isolating the climate change due to human activities."



Shit let`s just do the math while I`m here...:
Spherical surface= 4* pi *r^2
earth radius we can do with "head math" but we`ll get nautical miles...anywhooooo..:
360*60/(2 *pi)= 3437 nm radius...now I have to look up how many meters that is...
1 nautical miles = 1852 meters
so 3437*1852 gives us a radius of 6 365 324 meters and a surface area of..:
lets go to square kilometers...6365 that times 4*pi*r^2..= 509 156 031 square kilometers...
So now we`ll plug in the difference of their fuck up watts per meters was what that amounts to per square kilometer....it`s a  5* 1000*1000 ...a 5 million watt per square kilometer IPCC fuckup which means on a global fuckup scale
5 000 000 times 509 156 031 watts ===>*2 545 780 158 495 075 or lets see 2.5 * 10 ^15 Watt the fuck was that.*.? fuckup for every second for how many years...?..
*Oh yeah since 2003 and they are still using it*

*Another IPCC "scientist" Giga mega 10 to the fiftienth power monster fuckup which got billed to our "CO2" credit  *

But yeah no kidding the arctic is really "shrinking"...no bullshit..:



> The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed, but directly depends on the Earth's axial tilt, which fluctuates within a margin of 2° over a 40,000 year period,
> [2] notably due to tidal forces resulting from the orbit of the Moon. The Arctic Circle is currently drifting northwards at a speed of about 15 m (49 ft) per year,
> see Circle of latitude for more information.
> calculate this into area


...By the way that`s the Gyro-precessional motion that does that
so what it`s "only" 15 meters per Year...?
See that`s the problem,...people have been brainwashed by these bastards who blow up 1/100 th of an inch "New York is flooding" bullshit ESTIMATE and play down a number like that one..look at what happens with it if Yo run it through a little math..:

We need to know what the earth radius is at 66.5 degrees lat.. north..
so again at the equator the circumference =360*60=21600 nautical miles..
that  time 1/(2 pi) gives R  3438 nm
so at latitude 66.5 north the arctic circle has a circumference of
2*pi*3438 * cosine (66.5) =  8613 nautical miles =15 934 kilometers
15 meters drift= 15 934*15/1000 = 239 square kilometers of arctic that gets tilted each year more towards the sun...doesn`t sound like it matters...?
Watch...:
we di the math already at the last post waht the solar E(engery)  scaling factor was at the arctic circle in the summer..it was E * 0.586 ..and with the E, I should be as greedy and use the IPCC number, but we are not lying bastards so we use that latest NASA number 1361 watts but that is just for one per square meter...
watch what happens now...1 Km^2 = 1 000 000 squaremeters..
so  0.586 * 1361 * 239 * 1 000 000 = 190 613 494 000 Watts ..!!!!
Let`s see what that kind of power can do,,,like how much ice can it melt per second..:
That Number in Watts =191552845 kilo joules per second .
To melt 1 Kg of ice per 1 second we need 335.5 kilo Joules per second so
these silly few 239 extra squ km at an 0.586 * E power factor* can melt 574.3 metric tons per second*
and that perfectly natural increase which has fuck all to do with us, but is caused by the tide & moon mass shift precessing the earth axis forward has been melting each year...let`s do this exactly by the book and stay honest...so the number of 24 hour daylight days at 66.5 degree latitude is...:






*sun is up from day 90 to day 270 for 24 hours...*

180 days * 24 hours * 3600 seconds * 574 tons=  8 931 284 211. tons extra ice is melted each year just by this effect
*8 931 513 600 TONS extra ice melt each year  by the orbital precession..and this has been going on since the IPCC climate models existed*...and all that time they claimed it was "CO2" forcing effect...
and play down huge fucking numbers like that...

Okay, my wife and kids Finally made it home, through a fucking IPCC snow storm...

*Math can be a lot of fun...don`t You agree..?*
Maybe these numbers can be useful to You guys south of our '49 ..in Canada the IPCC & whatever goes with it has been officially declared as bullshit by our Government,...so we are Okay..sort off...except that we have to pay world fuel prices for our own fuel ever since we had a fucking Liberal Government which signed this fucking Kyoto Accord over our heads....
which basically destroyed them...but unfortunately, so far the science how to unscramble eggs does not exist..
It` insane we have our own oil, don`t import 1 single drop + we supply 60 % of what our friends south of our border need..
Once the Tarsands Oil pipeline runs from Alberta to Texas You guys will have to depend even less on Middle East oil..!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 2, 2011)

Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....



RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > (blah, blah, blah, blah and BLAAA.) (blather.....bs.....drivel.....zzzzz)]
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Nobody cares about the science anymore s0n. Cap and Trade is in the shitter.................sorry. The politics is firmly on the side of the SCEPTICS, thus, the reference to "psuedo-science" is well...........irrelevant.










ps............computer models are gay..................only the hopelessly duped put their faith in them!!
















Was just wondering..............has anybody ever seen Rolling Thunder post up something in a thread that is actually more than one or two sentences long?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)




----------



## westwall (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....
> 
> 
> 
> ...







What was that poop for brains?  I suggest you check the math before you make yourself look the fool.  OOOOPPPs too late!  No matter.  The math checks out and that's all that matters.


----------



## westwall (May 2, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....
> ...








Oh yes trolling blunder is guilty of bloviating to great extent.  Kind of funny when you see him complain about Polarbears well thought out and mathematically correct posts.


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont think Rolling Thunder understands that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is applicable to the scientists as well as laypersons. The Hockey Team, led by Jones and Mann, are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the scientific community. They have spent more time and effort to obscure their data and methods than they have publically proving that their theories are correct. While all scientists are biased towards their own pet ideas, these guys take the cake for ignoring contradictory evidence and that is the hallmark of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. eg less intelligent and less educated individuals are more likely to be wholeheartedly devoted to shakey ideas that are poorly supported by meager evidence than more intelligent, more educated persons who realize that equivical evidence should moderate strong belief in a single explanation for a complex and incompletely understood situation.


----------



## polarbear (May 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> I dont think Rolling Thunder understands that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is applicable to the scientists as well as laypersons. The Hockey Team, led by Jones and Mann, are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the scientific community. They have spent more time and effort to obscure their data and methods than they have publically proving that their theories are correct.
> 
> While all scientists are biased towards their own pet ideas, these guys take the cake for ignoring contradictory evidence and that is the hallmark of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. eg less intelligent and less educated individuals are more likely to be wholeheartedly devoted to shakey ideas that are poorly supported by meager evidence than more intelligent, more educated persons who realize that equivical evidence should moderate strong belief in a single explanation for a complex and incompletely understood situation.



Ian, this guy will never understand the difference between an assertion and a proven fact.
We all remember the dozen or so sources where he `s been going for his "Information" intercourse..I`ld have to reset his status on the User CP, which I won`t to dig these up...
but Westwall or Skookerasbil may want to go back to these posts...
every URL this loudmouth posted here showed with a right click stuff like...
"http://www.leftwing_anarchist.blog" or similar "In URL" words...
Which is incidently how You can set up Google in advanced search mode to clean up your search results.. just add behind the search words after 1 space -in url parameters and Google will dump all this garbage...

And does the hardware that performs this task all over sudden have a "political right wing bias" now.....????????????

Can an Intel or Pentium processor have "pet ideas" or a political bias...
Well some day they very definitely will ....we are going there fast...
Artificial intelligence is on a steep upswing and as it acquires more and more intelligence any hardware it resides in will very certainly not have an  ever-so-gay-pro-liberal-left-wing-green-gasfarting  fucked up "thinking process" as the humans which might be the owners of such AI-hardware.

Be that as it may, but we all are certain that a simple 112 Kb application like MSoft`s "calc.exe" has not been "right-wing-politically-corrupted"....

Neither are the functions for Cosine, Sinus, Tangent or Cotangent ,....
and no matter which Pet ideas or political preference the guy has who clicks in the  numbers for earth radius and degrees latitude, E, watts/m^2 etc etc...
the merciless result is the same no matter if you do it in China, Cuba, the U.S. or Canada...

cal..exe is being run by hardware which has no emotions or personal preferences whatsoever... 
But try & explain that to somebody who keeps reading in URL- stuff
 containing "Anarchist.blog"..."Green_science.org"...  for his  Information Intercourse  orgasms all day long every day

It would have taken me no more than a few minutes to write a program which cranks out the results and graphs them neatly...
but I did not...and did so not IN PURPOSE...
because if I did taht I could have ever so easily made subtle changes in any subroutine algorithm that only few people would spot...
cheated and fucked around the same way these Glow Ball computer models did it...
Every American knows how to punch in a few numbers on any hand held calculator...there are appliance remote controls that are more demanding that MS`s Scientific Calculator...and the way we just did that math together there is no way to cheat and hide  a cheat...
any grade sixer would be able to spot any "cheat" ...
Cheating with a program is the EASIEST WAY TO CHEAT...
Anyone who writes programs can verify that...because they also know how hard it is to find a mistake he  in-advertently   made when he wrote his program...
even with the best "de-buggers" it can be extremely hard  to find simple "bugs"...
So if someone puts a "bug" into software and takes good care to hide the bug as best as he can...yeah you can cheat the fuck out of even highly intelligent people, if one should be so inclined...
*and that`s why we did it with "cal.exe" because that is exactly the same program no matter who of the billions of MS Windows OS PC owners uses it to do the math we just discussed*


----------



## polarbear (May 2, 2011)

I would like to show all of You just how easy it is to spot equation cheating  that has been performed by software
written by cheats...
All it takes is a no bullshit 5 minute math lesson how differential and Integral math equations work.
Anybody can learn the math, that too many fear for no rational reason in a few minutes...

Take a non liner function...like  Y= X^2 which is exponential , and  determine the trend at
which Y increases or decreases as the value for X is increased ...
Lets do a think tank  experiment using  chickens as X and eggs = Y  ...

a single file line of 3 chickens lay 3 eggs per day.. and now you want to do a study what the egg* increase incrementt* is in
an area 3 lines by 3 lines of  chickens would lay* per increase of X,* the Chicken coup dimensions


  so  we have x*x "Virtual computer model"  chickens, now start ratcheting up X, the Chicken coup dimensions 
which will of course square the number of chickens that fit inside every time we ratchet X up by 1 increment

In other words Y1 is the number of eggs You had when the chicken coup was X by X
Y2 is the number of eggs You get if  X is  increased by delta X

Then to see what the trend was per delta X...
You have to  take Y2-Y1/  delta X...
 it`s that simple...
it would also * be a lot simpler* to explain all that  in German than it is in English

so we get  the differential function step 1...
where we express all Y`s as a function of X from here on :.. every time You see something like N^2 that means N times N

(X+dx)^2- X^2  
-----------------
  dx

=

X^2   +2X*dx   +(dx)^2    -X^2
-------------------------------------
  dx





Step 2   carry out the subtraction  X times X  which was our starting dimension of the Chicken coup ...from the new & bigger dimension X+dx times X+dx 
*AFTER WE SQUARED *the function as we must* according to the root function, Y= X^2*
then we  carry out the division by dx which was the increment by which we had increased X to X+dx....that leaves You a function:        
 =   2X +dx    

now to see the "clean trend" at any  point of  chicken coup size  versus egg increase  graph
You make the step size by which You increase the size of the coup smaller and smaller,
so that  You get rid of the silly steps you`l have in the otherwise smooth curve of the original function
Y=X^2  with which You started...

So now  as dx  decreases fro whatever step You did choose 1  infinitely small

The final (Chicken not the Jewish ) solution is  =    the trend for a Y=X^2  function *at ANY POINT* will be     2X +0
or  that the number of eggs  will always be  2 times (double)  the  X  dimension increase of   the chicken coup .

So a chicken coup 2 times as big will give  4 times the number of eggs per  X increase
which was from X=1 to X=2...so a step of 1 . up gave You  Y=2X+1 more eggs....

*And  this increase or trend will now stay a perfectly  linear  function  of  Z= 2* Q +1*
*even though the true original function Y=X^2  exponential function is not...*

check it out...:

Increase the Chicken coup size X=4   to X=5
the INCREASE  is linear no matter where You go on the Y= X2 CURVE..

  (4+1)^2  -  4^ 2=  25-16=9
and  X was  first  a 4   the  differential math  function you just solved tells You, that the egg  *INCREASE  will ALWAYS BE simply 2X+1 *
and  in fact  2*4+1 is 9  and and its also a fact that  5^2 - 4^2 =   25-16 is also 9......
*no matter if You are a right wing rednex fan like me...:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stz0_bk4jx8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stz0_bk4jx8[/ame]

 or the kind of left wing fag guys like us tar & feather*

That`s how differential math works with ANY EQUATION, no matter...
All equations where You get a linear function with 1 differential are called "First Order Equations"...
if it takes 2 differentiations to get a linear (=proportional function) then it was a non linear equation of the 2.nd Order and so on...

Now, without noticing You have also just learned how to solve Integral Equations...because all You do there is go backwards from
the function at hand to get to the root function...which in turn  gives You, after You do a differential on it the function you wanted solve for
the Integral back...*that`s how simple "Calculus" is..*





*And that transformation of a complex non linear function to a simple linear proportional function by a first order differentiation is  EXACTLY how this Glow Ball Warming CO2  versus Temperature Chicken brain  trickery was performed, so that what  comes out of the algorithm is a graph like this...*






*Where the Temperature Y  INCREASE is a simple  linear proportional function of ppm CO2  STEP INCREASE..*

*...even though the ACTUAL  resulting temperature  would only be a  non linear log function where  X has less and less impact on the temperature Y as the ppm CO2 goes up...
*







Which is what I have graphed here...and  the loudmouths who have shit for brains claimed  I cheated I did not... the log of ( % absorption ppm CO2/  % absorption + more ppm CO2)  *is called ABSORBANCE and is a perfectly  linear function  the simple straight line relation ship, which the frauds are using  in all their models and graphs....*

*I have done   way too many  Infrared  Spec Analysis myself  NOT TO NOTICE A SIMPLE CHEAT LIKE THAT ... I don`t care in which subroutine of the main computer model math  algorithms they hid it...*,....
but I know it`s in there as soon as  they show the output of the program they run..
*They   do the diff function of Lambert Beer....not the Lambert Beer function the equation they keep quoting when pressed what Physics Law the al-gore-rithm  employs, dealing with CO2 ABSORPTION in their screwy computer model 
*
*Dr. Heinz Hug is also  highly experienced  in  Spectroscopic Analysis...*
*He spotted the cheat ABSORBANCE versus ABSORPTION cheat  right awy too..*

So he did an entire series of  ACTUAL CO2 Infrared Absorption Measurements using state of the art Spectroscopy...
"Climatology" has to date never performed any ACTUAL Infrared Spectroscopy..
All CO2 analysis EVERYWHERE is performed by GC (Gas Chromathography) and then the model "computes" the ppm CO2 to a THEORETICAL Infrared Absorption  value...

and now You all know how that is done...!

http://http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm



> Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get
> 
> (9.79*10-4 cm-1 - 1.11*10-4 cm-1) / 0.5171 cm-1 = 0.17 %
> 
> ...



And Al Gore + the IPCC  cohorts instantly smeared  Dr. Heinz Hug as a "right wing radical" in the press after he went public and tried their best to ruin Heinz`s professional life...*as they do it with all  their critics, no matter who they are...*...

Ever notice..?* It`s always the same tactic of last resort,* when "Climate Science" gets scrutinized by real science and got caught cheating..

Heinz and a Delegation of Physics and Chemistry Professors from the famed Max Planck Institute in Germany, which by far produced the largest number of Nobel Prize Winners , came to Washington and held a lecture in the U.S. Congress addressing the difference between Lambert Beer`s Laws and what the IPCC has been doing


*Since then* Heinz is of the Opinion, that  too few of the public would understand the math cheat which the IPCC computer model perpetrates on the public and just how massive this cheat is..


*I say,* ordinary  Americans * who have their feet on the ground are a lot smarter* than  the guys who sit in Congress and as world prejudice has it *and THEY ARE ABLE TO  UNDERSTAND MATH...*

I live here, Dr. Heinz Hug lives and breathes strictly inside the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Chemistry....
the same air I once also breathed...only I wanted to get outside...

*So I know Americans + the Arctic a little bit better than Heinz*
but I haven`t forgotten my Math, Physics and Chemistry...and never
will, bceause that still is and always will be my first love


----------



## westwall (May 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I would like to show all of You just how easy it is to spot equation cheating  that has been performed by software
> written by cheats...
> All it takes is a no bullshit 5 minute math lesson how differential and Integral math equations work.
> Anybody can learn the math, that too many fear for no rational reason in a few minutes...
> ...






To further add to polars insightful post, whenever I have plugged a number into one of the AGW models the temperature has ALLWAYS risen, no matter what numbers were punched in.  Whenever the creators of said models are queried on that fact, a blank stare is usually the response.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

Why do the global warmers have to doctor their data if the science on the warming is lock tight???????


----------



## wirebender (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....



I did a bit of research into your responses to polar bear.  I can't find a single example where you rebutt one of his posts with anything even approaching relavent material.  I can't find a single case where you provided peer reviewed material that contradicted anything he had to say.

Tell me, is it because he is talking so far over your head that you don't even know where to look, or is it that you simply know that you will find no peer reviewed material that challenges him and therefore you are left with nothing more to do that hurl imptent insult?

If I missed an example of you crushing his comments with credible, peer reviewed, published material or hard observed proof, by all means correct me and post a link to the post or posts.  Otherwise know that people are taking notice of your inability to actually discuss the topics at hand and are openly laughing at you.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wow....two 'bullshit blizzards' on one page. Ol' PeanutBrain just loves his rants and his pseudo-science. Of course, as I said before....
> ...




Yup..........Polar posts up miles and miles of real science. The response from k00ks like Old Rocks?

They post up the same damn 5 links..............always the same damn 5 links!!! The forum debate on here is not even competitive anymore people..........

These people are so beyond the realm of absurd, its laughable at this point!!!


----------



## polarbear (May 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Google tells me that 77% of all Americans use the internet.
I`m pretty sure that quite a lot out of these 77% know math and a lot of these in turn would have an Operating System which includes some sort of Spread Sheet capabilty, like Excel...I prefer the "Open Office"...#1 it`s totally free, #2 it can read any document style and generate any document style...even pdf and last not least #3...it`s not trying to connect behind Your back to Mommy Microsoft as almost all the MS software does if You use it and are connected...it opens up htt-ports and starts having an intimate  Information Intercourse with Mommy Microsoft, while You wonder why Your PC slowed down.
So, if You don`t want to settle for less than the best here it is...:
OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite

But I think even EXCEL might be able to open this up for You and You can run it through Your PC Yourself..:

View attachment 13306
Strange they don`t allow Spread sheet attachments here @ US-Messageboard, but they do allow zip files....and the only way to get to it is log on as a registered user.
 So You have to trust me, download it and unzip it..then You have the spreadsheet I`ve been working with + all the data used below neatly formatted.
I`m not trying to spam for "OpenOffice", I just mentioned it, because You might want to do *what I like doing a lot.*

And that is trapping liars, cheats and bullshit "scientists" in their own shit and then ...:





....
But instead of water I like using the shit that they publish all over the Internet
Westwall had asked these loudmouths now several times to come up with a link to any of the main computer models "climate Science" is using...
No answer...He was pretty coy doing that because I`m pretty sure he knows where these are...but left them dangling on the hook...*I like that*

Anyway, lets do some fun turkey shooting with the main model "Climate Science" is using to "compute" and "correlate" CO2 and temperature increases and take a look while we control our laughter, hopefully when we check what comes out....

Modtran Infrared Atmospheric Radiation Code

So up top left You can put in ppm CO2 then click on the"submit" button...
Already the word "submit"...? why the fuck should any of us have to submit to anything...?
Especially why should we "submit" to start at their default value 375 ppm...?
Not so fast, if this "Model" is based on REAL SCIENCE we would first want to see what it says if there is no CO2, like any* REAL SCIENTIST would need* if he wants to actually measure how much energy per ppm CO2 ACTUALLY DOES ABSORB...the first thing You need is the base value of ZERO...!
So what do they say, if they have to submit to You, instead of the other way around,,,?



> Iout, W / m2 = 	318.396
> Ground T, K = 	299.70



Okay, they say if we had no CO2 at all I-Out would be 318.396 Watts per square meter.
But they want to be cryptic about how they define that...so You have to click on the little blue fine print hidden @ the bottom...and now please do control your "laughing out loud" "lol's"...You can add as many of these post icons in as You want, later...


> 0 PROGRAM WILL COMPUTE RADIANCE
> 0 ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
> TEMPERATURE =    1     TROPICAL MODEL
> WATER VAPOR =    1     TROPICAL MODEL
> ...



So we have a 1 square meter IPCC fantasy world which only they know if that`s 1 m^2 of dry land, 1 m^2 of ocean, 1m^2  of snow or ice or just 1 m^2 of some sort of kiddy video game..but they do say that it is always at the same temperature, no matter what the fuck and always at the same barometer pressure, somewhere in the Tropics  and at a "slant path angle" of 180 degrees..

See now, that`s what they have been doing..this is strictly THEORETICAL BLACK BODY infrared radiation and is not based on one single actual REAL Infrared Absorption measurement....*it`s using the theoretical O=C=O a-symmetric, +symmetric  the  molecular bond stretching + scissoring frequencies as listed in Chemistry Book Table values * . I should scan these in and upload them...

The "Modtran" then proceeds,  assuming a theoretical area that is "heated" from one side by X-Watts by Infrared Radiation and on the flip side = 180 degrees from the radiation receiver is what passive Infrared *should see* using Planck`s Equations...
This entire load of crap, Modtran generates nothing but a cheap copy of the ordinate Frequency Energy quantum Equation and is not based on even  one single actual measurement.

So let`s have some fun with it..
You can do it Yourself or You can trust me, that I do not cheat as they do and instead of "submitting" 10 times in a row, just work with the numbers I already got from there and formatted..



> 0,     Iout, W / m2 = 	318.396
> 320,   Iout, W / m2 = 	288.597
> 330,   Iout, W / m2 = 	288.44
> 340,   Iout, W / m2 = 	288.315
> ...



I amused myself and went wrote a "bot" that went all night long to their moron Modtran and submitted in one 1ppm increments all the way up to 1 million ppm CO2
Of course it never got there but when I had nothing better to do than sit in front of my PC it was torturing the Modtran with ppm # 50400 or there-abouts
I stopped the "bot" and "submitted" 1 million ppm CO2 and that`s where it goes "tilt"..
but it is retarded enough wanting to tell You what it would be @ 999 999 ppm CO2 ...imagine that !
It `ll "compute" that the ground temperature is still at  T, K = 	299.70 and their video game square meter on the flip side of this m^2 is so choked off with CO2 that it can radiate only..:  I-out, W / m2 = 	225.64........back into  outer space through 70 kilometers of 99.9999999 % CO2 ....

Who cares...?...we already have what we need....please do stop and control your "lol's" for a while and read on...:

See, an actual Infrared spectrophotometer does exactly that...You beam IR of the very specific wavelength, where CO2 can absorb Energy  through a cuvette of a known path length  with CO2 gas in it and measure the remaining energy what comes out at the other end..
Only that will be micro Watts and instead of a square meter it will be the surface Area of the photo multiplier that measures what`s left..and most are around the bore size of .22 cal bullet.
An IR Satellite also does it that way..but looks at square kilometers and Watts...never the less We have what we need and can put it into a spreadsheet...
I would like to upload the actual spreadsheet somewhere but don`t have any such internet user account..."fileden" and "mediafire" want to infect PC`s since a few months so fuck them but here is a tell all screenshot I did upload to "photobucket"...:







380 ppm was the Modtran input valuewhere I stopped, because every graph posted by every  cook who cooks up these "Science.Orgasm" graphs stops at 380 ppm CO2 "showing" how CO2 "drives Temperature"...using a much simpler "AlGoreRithm" than the Modtran algorithm they claim they use..
we already covered how to differentiate any function and how a log function of REAL CO2 looks like in the REAL World...

But You don`t even need to know any of that stuff to notice what we (-the # of kooks)  have all noticed already a long time ago...
Look at the increments on these graphs, what do they call them again..these "scientists"? put together, claiming this CO2/Temp correlation  was based on "well proven Computer Modelling"...well *"Modtran"is their main man...!*

on the little text file on the right of the picture You can see for Yourself, that like fuck did they even bother to use "Modtran" numbers when it comes to fabricating these graphic "CO2/Temp Correlations" ...*every "delta Y" increment is a constant 0.10000 starting from 320 ppm CO2 all the way up to 380 ppm...*

Yet even "Modtran",* had they used their  Modtran output for any of these graphs shows that the** increment is 5 times less*  and *then drops down to 25 times less than the Graph incremets they use  @380 ppm  and DECREASING, so EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE as in the graphs they produce for "Wikipedia Internet Climate Science" where it stays pegged 1:1 with ppm CO2 on EVERY GRAPH THEY PRODUCE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION...*

*See screenshot  of spreadsheet G1 to G9 and D1 to D9 (all 6 digits after 0._)...*

But if any one of us wants to point this out to our retards here, they start spitting and claim we got that from "neo-nazi-rightwing-know-fuck-all-why-don`t-you -see-what-real-highly-intelligent-green-science-dot-org" web sites say...

We don`t need Watermelon brained "Science-experts" telling us where to find them, TinEye reverse image search plug-in can do it much better



Welcome to OceanWorld - Bringing the Ocean to the Classroom

Study finds Northwest glaciers shrinking faster, gone by 2030 // Current
http://www.esri.com./news/arcwatch/0808/woods-h...
newsbusters.org
Zeeburg Nieuws / Onafhankelijke informatiepagina en knipselkrant over natuur en milieu / Openingspagina / Home
co2_toename.jpg





;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



2008 Junho 28 «...
Il sole non riparte! - IL METEO.IT | Forum meteo...
Researchers ask Congress to revisit climate change science « Summit County Citizens Voice...
http://msbeaker.blogspot.com/2010/11/climategat...
Why you shouldn&#8217;t care about the cause of global warming. « Evoluto...

*Here is a really scary one.....I  wonder why Roach-head has`nt found and posted it yet, I guess the "Jordan Institute" has`nt made his list of "top super duper scientists" yet...it will for sure after he sees this picture*
The Jordan Institute : Home











motls.blogspot.com
Wis Physics
The Institute for Creation Research
Signs of the Times News for Tue, 03 May 2011

See I did not "cherry pick" They all do the same cheat...Temperature increase  is a simple fucked in the watermelon brain head direct linear proportion
of ppm CO2...
*They put "InURL" names like edu.com or physics.com  into their web site names, but not a single one of these web sites contains a shred  of actual physics....and go on calling this mass brain wash garbage " education" 
*


And the wanna be Wikipedia science graduates keep going to these web sites for  right mouse clicked copy&paste crap which they can put between   {quote]blah blah bloat[ /quote} html markers and post it  here over and over again..

*Yet even the exaggerated IPCC`s main man, Motran, if you bother using it would shoot everyone of these graphs to pieces
*
So what now...? has a "right wing Oil-Lobby-neo-nazi conspiracy" hacked into "Modtran" and given it a "right wing Bias"...?


*If You have EXCEL or any thing resembling it please do verify that I have not cheated or altered the Modtran Data in any way what- so -ever to get these *results
=100-(100*B3/B2)  was used for C3 to C9, because that is how You convert % transmission to % Absorption
and 
=C3-C2 was used for D3 to D9

Footnote
While "The Iron Curtain" still existed, Rumania tricked escapees with a very clever trick, divulging information. They actually did have a convincing looking bogus "Iron Curtain" before You got to the real thing on the Rumanian side. Fake GI`s in fake American Uniforms "helped" people flee and firing back at Rumanian watch towers at that bogus line..both "sides" of course just used blanks...then the "GI`s" who spoke English rather well "de-briefed" the poor slobs in heavily accented Rumanian,....it worked all the way up to the day till communist Rumania collapsed..
This Modtran "Computer Model" reminds me a lot of the Rumanian Trick...although that would be crediting "Global Warming Science" with the smarts they just don`t have....







The scary thing is, that A. Merkel the "Climate Chancellor Of Germany"...Obama`s "Green Policy Mentor" has these smarts and was a top graduate of the Soviet Academy for Propaganda and Agitation..and Obama eagerly licks off whatever comes out of any body orifice of that pig..


----------



## polarbear (May 4, 2011)

I guess Y`aaawl been too  busy watching the news about who finally had his brains blown out by a Special Forces Commando...

*Meanwhile  in Canada we had the blow out we all knew was inevitable:*

CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News



> *updated PM returns to Ottawa after majority win*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"what went so "horribly wrong..??????????????"
fuck nothing at all went "wrong"...what happened is what EVERY CANADIAN WAS HOPING FOR and WAS VOTING FOR...

So, #1...:
Gun registration & confiscation ==========> Do I need pictures of what a toilet looks like..? Yes my Waffen SS Brothers in arms Skookerasbil, and Feld Marschall Erwin Westwall, Rommel would not forgive me if I would not...!...Just a sec...I`ll picture Google for one
#2,
Once our friends south of our border do the same thing then...
Middle East Oil is down the ============. Toilet,
because then You can get 100 % of Your crude Oil supplied from us and Alberta  Tar Sands Pipelines will run straight all the way down to Texas refineries.
Our Tar-sands is the world`s second biggest oil field...so far we covered a bit over  60 % of all the crude oil You guys import...we cover 100% of our own needs and have enough surplus to cover the U.S.` energy needs 100 %
#3
Eventually this will also end California`s, New Mexico`s, Arizona`s and Nevada`s fresh water shortage...
because we have an abundance of fresh water and we wanted to build pipelines supplying our best friend and Ally with all the water the people there need...
It was a "No CanaDo" because while we had minority Government the Liberals and the Green Party kept vetoing it...
So every time when our gigantic Hydro reservoirs were full to the brim we had to dump these into the arctic...
*..... every time we did that "Global Warming Scientists" booked every flee bag Hotel room in Churchill *to "document starving polar bears" ,"Eskimos that have to eat at McDonalds because the ice is too thin to hunt & kill & eat raw seal" nonsense etc etc etc because the Hydro dumps push  the ice  out a couple of 100 klicks the Hudson Bay 

All this Enviro-kook Science News Pavarazzi Fodder will as abruptly end as the "Liberal" and "Green Party of Canada...
I did mention on the other posts here, that I have Family in Churchill and we can`t find a Motel room when we want to visit if Manitoba Hydro starts dumping...
*The Hotel Operators in Churchill, who make next to no business all Year round make 1 phone call to CNN or the like and over night they are booked solid at inflated prices every time Manitoba Hydro has to dump water...*
So once we can pipe excess fresh water to California, this kind of "Enviro Tourism" will be totally fucked up and us Canadians can get Hotel Rooms in the arctic, when we want to visit family


*Because  then this "starving polar bear" crap too will be  going  where all this idiotology*





*belongs..:*
in the ==========>
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*We finally had a good crap, and now, my good friends and fellow Americans  we are open for business again *

*I love it*
We tared and feathered the Bastards just like in my favorite Music Video...@ time frame 00:36

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stz0_bk4jx8]YouTube - Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe (Original Version) Official Music Video (c) 1994[/ame]


* I`ll have to go to town tomorrow and get a couple of cases of Bud`s and watch my Rednex video, now that Canada is back to normal*


*Oh Yeah and the "Kyoto Accord" in Canada...?   *


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

Yeah....that was awesome news Polar.............


----------

