# Lists



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FACT:

U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascars National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
lAcadémie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
The Democratic Party of America.

Climate Change &#8211; Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a &#8230; FRAUD:

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen&#8217;s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
The Republican Party of America

Climate Change &#8211; Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Now there is no denying the symetry of the lists. Note the number of scientific organizations that are on the list of denial. Nada. Zip. That should be a bit indictive of the validity of the denial.


----------



## Douger (Feb 9, 2011)

Looks to me like the owners of the Nazi Corporatocracy have been busy upgrading the propaganda machine.
Not surprising at all.
GBA_stan........................


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 9, 2011)

[edit] Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

    * Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But &#8211; and I cannot stress this enough &#8211; we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas &#8211; albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6]
    * Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7]
    * Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8]
reduced to down to comply with copywrite rules.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Many of these scientists are sincere, with points of view that are to be checked for evidence. 

A couple, Lindzen and Singer, because of past association with tobacco and energy companies, and paid testimony for those industries, are outcasts.

The arguement for the influence of cosmic rays has not been accepted by most scientists, and there is evidence that the affect is negligable. 

The solar influence, if it were now the primary driver, should be leading to a cooling, considering that we are in a solar minimum. That is certainly not the case.

As for models, you will find one of the best of the modelers, Dr. James Hansen, dismissing the models as an accurate indicator of what the future holds, at the level that our present models are at. In fact, he states quite bluntly in his book, 'Storms of my Grandchildren' that the best indictor that we have for what lies ahead, is what we can read from the geological record.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FRAUD:
> 
> American Petroleum Institute
> US Chamber of Commerce
> ...





and tens of thousands of scientists as well s0n.............


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FACT:
> 
> U.S. Agency for International Development
> United States Department of Agriculture
> ...






Indeed.............

And were all sure it has only to do with the "science".


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2011)

Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.


----------



## konradv (Feb 10, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.



What's the matter?  Trouble finding any?  It's funny how the deniers come up with all sorts of "data", but when confronted by something like this, they're at a loss!!!


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

its all a matter of how you posit the question. most of those science associations don't poll their members, they have a leadership committee that makes the political decisions like whether or not to make a statement about the possible danger of CO2 emmissions. warming or cooling could be a danger in some form or other to humans; CO2 could be the reason for some or all warming or cooling; therefor it is easy to hedge your bets and publicly state your concern.

I think it would have been much more difficult to get those statements in the 70's when there was cooling or  now after a decade of no warming but the paradigm was set in the 90's and will take time to change.


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.
> ...




no scientific organizations  declare fraud. otherwise Mann and Jones would be ex-scientists


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.



And that is all you have, isn't it? Innuendo concerning the honesty of the scientists. Indictutive of your own honesty.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.
> ...







Oh we have far more than that olfraud.  Far more.  I post to the WUWT page because he has the best abbreviated review of the soon to be published rebuttal of Steig et al that purported to show extensive Antarctic wide warming.  The new paper shows quite powerfully that Steig et al got it COMPLETELY wrong and were guilty of using incorrect methodology to support their cause (Mann was a co writer-go figure).

That the rebuttal will be published in the Journal of Climate is a minor miracle considering that Steig was one of the reviewers of the paper (unethical in the extreme, but once again par for the course) and the writers were forced to work on their paper for 10 months before the editor finally allowed it through (and interestingly enough that was accomplished by ADDING a 4th reviewer), the upshot is simply this, the "warming" that Steig et al claimed was occuring isn't.

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted &#8211; rebuts Steig et al | Watts Up With That?


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL



what did I say that made you jump to conspiracy theories? do they poll their members before making policy statements? do those policy statements explicitly state that catastophe is going to happen? or do they say IF the warming trend continues, IF the rise in CO2 leads to amplification of the known small effect of CO2 to the large effect projected by climate models, THEN climatic disturbances could be either be deletorious or beneficial to mankind. anything else wouldnt be very scientific would it?

not that I expect any semblance of scientific thought from you. you think weather is proof of global warming. you seem to be able to hold two or more mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time while ferverently believing all of them to be true.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

*My, my. So what we have here is an arguement concerning the statistical interpretation of the data. And by the authors interpretation the warming is less than that of the interpretations of Stieg and Mann. Less, but still warming. 

In other words, you are now reduced to stating 'Oh, well it's really not that bad'. I suppose someone will make a third study with differant statistical methods that show that Stieg and Mann underestimated the warming.*

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted &#8211; rebuts Steig et al | Watts Up With That?

Abstract 

A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include: (a) improper calibration of satellite data; (b) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (c) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. We propose two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (&#8776;0.35oC decade-1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. We also find differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the Peninsula.

Region RLS  C/Dec E-W  C/Dec S09   C/Dec Continent 0.06 ± 0.08 0.04 ± 0.06 0.12 ± 0.09 
East Antarctica 0.03 ± 0.09 0.02 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.10 
West Antarctica 0.10 ± 0.09 0.06 ± 0.07 0.20 ± 0.09 
Peninsula 0.35 ± 0.11 0.32 ± 0.09 0.13 ± 0.05 

Copyright © 2010 American Meteorological Association

(early online release to be available on or around Dec. 7th)


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL
> ...



Actually the one scientific society of which I am a member does indeed poll it's members on subjects like this.


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...





there is so much to that whole scandal. it actually started 2 years ago when a researcher found errors in the data Stieg and the hockey team used for the antarctica paper. he emailed Stieg and posted a comment at Climate Audit. Amazingly enough Gavin Schmidt found the same error himself only hours after being informed of it. the Hockey team at Real Climate must be getting really pissed off that amateurs prove them wrong on a regular basis.


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




how big of a majority does it take to pass? does it publicly state what the results of the vote were?


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *My, my. So what we have here is an arguement concerning the statistical interpretation of the data. And by the authors interpretation the warming is less than that of the interpretations of Stieg and Mann. Less, but still warming.
> 
> In other words, you are now reduced to stating 'Oh, well it's really not that bad'. I suppose someone will make a third study with differant statistical methods that show that Stieg and Mann underestimated the warming.*
> 
> ...





Old Rocks has learned the methods of the hockey team well. the original intent of the O'donnell paper was to show that Stieg 09 used incorrect methodology that smeared the warming on the antarctic penninsula over the rest of antarctica. and they did that in spades, showing bad methods, bad data, corrupted splices, and gibberish results. no one said that the peninsula wasnt warming, it is because of ocean currents. it is the rest of the continent that is cooling overall, which throws a kibosh on climate models that predict there must be warming at the poles.

here is a pictorial view of how screwed up Stieg 09 is. if you add a warming trend in one area it magically pops up somewhere else. - Bishop Hill blog - Steig's method massacred


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

do you think _Nature_ will put the rebuttal on its cover? no, I dont either.







whats that quote? a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. not unlike the Hockey Stick graph, this bogus paper on antarctica will live forever even if it is total BS. the AGW alarmists know it, and use peer review to make sure it will continue to happen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

LOL. In need of the tinfoil hat there again, Ian.


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. In need of the tinfoil hat there again, Ian.



hahaha, tinfoil hat? your guys keep getting caught out in using bogus methods and data to support there failing case and you say I am the one wearing a tinfoil hat? hahaha

you are the one who is struggling to avoid having to admit that you were duped by charlatans.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Ian, I get most of my data from the USGS, and other geological organizations, organizations like the Wood Hole Institute. Non-political, and scientific with definite areas of interest. Now if there were serious problems with the science of AGW, some scientific organization from some nation would be pointing those problems out. 

You see, that is what the OP was all about. Where are the scientific organizaitions stating the AGW is a hoax?


----------



## IanC (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, I get most of my data from the USGS, and other geological organizations, organizations like the Wood Hole Institute. Non-political, and scientific with definite areas of interest. Now if there were serious problems with the science of AGW, some scientific organization from some nation would be pointing those problems out.
> 
> You see, that is what the OP was all about. Where are the scientific organizaitions stating the AGW is a hoax?




I know and understand what you are trying to say Old Rocks. Do you try to understand what I am trying to say? 

There is a huge difference between saying 'increased CO2 will cause some warming and that may be dangerous down the road' and 'AGW alarmism is a hoax'. 

You may be right. Personally I dont think so because the earth would have tipped long ago if it was so fragile. Also, everytime I look into a story, article or paper there is another one that contradicts it. So many of the bigwigs of AGW alarmism have been shown to have exaggerated their claims that I dont trust them. Your side has idiots like Gore, my side has buffoons like Moncton. I dont like being lied to. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are real, therefor the Hockey Stick is crap. Why did the climate science community stick up for Mann and his corrupt methods? Any gardener knows that the Urban Heat Island effect is real, why did the climate science community stick up for Jones and his bogus study? Why have the temperature data been so cavalierly changed over and over again, always supporting warming (exception being the recent RSS decline, still unexplained). 

My problem is that politics seems to really matter in climate science. We used to laugh at the USSR for their intrusion into science but now we have become them


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *My, my. So what we have here is an arguement concerning the statistical interpretation of the data. And by the authors interpretation the warming is less than that of the interpretations of Stieg and Mann. Less, but still warming.
> 
> In other words, you are now reduced to stating 'Oh, well it's really not that bad'. I suppose someone will make a third study with differant statistical methods that show that Stieg and Mann underestimated the warming.*
> 
> ...






Try looking at the maps moron.  Only the Antarctic peninsula is warming, central Antarctica is cooling.  Nice to see you're as adept at map reading aas you are at basic reasoning.  Can you find the US on a globe?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






I would say every time so far.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. In need of the tinfoil hat there again, Ian.






If Ian is wearing the tin hat, you and your fellow incompetents, invented them.

It doesn't require a tin hat to figure out that your bestest and brightest can't do basic science.  Congrats, your PhD's are among the most incompetent ever created....must make you proud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Really? And which video from the last AGU Conferance should I watch to see your presentation proving that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Hey Walleyes, if all these scientists are so wrong, why is the January, 2011 extent of the Arctic Ice the lowest ever recorded for that time of year? Why are 90% or better of the alpine glaciers in the world in rapid retreat? 

You claim to be a scientist, but never miss an oppertunity to diss scientists.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey Walleyes, if all these scientists are so wrong, why is the January, 2011 extent of the Arctic Ice the lowest ever recorded for that time of year? Why are 90% or better of the alpine glaciers in the world in rapid retreat?
> 
> You claim to be a scientist, but never miss an oppertunity to diss scientists.






Gee, I don't know.  Can we trust anything your boys report?  So far they can't do statistics nor can they do complex math.  So far they are batting zero.  And for the record I honor GOOD SCIENTISTS!  

Bad scientists on the other hand are deserving of nothing but SCORN.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

My boys? Virtually all the scientists in the AGU, the GSA, the Royal Society, and all the other scientific societies dealing with this problem.

How does it feel being scorned?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2011)

Meanwhile, away from the Flat Earth EnviroMarxist hysteria, the number of repeatable scientific experiment showing a 200PPM increase raises temperature is still 0.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My boys? Virtually all the scientists in the AGU, the GSA, the Royal Society, and all the other scientific societies dealing with this problem.
> 
> How does it feel being scorned?







That statement on its face is ridiculous.  The AGW movement is promulgated by a fairly small subset of activist scientists.  As has been pointed out to you many times before, the various scientific organisations rarely poll their membership, the leadership of the groups decides what their POV is going to be.  

To be scorned by the likes of these twits I quite like actually.  I don't make sophomoric mistakes on a constant basis like these imbeciles.   And please answer IanCs question..

"Old Rocks- I really would like to know if you approve of Mann and Jones misuse of methods and data. they are supposedly top of their field, so do you think their obviously sophomoric mistakes were done on purpose to exaggerate their results or do you think they really are so bad at their occupation that they honestly made the mistakes? or is there some other excuse that you think is more reasonable?"


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

Parrots and idiots like "OldRocks" have many things in common, they can only parrot but not read themselves:
Where do North Atlantic icebergs come from? &mdash; Infoplease.com


> The principal origin of those icebergs that reach the North Atlantic Ocean are the 100 or so major tidewater glaciers of West Greenland. Between 10,000 to 15,000 icebergs are calved each year, primarily from 20 major glaciers between the Jacobshaven and Humboldt Glaciers.



It has long since been proven that glaciers are not* MELTING!* They are pushed by force of gravity downhill and when they reach the sea, they are broken up by tidal action. How complicated could it be to understand that?
Jo the Plumber would have no problem with that! "OldRocks" would connect a solid pipe to a diesel engine sitting in hard rubber mounts, while any "non scientific" mechanic would use a flex pipe.

Forscherskandal: Heißer Krieg ums Klima - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft



> Forscher haben Appelle von Umweltverbänden *"etwas verstärkt"*
> Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Umweltlobby wurde für viele seiner Kollegen zur Selbstverständlichkeit. Dem WWF etwa schickten australische und britische Klimaforscher auf Nachfrage besonders pessimistische Prognosedaten. Sie zeigten dabei ausdrücklich Verständnis dafür, dass der Umweltverein die Warnungen etwas "verstärkt" haben wollte, wie es der WWF im Juli 1999 in einer E-Mail forderte. Ein australischer Klimatologe bezeichnete es in einer E-Mail vom 28. Juli 1999 gegenüber Kollegen als "sehr beunruhigend", sollten sich in einer Umweltschutzbroschüre Daten fänden, die nahelegten, der Klimawandel könne in "weiten Teilen der Welt einen zu vernachlässigenden Effekt haben".



I know he wont take the trouble to paste this text into an online translation service, so here are the highlights* AGAIN*

*Climate research sacandal*
Climate Researches had "amplified" their findings  for the WWF conference. And suppressed data had been leaked that climate change has a largely negligible effect world wide

This rodent re-appears like a rat as soon as the rat catchers are gone...now he is here!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...t-An-Accelerated-Rate/Article/201007415674119

Dr Alun Hubbard, leading a team from the universities of Swansea and Aberystwyth said the ice sheet in their region had lowered six metres in just a month.

The phenomenon is caused by surface melt, a vicious cycle in which melted ice brings about further thawing of the cap beneath it.

As the ice turns to liquid, its surface reflectivity decreases, absorbing more of the heat from the sun, and accelerating the melt.

Frozen ice has an "albedo", or reflectivity, of around 80%, whereas open water reflects only around 20% of the sun's rays.

Sky News flew in with the team to their base on the inland ice, near to the town of Kangerlussuaq.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Greenland ice sheet losing mass on northwest coast

ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2010) &#8212; Ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, which has been increasing during the past decade over its southern region, is now moving up its northwest coast, according to a new international study.

Led by the Denmark Technical Institute's National Space Institute in Copenhagen and involving the University of Colorado at Boulder, the study indicated the ice-loss acceleration began moving up the northwest coast of Greenland starting in late 2005. The team drew their conclusions by comparing data from NASA's Gravity and Recovery Climate Experiment satellite system, or GRACE, with continuous GPS measurements made from long-term sites on bedrock on the edges of the ice sheet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

http://www.physorg.com/news177258173.html

This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year. 

Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: "It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes". 

The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to cause a global sea level rise of seven metres. Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Greenland Ice Cap Melting In A Hurry, Study Suggests

At the same time that surface melting started to increase around 1996, snowfall on the ice sheet also increased at approximately the same rate, masking surface mass losses for nearly a decade. Moreover, a significant part of the additional melt water refroze in the cold snow
pack that covers the ice sheet. Without these moderating effects, post-1996 Greenland mass loss would have been double the amount of mass loss observed now.

"It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes," says co-author Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol.

Citation: Michiel van den Broeke, Jonathan Bamber, Janneke Ettema, Eric Rignot, Ernst Schrama, Willem Jan van de Berg, Erik van Meijgaard, Isabella Velicogna, Bert Wouters, 'Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss', Science, November 2009, doi: 10.1126/science.1178176


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OldRocks Today, 08:39 PM
> Error
> Dr Alun Hubbard, leading a team from the universities of Swansea and Aberystwyth said the ice sheet in their region had lowered six metres in just a month.
> 
> ...



Even a parrot would have been smart enough to realize the futility. That is more akin to Organ grinding






And snake oil salesmen use the same routine:





*There is no cure, because there is no disease You f---ing asshole:*


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OldRocks Today, 08:39 PM
> ...







 It's allways easy to tell when olfraud got stung  He allways posts three or more links to try and rebut whatever it is that proved his religion wrong.  Classic and oh so predictable!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

What you mean is that when presented with real evidence in the language that is spoken on this board, you cannot reply.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

I have replied more than let`s see how many posts I made so far strictly on this subject...:
140 Postings, and the majority were from Physics and Chemistry books, Infrared Spectroscopy, Beer-Lambert`s Laws and serious climate data instead of faked data like
Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> weather and climate observations from the region tend to be widely spaced and of short duration compared to the midlatitudes and tropic
> ....blah blah....temperature data was based on best estimates
> and:
> 
> ...



I am just not willing to repeat it over and over again. Like I said You are an organ grinder that simply wants to wear others down till they buy Your snake oil just to shut you up!


Don`t assume that every American is as stupid as You!
They don`t buy You snake oil and Your cure because there  is no such disease and there is no such cure
And no matter how many stage props You parade here who play sick( Planet Earth), does not create an alter reality 





*YOU MORON*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

Idiots like OldRocks thinks he has "average" intelligence.
Well I say only morons will try and show that random data has a "trend".
So when this scandal busted wide open in Europe:
Forscherskandal: Heißer Krieg ums Klima - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft


> 1999 gab es* eine zweite Klimakurve*, geschaffen von den britischen Forschern Keith Briffa und Phil Jones, der das Climatic Research Unit (CRU) an der University of East Anglia leitet. Der Streit zwischen den beiden Gruppen entzündete sich daran, *welche Kurve ganz vorne im Uno-Klimareport von 2001 veröffentlicht werden sollte, in der Zusammenfassung für Politiker.*
> 
> *Für den Hockeyschläger sprach seine überzeugende Gestalt: Der einzigartige Temperaturanstieg in den vergangenen 150 Jahren schien den Einfluss des Menschen auf das Klima klar zu belegen*.



So there, now the whole world except "OldRocks" knows, that there were 2 climate "curves" and Climatologists chose the "Hockey Stick" curve to be shown to the UN in 2001 because the other one by Briffa & Jones *showed absolutely no correlation between  CO2 emissions attributed to fossil fuel consumption and temperature data.*

Now when confronted this "error" is supposed to be excused since much of the temperature data deals with such small increments that are within the range of random error.

Okay, only a total foll would fall for that, because "Climatology" has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 

Random error statistics look like this:





With almost the same amounts of dots above and below the mean.
But "Climatology`s" random Errors had zero dots below and all the "random Error" dots [/B] *above the line working in favor of their assertions*








And that`s supposed to be the real science this moron "OldRocks" keeps organ-grinding here since let`s see:


> OldRocks
> Join Date: Oct 2008
> Location: Portland, Ore.
> *Posts: 13,872*







over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
over and 
and so on again and again and again....


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2011)

Actually olfraud hopes and hopes and hopes that people like me will just get fed up and leave, leaving him the field.  Too bad for him we won't:

There I've now used more smilies than any other post I'ver ever done!


----------



## rdean (Feb 10, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.



You would have to find a "Republican" scientific organization.  So far, I haven't found a single one.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

rdean said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.
> ...



I have one for Mathew and all You other guys, actually more than one, most are unfortunately in German but there is this for starters:
E-Mail-Affäre: Untersuchung entlastet Klimaforscher - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft


> Untersuchung entlastet Klimaforscher
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok "absichtlich" = willful   and "Fehlverhalten" = well I have to use several words as examples, 
1.) Malpractice...
2.)using erroneous Methods
3.) un-professional behavior....well You get the drift?
German is a very precise language, that`s why most guys that study math or physics also study German and most would not notice
that this statement in effect says, *they are guilty of 1.) 2.) and 3.) the only thing that they have not been proven guilty if is the "WILFULL"*



Okay,this "man made GW" clusterfuck had been investigated for perpetrating* willful fraud, *but that *could not be proven..*.
*Because of the "Random Errror" cop out...I have no idea why they let them get away with that*




> Im Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit *steht der schweigsame CRU-Chef Phil Jones. Hat er Daten manipuliert?* Hat er mit Kollegen daran gearbeitet, Kritiker mundtot zu machen? Nun hat ein weiteres unabhängiges Gremium seinen Bericht vorgelegt - und Jones vom Vorwurf wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens weitgehend freigesprochen.



And the key figure Phil Jones had been pleading the fifth, and remains silent, but this leaves the question unanswered if he had manipulated data and silenced critics.
So he is still presumed to be "innocent"

But only PRESUMED, because this has also come crashing down on "global warming" since then..funny how silent the media is here... nothing at all, *You should think CNN would report such a MASSIVE SCANDAL:*



> Die Gruppe unter* Lord Ronald Oxbourgh,* dem ehemaligen Chef des Wissenschafts- und Technologieausschusses des* britischen Oberhauses*, war von der University of East Anglia beauftragt worden. Im Blickpunkt sollten die Forschungsarbeiten der CRU-Wissenschaftler und die darin angewandten wissenschaftlichen Methoden stehen. Aspekte wie das Zurückhalten von Informationen, für das Jones und seine Mitarbeiter *sowohl von einem Ausschuss des britischen Parlaments als auch vom britischen Information Commissioner's Office gerügt worden waren*,



Okay, The chief commissioner of the upper British House branch for Science and Technology had ordered an investigation into the methods used by the CRU scientists who had presented this false data to investigate willful fraud.
And the British Parliament has in a session publicly condemned this group for withholding evidence and refusing to cooperate in the investigation.

So...there is LOTS more...but it`s a pain in the neck to translate all by my lonesome...and typing was never my favorite pastime.

*At least we know one this for certain in Europe, that these fucks kept 2 sets of books!*
Holy shit You should see what happens to a truck driver if they catch him with 2 log book pages for the same trip...
I drove truck in my time off from the military and in Billings Montana the bastard went through my garbage bag in my truck and found a crumpled log sheet for the same day as the one I just showed im in the "chicken coup" office...that cost me $400 cash right then and there!
And all the $$ for the extra Diesel I burnt while speeding (68 liters per 100 klicks) was down the toilet, because he made me take a "rest" for 8 hours.
*Why are they handling these bastards with velvet gloves...look at the massive and costly fuck up they have caused in the meantime*
*$ 5.60 for fuel at the pumps in Europe...~40% of that is "Eco-Tax" for "greener technology"*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2011)

@Westwall, You dad was a trucker, I bet he can relate to that.
After 8 hours staying put in Billings I felt like doing a "Hector" when I got out on the interstate again..

http://www.youtube.com/user/reztirpswbb#p/a/u/0/bXdX6sxHK9w

Just kidding we all play with ideas like that but we *don`t really shoot the ref in a hockey game !*...like Hector did

But if I knew what car OldRocks drives* I`m not quite so sure!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 11, 2011)

Heres the poop...........the bottom line stinky poop. America has a 14 trillion dollar debt. Eventually.......and this is a 100% certainty.........inflation and a devalued dollar will cause all Americans to pay attention because they will need to do it to survive as a family. One of the first things they'll look at is energy costs. In other words, which form of energy can be had that is the most efficient and most cost effective? It will trump all environmental BS that is keeping the nation from drilling in areas that need to be drilled. Self preservation will trump k00k idealism as it always does when lives are at stake.........when peoples way of life has been turned upside down. You think people are going to give a rats ass that the ocean has raised 2cm's when they cant put food on the table?? Only the nutballs will still hang on to that..........but they will be political fossils. Imagine the chances of government credits for solar panels during a depression? Laughable.........there will be none because they will be deemed assinine by the public. People will 100% embrace only what is tangible, realistic and cost effective.


And you think the environmental k00ks are pissed about big oil profits now??? Holy shit......they aint seen NOTHING like they will see in coming years. We will soon see a time when debates on "global warming" are a footnote in history.

I guess for now, LIST games are good fun entertainment!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Simple fact is, Bipolar cannot find a single scientific organization to back his nonsense, and resorts to posting in German. There are plenty of organizations that state global warming is a fraud. Unfortunetly they are all political organizations, or funded by Exxon-Mobile. By the way, what does the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher have to say concerning global warming?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

polarbear said:


> @Westwall, You dad was a trucker, I bet he can relate to that.
> After 8 hours staying put in Billings I felt like doing a "Hector" when I got out on the interstate again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/reztirpswbb#p/a/u/0/bXdX6sxHK9w
> ...



Really? You are that defenseless in this debate? Typical Conservative.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Simple fact is, Bipolar cannot find a single scientific organization to back his nonsense, and resorts to posting in German. There are plenty of organizations that state global warming is a fraud. Unfortunetly they are all political organizations, or funded by Exxon-Mobile. By the way, what does the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher have to say concerning global warming?







The simple fact is the english language based media is not reporting what is going on.  Der Spiegel is one of the best magazines on the planet and when they discovered they had been duped they decided to run with it.  Eventually their reporting will make it into the general media.  olfraud, you can post as many stupid lists as you wish, but there is one fact that no matter how much you whine and snivel and make crap up will not change, AGW as a religion is failing.

Cap and Tax is dead, the EPA is having to legislate by fiat and they will soon be put down.  Gores CCX is done, it's closed shop and left the game.  International carbon trading is toast as well.

Get used to it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > @Westwall, You dad was a trucker, I bet he can relate to that.
> ...








  Pot meet kettle.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 11, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Heres the poop...........the bottom line stinky poop. America has a 14 trillion dollar debt. Eventually.......and this is a 100% certainty.........inflation and a devalued dollar will cause all Americans to pay attention because they will need to do it to survive as a family. One of the first things they'll look at is energy costs. In other words, which form of energy can be had that is the most efficient and most cost effective? It will trump all environmental BS that is keeping the nation from drilling in areas that need to be drilled. Self preservation will trump k00k idealism as it always does when lives are at stake.........when peoples way of life has been turned upside down. You think people are going to give a rats ass that the ocean has raised 2cm's when they cant put food on the table?? Only the nutballs will still hang on to that..........but they will be political fossils. Imagine the chances of government credits for solar panels during a depression? Laughable.........there will be none because they will be deemed assinine by the public. People will 100% embrace only what is tangible, realistic and cost effective.
> 
> 
> And you think the environmental k00ks are pissed about big oil profits now??? Holy shit......they aint seen NOTHING like they will see in coming years. We will soon see a time when debates on "global warming" are a footnote in history.
> ...



*You got it exactly right...I think*

I am beginning to suspect that this bastard Bilderberg Group that meets every Year with the finance ministers of the theG?how many now and every US treasury behind closed doors has long made plans for a new currency.
It came to light @ Wikileaks last Year that it was at a Bilderberg meeting that the Euro was slated to be a common currency in Europe, long before the public heard that from the politiciens in France,Germany, Spain etc..

It used to be that our bucks & Reichmarks and D-Marks were backed by Gold. Then the *banksters* had a better idea and backed it with Paper, called T-bills, which cost no more than what ink and pares costs...and since then the derivative  cheats like Goldman Sachs etc. had a wide open road creating fantasy Millions out of thin air
Except now it`s time to pay the piper.
So, look at the price of gold now!...no way can we go back there. But there is something else which very likely will be the new collateral behind a currency, the *Kilowatt Hour!*
And all the greenhouse gas hype shooting down cheap energy fits the bill.
Because the *countries that sit on oceans of crude oil reserves have to be excluded firs*t from the new and better fodder troth for these greedy pigs!
Of course Your fireplace & firewood CO2 spewing has to quit as well. if You could get Your KVA hours yourself in the woods like grandpa did, that would be the same as moonshine making or printing your own money, and You did not buy Your "CO2" credits at the brand new stock exchange first to make that legal! 
Guess what..! In Germany that is already a law!...*That`s why You don`t need a crystal ball to see the future.
All it takes is to watch where this swindle has alreadygone beyond the point of no return.*
And they already had huge corruption scandals with their CO2 credits exchange, the Italian/Sicilian Mafia have that already cornered.
They don`t miss a trick either...remember how Al Capone got rich...with Booze smuggling...of course he wound up in the slammer, Banksters & Government hate competition!
I should go dig out the Headlines that made in Europe.
I am willing to register a bet at Lloyd`s in London right now at 5:1 odds against anybody who is willing to bet against that!
Any takers?

I came back here these scams have been in full swing for quite some time already, and I managed to find an example published in English..in a New York second just by  Googling for "*CO2 credit trading scam*":
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,665594,00.html 


> *Fraudulent Emissions-Trading Schemes Rob German Tax Authorities
> *
> 
> 
> ...



See, that`s the way to finance Obama`s pipe dreams...and hey, he did not lie if he promised no tax increases...because he invented a whole new revenue source...
*Why would America want to follow the footsteps of born loosers!* and copy Europeans.
You guys did just fine without them after You kicked the British out


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Hmmm......   The OP was about who states what concerning global warming, not about the financial dealing of either side. Now if you can point out a scientific society that states that AGW is a fraud, why are don't you do that? All the yap-yap about Al Gore and cap and trade is just red herring attempts to divert attention from the fact that virtually the whole of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......   The OP was about who states what concerning global warming, not about the financial dealing of either side. Now if you can point out a scientific society that states that AGW is a fraud, why are don't you do that? All the yap-yap about Al Gore and cap and trade is just red herring attempts to divert attention from the fact that virtually the whole of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.







  The only yapper is you  Cap and tax, toast, CCX, toast, EPA, looking to be defunded.  Yep it's looking real good for you boys.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

No, the EPA will not be defunded, no more than the Health Care Bill was repealed. The Conservatives will just continue to make fools of themselves. You are an excellant example of that.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FRAUD:
> 
> American Petroleum Institute
> US Chamber of Commerce
> ...




You omitted NASA.  There is no measurable climate change of Earth's biome at this time nor has there been for roughly 470 years. There will be, in about 100 years, and this is normal for planets such as ours.

Good post.

Robert


----------



## polarbear (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the EPA will not be defunded, no more than the Health Care Bill was repealed. The Conservatives will just continue to make fools of themselves. You are an excellant example of that.



You must be collecting brownie points so You will be first in line for the Greenhouse Gas Police.







*All this crap is a classic case of wagging the dog:*








Based on Hollywood "science":





So now, explain this, if we are living now on a "Greenhouse Gas Planet" where the temperatures have been allegedly climbing for 10 Years how do You explain the "Brown house" effect that lasted for over a decade:...Are You going to claim that a "El Niño" or a "La Niña" did that *and lasted THAT LONG?*

The worst day of the &#8220;Dirty Thirties&#8221; &#8211; TRUE DAKOTAN



> The Dust Bowl of the 1930&#8217;s *was a devastating period of weather extremes *and artificially eroded soils resulting in terrible dust storms coupled with alternating drought and heat with blizzards and floods.
> Temps soared past 1000 during July-1936
> High temperatures and very little rain made conditions in Central South Dakota unbearable in the summer of 1936 &#8212; a year after &#8220;Black Sunday&#8221; and the huge dust storm.
> 
> ...



But 1974 was at once incorporated into the "hockey stick" temperature trend.
*While the "dirty thirties" lasted till 1940 and ranged deep into Canada as well*













Weather -
The Dust Bowl or the Dirty Thirties was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to *American and Canadian prairie lands from 1930 to 1936 (in some areas until 1940). *The phenomenon was caused by severe drought  A series of dust storms displaced

The dog wagging experts know, that if You fucked a dog once before, *he`ll bite Your hand off if You try and grab his tail again.*
So they wait for the old dog to die and do it later with the stupid puppies!
But now the problem is, that the not so stupid new generation puppies can share the entire dog fucker list over the internet




> *Robert_Stephens*
> You omitted NASA. There is no measurable climate change of Earth's biome at this time nor has there been for roughly 470 years. There will be, in about 100 years, and this is normal for planets such as ours.



http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113527.html


> Alabama 	&#8211;27 	&#8211;33 	Jan. 30, 1966 	New Market 	760
> Alaska 	&#8211;80 	&#8211;62 	Jan. 23, 1971 	Prospect Creek Camp	1,100
> Arizona 	&#8211;40 	&#8211;40 	Jan. 7, 1971 	Hawley Lake 	8,180
> Arkansas 	&#8211;29 	&#8211;34 	Feb. 13, 1905 	Pond 	1,250
> ...



*There is no trend*







These Bastards have already been confronted even by the British Parliament of having* cherry picked only from the top part* of a purely random set of data...






*They just could not (yet!!!) be convicted of DELIBERATE FRAUD...because they are not talking*
I already posted that
*Either You are utterly stupid or You think You can just move into the next town (or forum thread...as it were) and keep going on organ grinding and snake oil selling*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2011)

Care to explain this graph, Bipolar?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure4.png


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......   The OP was about who states what concerning global warming, not about the financial dealing of either side. Now if you can point out a scientific society that states that AGW is a fraud, why are don't you do that? All the yap-yap about Al Gore and cap and trade is just red herring attempts to divert attention from the fact that virtually the whole of the scientific community states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.






s0n.....you are so hopelessly naive...........

This idiot thinks that the "green economy" is about the good intentions of industry in providing technology to stop global warming from happening. That speical interests dont exist on the side of the "real" scientists.........and that the skeptics side is all about big oil and special interests.


And THATS why we call them k00ks, my friends!!!







Well son......they are able to navigate in society by finding rather asocial niches where the fringe mentality wont be a crutch to being able to assimilate on some level!!.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2011)

Kooky, quit dodging, point out a scientific society that supports your point of view. Just one, mind you, even from Outer Slobovia.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Kooky, quit dodging, point out a scientific society that supports your point of view. Just one, mind you, even from Outer Slobovia.




Ummm..........ahhhh..........the whole point is, moron, that the special interests leads the science. Not the other way around...............



Monday, March 8, 2010
*The Climate Industry Wall of Money* 
Source: joannenova.com.au

When it comes to spending in the climate change debate, Big Oil&#8217;s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.

Follow the money
Money for Skeptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for man-made global warming skeptics and found $23 million dollars paid by Exxon over ten years (which has stopped).

But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on skeptics&#8212;even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford&#8217;s Global Climate and Energy Project and $600 million for Biofuels research).

Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989&#8212;to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it&#8217;s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to skeptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be&#8230;a lot bigger.

There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.

Ultimately the big problem is that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. There are no Institutes of Natural Climate Change, but plenty that are devoted to UnNatural Forces.

Continue reading » 

Abel Danger: Climate Change







facts suck s0n.........huh??!!!!!!!!!!!:  Only goofballs think carts come before horses!!





*DOMINANCE*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 12, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Care to explain this graph, Bipolar?
> 
> http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure4.png



Since there is nobody listed in this Forum by that user name I`ll try and explain it to Rock & Cement heads yet again.* Can You read?
*








> Fig. 5: Replication of the result presented in Fig. 4 (From Adler and El&#65533;as (2000). Length of solar Cycle SCL (filled circles), maximum ionospheric electron density in *respective 11-year sunspot cycle (plus signs), *Northern Hemisphere *temperature anomalies (empty triangles)*, and local temperature anomalies in San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina (empty circles ) *show a significant covariation*. *As explained in the text,* the downward movement at the end of the SCL curve *does not indicate that there is no longer any effect of solar activity on climate.*











*Would this happen now say from 2011 to 2021 there is no doubt what the high priests of "climate science" would say:

See Pharaoh did not listen to Moses and now the sky darkened
*


*And again here is how "climatology" cherry picked their data:*






*This graph has no line representing solar activity, but its right up top in this post here!*

*Does somebody have to draw You a line for solar activity in pretty color into this graph for You, because Your little brain is over taxed if I don`t do it for You??
*








*Can`t wrap You head around it can You?*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Kooky, quit dodging, point out a scientific society that supports your point of view. Just one, mind you, even from Outer Slobovia.



*The problem with Rock and Cement heads is, that they don`t read source information themselves, but keep quoting what "experts" who pre-digest it as baby food Pablem for their following.

Had You read the source data Yourself You would have clearly seen who has been doing the picking out to support a point of view*



> SPIEGEL ONLINE has analyzed the more than 1,000 Climategate e-mails spanning a period of 15 years, e-mails that are freely available over the Internet and which, when printed out, fill five thick files.



Here it is in English this time:




> *How Climate Researchers Plotted with Interest Groups*
> 
> Even before the UN climate conference in Kyoto in 1997, environmentalist groups and leading climate researchers began joining forces to put pressure on industry and politicians. In August 1997, Greenpeace sent a letter to The Times newspaper in London, appealing on behalf of British researchers. *All the climatologists had to do was sign on the dotted line. In October of that year, other climate researchers -- ostensibly acting on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, or WWF -- e-mailed hundreds of colleagues calling on them to sign an appeal to the politicians in connection with the Kyoto conference.*
> 
> ...








I guess sticking Your head into the sand is less painful than having Your balloon deflated about our 21st Century moses


----------



## polarbear (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Care to explain this graph, Bipolar?*
> 
> http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure4.png




*Again, since no one by that user name exists here I shall explain it again.*
This time let`s go into the Math and the Physics, which are way beyond You, Your Moses Al Gore and his flock of sheep;







Solar flux measured at 20h UTC on 2.8 GHz was 91.2 (increasing 11.0 over the last solar rotation). The planetary A index  was 4 (STAR Ap - based on the mean of three hour interval ap indices: 3.6). Three hour interval K indices: 11000122 (planetary), 01011222 (Boulder).

of approximately 100,000 lux or lumens per square meter at the Earth's surface.

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







The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly* 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²)*

The total insolation remains almost constant due to *Kepler's second law,*






where A is the "areal velocity" invariant. That is, the integration over the orbital period (also invariant) is a constant.






But the seasonal and latitudinal distribution and intensity of solar radiation received at the Earth's surface also varies.[10] *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.*

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately *3,850,000 exajoules *(EJ) per year.* In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.
*
*The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
*


*Now lets see what Your Moses and his high priests of climatology had to say about 2002:*


=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2002/]Data.GISS: GISTEMP &#8212; Global Temperature Trends, 2002



> *GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
> *
> *Global Temperature Trends: 2002 Summation
> *
> *The 2002 meteorological year is the second warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data (since the late 1800s). The global surface temperature for 12 months from December 2001 through November 2002 is 0.51°C above the climatological mean (1951-1980 average)* in the GISS analysis, which uses meteorological station measurements over land and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature over the ocean.








*And it`s all because of our SUV`s.....they try and tell ME?*





> *Evidence that CO2 is Cause*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







*Fuck You ALL I know MY Math!*
*And Skookerasbil, Mathew, IanC, Westerwall, etc etc and me are not  willing to pay for Your fucking stupidity, that is YOUR PROBLEM all You Rock an Cement heads
*
Maybe try ripping off a few jungle tribes that cater to witch doctors,






*They can read correlations between bone/stone  patterns and what`s going to happen, just like any of your climatology correlation "scientists" can*
 You might get lucky with them!....But  that`s a no can do either because there is no way to con them into "Greenhouse Gas" taxation either


----------



## polarbear (Feb 12, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FRAUD:
> ...



So as You can see now in his "Oil Lobby" conspiracy theory he left out a whole shitload of scientists as well, just to name a few..."
Milankovitch
Johannes Kepler
A.Röntgen
Lambert
Beer
Johannes and David Fabricius
John of Worcester, and Averroes
Thomas Harriot and Frisian
Christoph Scheiner
Gustav Spörer
Edward Maunder
Heinrich Schwabe
George Ellery Hal
Horace W. Babcock


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 12, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Care to explain this graph, Bipolar?*
> ...



Good science and math. Keep up the good work...The sun is by far the biggest driver of climate on this planet and changes in orbit, incline of rotation and output of energy put out by the sun is the driver of the natural cycles. Sure changes in the green house can have effects, but as you pointed out in the 2011 temp thread with math and science is co2 has less and less effect as you go from 300-500 ppm within a log like way. This is caused  because water vapor takes up most of co2s wave length.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2011)

Rocks s0n..........better start another thread. On this one you've been..........





*PWNED[/B



SKEPTIC DOMINATION



*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2011)

Really?  All that BS, yet the first list remains intact. Could it be that Bipolar is using the math and science in the same way that the creationists claim the second law of thermodynamics prevents abiogenisis? If his science is so solid, why do the atmospheric physicists all state that AGW is a fact? In fact, how does the Bi account for the melting of the caps at all?

And many of the scientists, such as Milankovic, are not alive to take part in this controversy. Not only that, his work concerned the orbitual mechnics, not atmospheric physics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a  FRAUD:
> ...



LOL   Really fucking stupid there, old chap.

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

And I could sign this as Napoleon Bonoparte. Be just as valid as your claim to be part of NASA.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2011)

yeah, thats what I thought too


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2011)

Old Rocks, I think you would be very disappointed to find out the results of a poll of scientists that asked specific questions about AGW. CO2 increase-yes. global warming since the LIA- yes but perhaps not as much as we are being told. CO2 as the driver of increases- one of the factors but unlikely the main one. danger of tipping point- a possibility but unlikely

and they would laugh at you for believing that extreme weather events are (1) increasing or (2) that CO2 is causing them. I guess not all of them, kooks like Hansen or Schneider or Ehrlich crave the attention and fame of being the point man on claims of doom and gloom. charlatans like Mann and Jones see the opportunities for funding and advancement in concocting new theories and manufacturing blighted evidence to support them.

have I asked you recently to explain your position on Mann and Jones using faulty data and methods to make spectacular claims? have you answered somewhere that I didnt notice?


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Poor olfraud  when presented with overwhelming evidence that lists of organisations doesn't equal science he resorts to personal insult.  Typical result from an uneducated activist moron.

You have outlived your usefulness, time to hit the bricks and find another cause.....I suggest saving the Spotted Owl.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really?  All that BS, yet the first list remains intact. Could it be that Bipolar is using the math and science in the same way that the creationists claim the second law of thermodynamics prevents abiogenisis? If his science is so solid, why do the atmospheric physicists all state that AGW is a fact? In fact, how does the Bi account for the melting of the caps at all?
> 
> And many of the scientists, such as Milankovic, are not alive to take part in this controversy. Not only that, his work concerned the orbitual mechnics, not atmospheric physics.




meh.........all you ever do s0n is respond with the "real scientists" BS..............

Time for you and the other k00ks to take your bats and balls and go home..............

Anybody who is not part of the religion and checking in on this thread is saying to themselves, "Holy shooooit...........this global warming crap is a racket!!".

This is what the k00ks dont get..........at this point in the debate, their arguments are like Captain Smith asking for the crew to rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 13, 2011)

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?



there is a huge problem in understanding the dynamics of heat flow away from earth and into space. at ground level there is the saturation problem. once water vapour takes latent heat aloft there are questions about the radiation of that heat. vibrationally excited CO2 doesnt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc.

there doesnt seem to be a coherent explanation for the whole cascade, and I have looked. most of the partial explanations focus on one single part but dont really give a solid estimate of how much energy is going through which routes and what the errors and uncertainties are. there are just enormous gaps of understanding between the heating of the earth from SW and the measurement of the escaping LW by satellites.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?



The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dx = &#954;&#961;dz 
The crucial thing is that there is a monotonic function relating x and z. 

The atmosphere does not end at some height but trails off with lower and lower density. Thus z may not have have an upper limit but x may nevertheless have a finite level. 

Since &#954;&#961; has dimension of inverse length optical path length x is a dimensionless variable. 


In terms of optical path length the Beer-Lambert Law takes the form 

dI/dx = &#8722;I 
The Case of an Absorbing-Emitting Medium
In a medium which absorbs radiant energy the temperature increases and it radiates energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula &#963;T4. The Beer-Lambert Law is replaced by the Schwarzchild Equation 

dI/dz = &#8722;&#954;&#961;I + ½&#954;&#961;R(z) 
where R(z)=&#963;T4(z). This formula presumes Kirchhoff's Law that the emissivity of a substance is equal to its absorptivity. It also presumes that half of the thermal radiation is in the forward direction. 

In terms of the optical path length the Schwarzchild equation takes the form 

dI/dx = &#8722;I + ½R 
Since there is forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Let I+ be the radiation flux intensity in the direction of increasing optical path length x and I- the flux intensity in the opposite direction. 

The two equations for the flux intensities are


----------



## polarbear (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?
> ...


 *See Ian & Mathew that`s what happens if an "Expert" in Physics quotes "Real Physics" and makes goobledigook speeches to appear educatued and intelligent, but has no idea what he is quoting.
*
He quoted this web Page and pasted some text in here that he pretends to understand:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

*And here is where they...,OldRocks web site got it from,,*...that web site copied a few equations and buzzwords, to appear as Experts in Physics...:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

*Go there and You will soon spot a gigantic fraud how these swindlers alter original text from real Physics, *like what the Schwarzchild equation, the Max Planck Equations well in short what every equation really stated 

His man made GW "expert Physics" web site copied it from here:
*WORD FOR WORD, what they liked and LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT!*

first a quote from "OldRocks" web site quote:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect


> dI/dz = &#8722;&#954;&#961;I
> 
> where z is distance through the medium, &#961; is a density and &#954; is an absorption coefficient.



And these bastards simply stole, copied and pasted it into their "expert" web page from here:
Barrett Bellamy Climate - Schwarzschild's Equation


> The Schwarzschild Equation and Radiative Transfer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*And some more buzzwords+ equations but chopped all the rest right off*
*And they left all that clean out what else the Physics they so shamelessly plagiarized did say in the mathematical discussion*


> A more appropriate equation would be:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And You know who they actually stole parts of their text from?
Read to the bottom of Schwarzchild`s Equation "OldRocks" boasted with here in this forum:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

A German Professor Hartwig Volz from the University of Mainz. And Professor Volz and the other Doctor Heinz Hug who is one of the world`s foremost experts in Spectral Physics who I quoted also in this forum work together to point out the sever flaws in this man made "GW science"!
Remember my post where Heinz Hug`s actual measurements showed *that these bastards exaggerated by a factor of at least 20 times*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html






> We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
> 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 %
> ...



* Professor Hartwig Volz and many other Scientists in Physics, Chemistry and Geo-science branches from Germany even went so far to travel to the U.S.A. and make a presentation on Capitol Hill what kind of fraud this man made GW is:*
Fairy Tale


> *Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' Marc Morano, CNSNews.com*
> Wednesday, May 15, 2002 WASHINGTON &#8211; *A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.*
> 
> The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.
> ...



Here is Herrn Professors Hartwig Holz homepage and e-mail address:
Hartwig Volz - Deutschland - E-Mail, Adresse, Telefonnummer und mehr! 123people.de
And here are the Results if You "Google" Herr Professor Volz:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Schwarzchild+Equation&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&source=hp&q=Hartwig+Volz+%2Bglobal+warming&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Hartwig+Volz+%2Bglobal+warming&fp=18bd74dd9a091784

Anybody here who is interested what REAL AND ESTABLISHED SCIENCE has to say about this man mad GW crap should click on this link I just posted here.
I have no idea why people would be deceived by what 97% of a bunch of total assholes and crackpot "scientists" agree on what is science and what is not.
Fuck they can`t even understand a simple Calaculus Equation...would they, they should HAVE NEVER QUOTED Schwarzchild, Max Planck and Professor Volz!
Unless they have suicidal tendencies...Hey I`m a Nazi and I could be of some assistance...in case Dr.Kevorkian retired...I`ll volunteer GLADLY..who wants to be first:
http://askbernhard.9f.com/

And these bastard Scharlatans that OldRocks quotes, get even with real scientiests by plagiarizing their work, steel equations to bolster the credibility of this moron "science" and even go so far to alter the text of well known physics laws to suit their purposes.
*Well if that is not fraud, what does it take to get rid of these bastards...???*

Keep on going playing scientist "OldRocks" the more of this "science" You quote/copy and paste here into this forum, the easier it is to show what kind of lying bastards You all are!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 14, 2011)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?
> ...



I`ll get around to it...it is not as complicated as it may appear on first glance.
But first I have to fix yet another 1$ "treasure" my wife brought home from a thrift shop.
I thought I was done when I finally got the "authentic Schwarzwaelder Pendulum clock" made in China fixed.
Now she brought home a fancy water cooler/heater/coffe maker with all the wires ripped out ...gimme a couple of days!
I am cursed!...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw[/ame]

Just kidding, I`m not quite that good, but once I did almost change a lawnmower into a helicopter when the bloody thing actually started upside down
the "bloody" part almost became a reality as well...But that was during my learning "hockey stick curve"...ve dont do zat nicht mehr!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?
> ...



I can tell You how to account for about 90 % of it and how to calculate it...
But You have to do all the adding up yourself...:
Water  enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol , 1 mol =18 grams.
So to evaporate 1 liter of water that takes 2258.33 kiloJoules.
To evaporate 1 cubicmeter Water that takes 10 000 * 2258.33 kiloJoules.
=22583333.33 kiloJoules and if You want to evaporate 1 cubic meter of Water per second that would of course take 22583333.33 Kilowatts of Power.
So the Rhine River in Germany, which never runs dry flows at an average of 2,200 cubic meters per second. To keep just that river going   *49683333333.33 megawatts  of solar heat energy was absorbed just to account for this single River*...The water can come from the 7/10 Earth` surface covering Oceans or any surface soil moisture....Solar heat (Infrared) radiation does not discriminate!
So add all the River flow rates of all the rivers on this planet up in cubic meters per second then multiply this Number by 22583333.33 and then You have a handle on how much Solar Infrared Radiation was absorbed by water to keep these rivers flowing.

No, don`t start with the Rhine River, start with the Mississippi River and just do 1 State...and You`ll see what I am trying to say here

*Water grabs Infrared  over the entire IR Spectrum...lucky for us!...else we would all be fried by the sun.*
That`s why I always made that analogy how much rain can a wire catch..IT IS AN ACCURATE ANALOGY, with how much IR can CO@ absorb with that narrow absorption band...even if we had lethal CO2 gas concentrations > 6% that would not amount to a whole lot in comparism with IR absorbed by water ANYWAY!!
But since only 3/10 of our planet is land with flowing rivers You have not even accounted for all the rain which fell on the oceans.
Nevertheless You get a perspective of the scale of about 90-95% of the solar heat radiation energy transfer...the other 5-10 % are for the most part within the partial range of "total reflection" where at this angle a "brown Greenland" reflects just as good as a blinding White Greenland, and at elevation angles higher than that well the brown will absorb more heat than white...but look at what latitude Greenland is...beyond 70 deg.s
So the angle of incident at midsummer is only 20 degrees elevation...and the rest of the year it`s in TOTAL  DARKNESS!
The angle of total reflection for a pitch black paved road is about 5 degrees...
Which DOES NOT MEAN, that it does not reflect light AND INFRARED at say 10 degrees...I wrote about that somewhere here.

So consider all the above and judge for Yourself what is the elephant and what is the gnat..

the numbers You just may have just started adding up, and might be finished adding in about 3 months  or so,.....I would not even bother
quite predictably they will dwarf   the "man made Greenhouse gas-effect" which is about 0.002 % of the energy at the end of this graph where CO2 is marked:
Look again HOW MUCH IR the WATER GRABS 





...eyeballing I think is good enough..!.*why would You want to figure out an exact mass ratio of 1 single gnat weighing a few hundred milligrams and all the elephants in Africa and India..?*
Okay, soory we want to be accurate here, the CO2 gnat is exactly 0.033 %  in our air, *that Number was actually MEASURED by Dr. Heinz Hug*  and for the accurate Water IR absorption, just the River "elephant" mass *You have been  "volunteered" now*
..but that`s the way to actually calculate the numbers You are after.

And as for the re-radiated IR energy of the re-condensation cycle of evaporated water You gave the answer to that already Yourself:


> vibrationally excited CO2 doesnt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc


. They absorb way above that..
after all these "tuning forks" have much lighter "shanks"  O-O, each one is only 16 AMU`s and N-N each is only 14 AMU`s.
*O*=[COLOR="Red"[B]]C=O[/B] [/COLOR]were[COLOR="Blue"]* 16*[/COLOR] and 14+16=*30*, so You had a "tuning fork" which rings  *at a  frequency already way too low when it sucked up IR at the beginning!*
For a frequency increase,... or that O2 and N2 could absorb that re-emitted  CO2 IR,...* an energy gain would have occurred right there* according to Max Planck`s Law
*WOW, if that would work all our energy problems would be solved...CO2 would be the Answer!...why research further into fusion reactors*

You are right, they can`t *because that IR is at a much much longer wavelength than it was absorbed at the bond vibration frequency!*

would you  have just a fraction of "Globalwarmingwitchdoctery" budget..well then that tally would not be a problem...*except that You will be running into Numbers which make the Fed treasury numbers look like a few pennies in a jar!
*

Consider that *just* the *mechanical energy slice* we recover from the IR water evaporation  enthalpy cycle was in 2006 approx.  3000 Terrawatts with hydro plants...all the other energy goes right by and back into the Oceans
*And meanwhile "Climatologists" want to point at the little piss that runs from the bottom of a glacier in Greenland,,,which they say will flood New York in a hunderd years!*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

Kading
2
Abstract
This experiment explored the absorptivity of four peaks, 1437, 1955, 2013, and
2060 nanometers, in the near-IR (NIR) absorption spectrum of CO2. The NIR absorption
bands in CO2 can contribute up to 30% of the total solar heating in the mesosphere.
Between the heights of 60-85 km the heating can exceed 1 K/day. (Fomichev & Shved,
1988; Ogibalov & Fomichev, 2003; Fomichev et al., 2004) With CO2 concentrations
increasing (West, 2005) it is ever more important to understand the absorbance properties
of this molecule in all of its absorbance bands. Modeling of the Beer Lambert law found
the absorption coefficient at 1955 nanometers to be 0.25 m2 mol-1 and the absorption
coefficient for the peaks at 2013 and 2060 nanometers to be 0.43 m2 mol-1. The
absorption peak at 1437 nanometers had an absorption coefficient >>10.
Introduction
Due to the increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its highly politicized
global effects, there has been much research concerning the absorptivity of CO2 and its
thermal effects. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing energy in the
infrared (IR) wavelengths, thus trapping heat within the boundaries of the earth&#8217;s
atmosphere. Climate models have been created to accurately portray our current model
and make predictions for the future (Berger & Dameris, 1993). Only recently have there
been attempts to paramaterize the effects of near-IR (NIR) absorption by CO2. This
research has shown that NIR absorption significantly contributes to heating of the
Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (MLT). (Fomichev & Shved, 1988; Ogibalov &
3
Fomichev, 2003; Fomichev et al., 2004) Thus, understanding and quantifying the CO2
absorption of NIR is an important endeavor at this point in time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



LOL   Very convincing arguement.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2011)

"Climate change" has become "Knowledge production"..................

Why is it that every resigning IPCC member comes out and says this organization uses "fake" data??

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the IPCC report&#8217;s chapter on Asia, said: *&#8216;It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.*

This is all about engineering data to impact policy. Its what its always been. It is fcukking amazing that people think this is about science = stupid absurd. Who can be that naive?



UN Climate Scientists Speak out on Global Warming | Reprint

U.N. climate chief rejects resigning over glacier gaffe | Reuters

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers | Watts Up With That?

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/u-s-press-awol-on-climate-skepticism/




Science............my ass. It is about trillions of $$ up for grabs. Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch........


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2011)

And the purpose for these k00ks is to create a totally green economy............which in an age of zero job growth *DESTROYS JOBS*

Green Jobs: Hope or Hype Redux | Clearing the Air | NCPA.org


*Green Jobs: Hope or Hype Redux*
Filed in Air Problems, Energy, Environmental Education, Global Warming, Regulation and Risks, Waste and Recycling, Water Issues on September 21, 2010 

On the campaign trail in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama announced a plan to create five million new &#8220;green collar&#8221; jobs. Since becoming president, he has repeatedly touted his support for green jobs; for instance, in his 2010 State of the Union address and Earth Day remarks on April 22, 2010. In addition, recent stimulus legislation and appropriations bills have contained provisions to subsidize or promote green job creation.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that government support of green industries will cost more jobs than they create. 

Spain. President Obama has identified Spain as a model for a new economy driven by green jobs. But a 2009 study from Madrid&#8217;s King Juan Carlos University showed that for every green job the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were lost as energy-intensive industries either closed down or moved to other countries with lower energy costs:

The government&#8217;s green job push created approximately 50,000 jobs, but resulted in a loss of more than 110,000 jobs in other industries.
Only 1 in 10 of the new green jobs was permanent.
Each green job created since 2000 has required about $774,000 in government subsidies. [See the figure.]
Denmark. On Earth Day in 2009, President Obama cited Denmark as another country that has benefited from subsidized green job creation. Like Spain, Denmark&#8217;s green industry &#8211; primarily wind-powered electricity generation &#8211; was heavily subsidized and likely would not have existed without government support. According to &#8220;Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark,&#8221; a 2009 report by the Center for Political Studies, a Danish think tank:

The Danish government spent $90,000 to $140,000 to create each wind job.
About 28,400 people were employed in the Danish wind industry, but only about 1 in 10 were new jobs &#8211; the remaining 90 percent were simply positions shifted from one industry to another.
From 1999 to 2006, the average government-subsidized clean energy technology worker added $10,000 less to the Danish economy than did the average employee in other industrial and manufacturing sectors. 
As a result, Danish gross domestic product was about $270 million less than it would have been if the wind industry work force were employed in other sectors.
Thus, a 2006 report from the Danish Economic Council concludes, &#8220;The wind power expansion in the 1990s is an example of a policy that was unprofitable from society&#8217;s point of view, even taking the economic advantages that the wind business enjoyed into consideration.&#8221;


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2011)

Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/ame]


Now......skyrocketing electricity rates dont matter to social invalids who live in the middle of nowhere in fcukking Bumfook and make laughable mortgage payments. To a majority of Americans, they get fcukked in a green economy. Make no mistake here..........this is not at all about "science".......its about Obama picking winners and losers.


----------



## IanC (Feb 15, 2011)

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.



> If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.
> 
> Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.


that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> 
> while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.
> 
> ...




Is kinda funny Ian........Rocks et. al. never address this.......just post up the same old regurgitated crap...........


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







If you understood basic science it is compelling.  For someone like you where it flies right over your head it makes no impact at all.  Kind of like describing TV to an aboriginal.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> 
> while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.
> 
> ...







It's actually more like the water is the millions of dollars and the CO2 is the cents, as regards relative numbers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> 
> while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.
> 
> ...



Were you to read Dr. Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" you would see the world's leading climatologist state that the models are still far to simplistic, and do not, and cannot, take into account feedback effects we still do not understand.

You would also see how far off not only Dr. Hansen's predictions have been concerning the affects of the present warming. The 'alarmists' definately missed the boat on the sensitivity to even the warming that we have already experiance. The Artic sea ice is very much a case in point. And the Antarctic should not be losing mass by the models, it should be static or gaining slightly. The Greenland Cap should be gaining from increased precipitation, losing only on the coast. Yet we see the ice lowering even in central Greenland. It is not models that have the climatologists worried at present, it is the observed effects of the warming that we have already experianced.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> ...



A better anology would be a servo valve. The CO2 is the little valve that controls the big valve, water vapor.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama
> 
> 
> YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket
> ...



All energy costs are going to skyrocket, along with food prices, whether we do something or do nothing.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> ...







Really, he admits that the computer models are woefully simplistic then tries to get the government to pass onerous regulations based on simplistic data?  Really?  And you support this?


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






That's certainly what you boys are trying to make us beleive, problem is once again no empirical data supports you.  It does the opposite in point of fact.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Now......skyrocketing electricity rates dont matter to social invalids who live in the middle of nowhere in fcukking Bumfook and make laughable mortgage payments. To a majority of Americans, they get fcukked in a green economy. Make no mistake here..........this is not at all about "science".......its about Obama picking winners and losers.



See I wrote that here, You don`t need a crystal ball to know what he is doing next...That f...ing ex Communist whore from Soviet Germany Merkel has finally pulled the wool over this idiot`s head!

The Expensive Dream of Clean Energy: Will High Costs Kill Merkel's Green Revolution? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


> *Silence on True Cost of Energy Plan*
> 
> It will mark the end of an energy system that has been based almost exclusively on fossil fuels -- coal, oil and gas -- for the last two centuries. The steam engine, the light bulb and the automobile have immeasurably improved the lives of billions of people. But the collateral damage has been high. The polar icecaps are melting and the share of greenhouse gases in the air is increasing because humans each year burn energy supplies that took millions of years to create. Renewable energy offers the only way to lead the world into a green future. *That is why Merkel keeps on emphasizing the scale of the revolution Germany faces.** But she is keeping quiet about the huge cost this will entail.*



She has done that already and now Germany is fucked! You can`t even use natural Gas anymore for Your hot water tank and to heat Your house.
*And $ per Kilowatt hr are SKYROCKETING:*
Germans pay second highest electricity prices in EU - The Local


> *Germans pay second highest electricity prices in EU*
> *Germans pay the second highest rates for electricity in Europe, right behind Denmark, new statistics showed on Friday.*



Now that it becomes apparent that the communist bitch`s  hairbrained power grid scheme is not working, because the new "Green Energy" simply can`t deliver, she is writing legislation which will punish You with* SEVERE FINES* if at any time Your household registers over a 2kilowatt power demand..*.since these can cause her "Energy Net" to brown out*

So once Obama has his way, You better tell Your wife to unplug the coffee-maker just in case Your new electric hot water tank call for power at the same time she is trying to make coffee.

Switzerland is following suit:...they have too, `cause they import a lot of hydro:
2,000 watt society: Swiss plan to reduce energy consumption | OurWorld 2.0


> *2,000 watt society*
> Scientists in Switzerland, a country that imports 80% of its energy, have come up with a cohesive strategy to tackle today&#8217;s persistent energy squandering &#8212; the &#8220;2,000 Watt Society&#8221;.


And it`s being done by the same "scientists" that tell You Your SUV will flood New York

And here they are again:
Worldchanging: Bright Green: The 2000 Watt Society



> Worldchanging.com
> *The 2000 Watt Society*
> Jamais Cascio, 2 Jun 05
> 
> 2000watt.jpgThe "2000 Watt Society" is a radical model of efficient, high-quality living being pushed by the Swiss Council of the Federal Institute of Technology. Worldwide average energy consumption per capita is about 17,500 kilowatt hours, working out to a continuous consumption of 2000 watts.




So, the sky rocketing costs are just the tip of this entire swindle, soon You have to learn to live in the dark, save for a few LED lights  *and without air-conditioning as well!*

Where the hell is America going with this President...how is this differnet from "central planning" and all these Agri-/green plans" in the ex Soviet Union?
http://ingrimayne.com/econ/IndividualGroup/CentralPlanning.html


> Central Planning
> 
> Those who designed the Soviet economic system began with a belief that "the problem with capitalism is that it produces for profit instead of for people's needs," and they set out to build a system that produced directly for people's needs and not at all for profit. "There was a period early in Soviet life when it was argued that the Soviet worker and manager would work because of their enthusiasm for the revolution and their ideological fervor. That phase passed rather quickly."1 Because use of markets violated Marxist ideology, there was only one system of coordination possible. A system of central planning evolved; a system in which* all decisions about what people needed were decided from the top*.



*THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE...except he will call it some other name*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama
> ...



Indeed.........but like most things in life, it comes down to "suck" vs "suckier" s0n...........your way is the suckier and much more expensive. What? Do we electrify Union Pacific, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe and CSX? Laugh my balls off.

Like a typical liberal.......dont give a rats ass about job loss. If it gets in the way of the ideology? Its "FCUKK YOU......NO JOB!!!"


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.
> 
> while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.
> 
> ...





*OK first off this statement here is totally false:*


> CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface,


*How many more time do I have to show here how much 356 ppm CO2 "block" at this wavelength...???*
*IT HAS BEEN MEASURED,...*

*(9.79*10-4 cm^(-1) - 1.11*10-4 cm^(-1) / 0.5171 cm^(-1) = 0.17 %*

*Come on IanC...how is 0.17 % "completely blocking"..????*

Or do You prefer to go by what "climatologsts" who don`t know one end of a IR Stecrophotometer from the other


And once again, the enthalpy of Water, maybe I`ll try the pictures with You this time instead of the number..it`s just when I showed these there were a lot of retards who could not figure that out either "I knew who were dealing with, just as soon as he showed us pictures of a cloud"

Okay here is another picture, that shows You like I did with "the pictures of a cloud" that were Infrared Sat-Pictures...they clearly show what happens to the heat of condensation, once the water vapor gets up there:







And this Satellite that took that Infrared Image picture of the condensing water vapor emitting all this IR energy back out to space operated at 


> *The scanning was in the range 10.3-12.5 µm (IR4 and IR5 channels).*



*Okay, so where does CO2 the "Greenhousegas" that is "blocking all this IR" and will flood New York absorb INFRARED....?
*









14.25µm = 702wnm  to  14.75µm = 678wnm    15µm =  667  15.25µm=656wnm     15.7µm5= 635wnm  
GOES, GMS-5, Meteosat-7, and FY-2 *all use  the SAME     ISO 20473 scheme   wavelength designations*

Mid Infrared     MIR     3 - 50  µm
Far Infrared     FIR     50 - 1000  µm

When they  make "pictures of clouds"...the idiots here laughed at when I showed them in my first posts, ...hoping to show what happens to the heat energy absorbed by water, which is evaporated , rises 10`s of thousands of feet up ,* re-condenses and radiates the condensation enthalpy energy UNHINDERED back out into space
*














I am beginning to suspect that even now it is still not clear *that Heinz Hug`s 0.17% is the IR energy which is absorbed between 14 and 15.7µm !
All the other IR raduiation outside that band goes right past CO2...
*
*That is a fraction so miniscule You can discard it like the mass increase a gnat sitting on an elephant represents...how much more explanation does that need?*
*That`s why I was always saying "how much rain can a wire block"*...and *"The wire" was the 14 to ~16 µm tiny little frequency band*
Don`t tell me now You want to go back to the numbers again!
If You want to, get Yourself the color scale calibration and then You have no problem to get the &#8747; e/t values
I`ve done it, but see no reason why it should be my job to do it for others and drop everything I am doing


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

Now that I hope it is CLEAR, that what happened with  all this Solar IR heat radiation that had hit the planet surface and* had evaporated these MASSIVE amounts of Water that supply the MASSIVE amount of rivers that run back into the Ocean with MASSIVE FLOWRATES ...*
and what happened to the latent heat which* DOES NOT travel as Infrared through the air *upwards...and "is absorbed" by SUV greenhouse gas.....*It goes up there as WATERVAPOR not as IR..*..then the Water vapor condenses at high altitude and* radiates IR at a wavelength the any CO2 beteween this height and Space could not POSSIBLY absorb...*








1.) the frequency is ALL WRONG...
2.) the partial pressure of CO2 at these altitudes are so miniscule that You have to divide the 
Heinz Hug number by  (0.17 %)  3...because at the cloud tops the atmospheric pressure is ~ 1/3rd as down at ground level, and as You should all know it`s not just the Oxygen You want to breathe that thins out
*for fucks sake a child would have understood all that by now*
Next thing some body will ask if CO2 can prevent moist air from climbing to high altitude...!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 15, 2011)

*Great post Mr.polarbear*. So co2 is very tiny effects with only .17 percent blocking of IR from going to space. Keep up the good work...Another thing to think about is in a warmer world wouldn't there be more stratus clouds that would reflect even more energy back into space. This would stop any warming too..Natural cycle.

Would you explain how the green house on Venus works?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So you say while the real scientists are stateing otherwise.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

Matthew said:


> *Great post Mr.polarbear*. So co2 is very tiny effects with only .17 percent blocking of IR from going to space. Keep up the good work...Another thing to think about is in a warmer world wouldn't there be more stratus clouds that would reflect even more energy back into space. This would stop any warming too..Natural cycle.
> 
> Would you explain how the green house on Venus works?



From my point of view.   Well.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





"Scientists" who are forced to falsify data to support their political activism aren't.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Great post Mr.polarbear*. So co2 is very tiny effects with only .17 percent blocking of IR from going to space. Keep up the good work...Another thing to think about is in a warmer world wouldn't there be more stratus clouds that would reflect even more energy back into space. This would stop any warming too..Natural cycle.
> ...


So where did all the Ocean water disappear to in Your cloud-less world?
I thought You said New York will be the next sunken city  "Antlantis"...did it sink in bullshit or in water?
The last time I heard Venus atmosphere  was 97% Carbon-dioxide and no one has told me anything about that they have discovered  Oceans of water on Venus...
Now You want to point out with Your Venus doomsday analogy that everything Physics said what* 0,035 % CO2 could possibly do compared with 97 % CO2..*.. that asses like You know more about Physics?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

Matthew said:


> *So co2 is very tiny effects with only .17 percent blocking of IR from going to space.
> 
> Would you explain how the green house on Venus works?*


*
A voice of sanity!....thank You!
Well except for Stratus clouds to vanish  all our water would have to vanish too.
Nimbo- Alto- and Cirrostratus do from just as soon as moist air rises. 
After that it only depends how  high the R.H. was and how high that air with a given Relative Humidity has to climb before it hits the dew point altitude.
But to put that 0.17% IR absorbed into proper perspective You might wanna do the math...
use Max Planck`s equation,...the one OLdRocks kept waving around here and calculate just how small the energy is INSIDE that the frequency band between 14.25 and 15.7µm  (in Wattsecs)...and then remember that the CO2 in our air only absorbs 0.17% of that!*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

*Hmmm.....  97% CO2, and 800 degrees C on the surface. I thought that after a certain point, CO2 couldn't heat the atmosphere any more. Isn't that what you have been stateing? So why 800 degrees on Venus?*
Evolution Of Venus: First Too Fast, Then Too Slow

In the early stages of the Solar System, Venus seems to have evolved very rapidly compared to the Earth. Data from Venus Express supports the theory that the Earth&#8217;s twin once had significant volume of water covering the surface but it appears that these oceans were lost in a very short geological timescale.

As a result of the loss of water, the geological evolution of the surface of Venus slowed right down because it was unable to develop plate tectonics like the Earth. Biological evolution was prevented altogether. Thus, in terms of Venus being another Earth in climate and habitability terms, it evolved too quickly at first, then too slowly.

*Of course, these are just scientists speaking. Much better to listen to bloviating blowhards like BiPolar.*:eusa__whistle:


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And all these scientists that are in organizations such as the AGU, GSA, and the Royal Society are all falsifying their data. 

What a peice of work you are, Walleyes. 97% of the scientists in the world, according to you, are unethical, immoral frauds.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *So co2 is very tiny effects with only .17 percent blocking of IR from going to space.
> ...


*

And just because almost every scientist in the world that studies these things disagrees with you, only shows how fucking brilliant you are, BiPolar. LOL

Look at the lists in the OP. Now why should this be so? Because all the scientists are telling us lies?*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hmmm.....  97% CO2, and 800 degrees C on the surface. I thought that after a certain point, CO2 couldn't heat the atmosphere any more. Isn't that what you have been stateing? So why 800 degrees on Venus?*
> Evolution Of Venus: First Too Fast, Then Too Slow
> 
> In the early stages of the Solar System, Venus seems to have evolved very rapidly compared to the Earth. Data from Venus Express supports the theory that the Earth&#8217;s twin once had significant volume of water covering the surface but it appears that these oceans were lost in a very short geological timescale.
> ...



Venus being earths twin in radius and mass should of had near the same temperature within its inners to have plate tectonics. I understand mars cooing fast and not being able to hold onto a Atmosphere, but Venus? It is understandable in the same for mars to have cooled to the point not the have plate tectonics.  There could of been massive oceans, but over time as the sun became bright it could of burned them off and the planet through volcanoes replaced the Atmosphere it once had with one of co2.

There is a huge difference between .0035% of something and 97 percent of something. I believe that co2 to block the wave length that the bear is talking about needs to be within a environment of minimum water vapor, so it doesn't get over rided by the water vapor. Within the wave length that bear is speaking of 14.25 and 15.7µm only .17 percent is the forcing of the co2. Can you point out why you disagree with this? If it is not right then show the data to disprove bears case.

That is a tiny number...


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

old rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > old rocks said:
> ...










*                  niwa*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hmmm.....  97% CO2, and 800 degrees C on the surface. I thought that after a certain point, CO2 couldn't heat the atmosphere any more. Isn't that what you have been stateing? So why 800 degrees on Venus?*
> Evolution Of Venus: First Too Fast, Then Too Slow
> 
> In the early stages of the Solar System, Venus seems to have evolved very rapidly compared to the Earth. Data from Venus Express supports the theory that the Earth&#8217;s twin once had significant volume of water covering the surface but it appears that these oceans were lost in a very short geological timescale.
> ...



Here he comes with his "science" again
You should invent a new religion instead,....that might be a lot easier:

Venus was once full of inhabitants, then they invented cars. Then the planet overheated. The "chosen Israelites" of Venus aliens then traveled to earth and syphoned off the Venus oceans. But the problem was earth was  Jurassic Park and the T-rexes ate all the Venus aliens.
The last few hid secret scrolls warning about the error of their ways. They  vanished as T-Rex turds, except a few, called Adam and Eve. Then the T-rexes got wiped out after that only the oceans from Venus remained on earth.
One of these Oceans  was parted by Moses,  a direct descendant of the chosen people of Venus who got on the space ship to earth...he shook a stick and cleared the path for all of us.
So we could escape from the Oil Lobby Arabs who were trying to enslave or kill us
 Here we are despite being told by the select and privileged readers of the secret scrolls pointing at our ex home planet Venus, 97% CO2 and 800 degrees  hot  and yet we have again chariots with over 200 horse power instead of one.
and so on and on...
You might be surprised how many lunatic followers that would draw in no time, this time *You could be the high priest*:
*But act fast, before Al Gore gets the jump on You*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 15, 2011)

@OldRock

Despite of what You are asking  *what America should do for You* (to paraphrase one of  Obama`s  predecessors, also a Democrat) 





It would not be hard to produce compelling evidence supporting Your religion,...and what happened to the skeptics who did not listen then:






*They all drowned in a polar melt down!*

*And again they ignore the chosen prophet *who has a direct line to God














*Again only a chosen few worthy specimen of each species will be allowed to board the Ark:*







*To go forth and found a newer better and more  *hardonmentally *friendly world:*








*After the SUV smog cleared and Captain OldRock`s doves have sighted land*

Shit why not go for it, You are almost there:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM&feature=related[/ame]

*And this is what You`ll be left with after he is done:*






http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/2348-germanys-coming-civil-energy-war.html


> Germany&#8217;s Coming Civil Energy War
> Tuesday, 01 February 2011 09:17 Stefan Nicola, European Energy Review
> E-mail Print PDF
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

Mindless derision, the refuge of those totally losing a debate.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Mindless derision, the refuge of those totally losing a debate.







Wrong again Tojo, as usual you are far far out of your depth.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mindless derision, the refuge of those totally losing a debate.
> ...



Well what can You do? America is a free country...one of the few left in this sorry world. And unfortunately that also means that people are free to decide to voluntarily forfeit their freedom and prefer Soviet communist style central planning, where all the decisions are made top down. We all know what happened to that System. People have a short attention span and Germany is proof of that. So the Soviet schooled Angela Merkel managed to con her way thanks to female block voting to the top and now we have a repeat of central planning stupidity Soviet style.
Of course like the "Climate change" data the simple minded lunatic following does not want to hear about the ramifications. The American Press laudated the German "Solar Farms" to no end. Without reporting that the majority of farmers got sucked in to go deeply into debt and plant solar panels instead of crops.





Lieberose Solar Farm Becomes Biggest Of Germany*|*News*|*Solarplaza*|*The global solar energy (PV) platform


> *Lieberose Solar Farm Becomes Biggest Of Germany*
> The Lieberose solar farm under construction in *Brandenburg on Thursday became the world&#8217;s second biggest solar power plant* and Germany&#8217;s biggest, Wörrstädt, Germany-based juwi Group and First Solar Inc. (Nasdaq: FSLR) announced.


Germany Shines a Beam on the Future of Energy; Nation Gambles on Amped-Up Push for Renewable Power


> *Germany Shines a Beam on the Future of Energy*
> *Nation Gambles on Amped-Up Push for Renewable Powe*r
> by Robert Collier


That was just a quick grab from the cookie jar, there are much huger examples!
 All this idiocy was heavily subsidized by the Centrally planning *Merkel Soviet bitch *in a new costume...by artificially inflating $/Kwhr and "Greenhousegas penalties"
But all her federal treasury "credit cards " were soon maxed out.
So it was only a question of time before  the central planning idiot committee made this announcement..."slight change of plans"....:


Germany to Speed Solar-Subsidy Cuts to Undercut Boom - Bloomberg


> *]Germany to Speed Solar-Subsidy Cuts to Undercut Boom*
> By Marc Roca and Brian Parkin -
> 
> Germany&#8217;s Environment Ministry and the solar industry agreed to cut subsidies six months earlier than planned to slow growth in the world&#8217;s largest market for photovoltaic panels that turn sunlight into power.
> ...


German solar industry protests against subsidy cut - 05 Feb 2010 - News from BusinessGreen


> *German solar industry protests against subsidy cut*



I wonder how many Americans will accept an "Industry" that can`t make ends meet without Government subsidies..*.even when You helped alreadythem out by artificially raising prices the way illegal cartels operate!*

2nd UPDATE: Germany To Cut Solar Subsidies By 3%-15% As Of July - WSJ.com


> *2nd UPDATE: Germany To Cut Solar Subsidies By 3%-15% As Of July*



And so on and so on...
So now the farmers who took out huge bank loans to plant solar panels instead of crops are getting in my opinion *their just deserts for jumping on the "greenhouse gas bandwagon"* and *for believing what a top Graduate of AGIP, the Soviet Academy for Propaganda and Agitation has told them.*
So, as You can see in Europe the entire scam is fucked and they need a new market.
Sure looks like, that they already found it....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





*Soviet style central planning "Yes we can"*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/ame]

*From Russia with love*

*Oh yeah, lets not forget how fucked up this "shiny new energy of the future" really is.
Now if Your household gets caught with a > 2 KVA consumption You get heavily fined to prevent brown outs of this  "wonderful" power grid *


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

LOL.  Well, the state of Oregon cut the subsidies for individual solar as the prices has come down. All for the good, that encourages the installation of 5 kw units instead of 2 kw units.

As for the rest of your nonsense, there is a vast area of roofs in every American city that can solar can be put on. Warehouses, businesses, ect.

As far as this being a free country, ones freedom extends only to where the next person's feet begin. And this nation has became a lot less free in my lifetime, simply because of the doubling of the population in that time. In Europe and other areas where there is greater population density, there is less freedom, simply because of the fact of the density. The political systems of the various European Democracies compare rather favorably with what was. And some of their ideas, such as their Health Care Systems, work far better than ours for the average citizen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

You know, my great-great grandfather, after leaving Prussia in a hurry after the rebellion against the Monarchy, would not allow German spoken in the home. He stated that this was his nation now, and english was the language that should be spoken here, inside and outside of the home. Now I don't know what your problem is with the politics in Germany if you are a citizen here, but whatever it is, perhaps you should consider moving back if it means that much to you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mindless derision, the refuge of those totally losing a debate.
> ...



With a fraud like you? Only mdn would be out of his depth there. But not far.


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You know, my great-great grandfather, after leaving Prussia in a hurry after the rebellion against the Monarchy, would not allow German spoken in the home. He stated that this was his nation now, and english was the language that should be spoken here, inside and outside of the home. Now I don't know what your problem is with the politics in Germany if you are a citizen here, but whatever it is, perhaps you should consider moving back if it means that much to you.







Ahhhhh, that explains it, you're a Prussian blockhead!


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Yeah, it hurts when you call someone names and they don't care doesn't it!
You see, that's the difference between you and I.  I have a wonderful education and can actually understand what polarbear is posting, but you, the Prussian blockhead college dropout, you have far too high an opinion of yourself.  As stated previously you claim to be an environmentalist but you are the corporate whore that works for EVRAZ a RUSSIAN company that is under investigation or has been fined for pollution from virtually every one of its plants...including yours!

The only fraud is you!  You knowingly work for a company that pollutes in a industry known for it's pollution!  Nice try at deflection there clown.  You are pathetic.  Go hide under a rock, it's where you belong you vile excuse for a human being.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2011)

A gigantic solar flare heading to earth..................

Biggest Solar Flare In Years Headed For Earth « CBS Los Angeles


Have the k00ks chimed in on this yet? We're all sure its due to climate change..........


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 16, 2011)

This video is fcukking hysterical..........scientist vs scientist. Check it out..............who looks like a dope??

I cant stop laughing.............

CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL REAL SCIENTIST Vs. PAID OFF SCIENTIST TRUTH ... - Bing Videos


Funniest was when the "real" scientist ( according to Old Rocks) totally lied about malaria in Russia, "It never happened".........and the pwning he took from the English scientist. Classic............


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot






The only fraud is you! You knowingly work for a company that pollutes in a industry known for it's pollution! Nice try at deflection there clown. You are pathetic. Go hide under a rock, it's where you belong you vile excuse for a human being.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

Lol


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot
> ...




Indeed......a miserable fcukk who spends his entire waking existence being jealous of the success of others!!! In this forum is the only place he has any measure of relevence in the real world.

Like many on the far left, unable to accept personal responsibillity for their own personal life fcukk ups.........they loath people who are winners.


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2011)

what a pile of crap this forum has turned into. calling people names and denigrating political positions is stupid bickering not intelligent debate.


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2011)

IanC said:


> what a pile of crap this forum has turned into. calling people names and denigrating political positions is stupid bickering not intelligent debate.







Guilty as charged.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 17, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> This video is fcukking hysterical..........scientist vs scientist. Check it out..............who looks like a dope??
> 
> I cant stop laughing.............
> 
> ...



Noticed how the TV channel underlined each "climatology" argument with dramatic flooding footage from Monsoons and Hurricanes? 
Try that with showing snowstorms or pictures of China under a record cold, You get an immediate lecture of what is just a weather phenomenon and what is "real climate change". 
One typical "argument" after another, like with "no Malaria ever" in Russia "are You a medical expert?"

You know, all I did here was publish* their source data!*...None of what I published about the physics was cooked up by me.
And the ramifications of the shiny new "green energy".....well all I did there was to post what is in the European Press...and that is o longer just an opinion, but a fact.
2000 KVA penalty, the highest Energy costs etc are real on their monthly bills, that is not an opinion, a bill with a due date and Your name on it, is a chilling fact.

*Thanks "Kick Kooker`s asses Bill" for posting this video link here, again You lived up to Your avatar:*





....*.BIG TIME!*

*These "climatology" monkeys should have stayed in their trees where Banana picking works the way they are familiar with*

*You have also substantiated what I have been saying about the Soviet Pig Merkel...

And where Where all this man made GW REALLY propaganda originated...and how that serves so well to bastardize free countries into Communist style, from the top down central fuck upping

"from Russia with love":
*
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/climategate-scandal-real-scientist-vs-paid-off-scientist-truth/5b546c3e3b38dc0499185b546c3e3b38dc049918-464237494463?q=real+scientist+video&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR7




Anyway idiots like OldRocks resort to the usual "methods"...when confronted with the scientific source data he comes back with dozens of statements like this:


> My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot




So anyone who wants to read what was posted here has to scroll past post after post to get to where source data was posted, or where somebody had made a good point. Like for ex. this video link which Skookerasbil just posted...gets lost under a whole squall OldRocks garbage one liners...well that`s how trolls operate anywhere not just here.

And no OldRocks I am not a Prussian cement head, Germans would actually prefer that they never re-inherited the  Soviet brainwashed part of Germany.
*I come from a totally different genetic pool than you*....THANK GOD!...if there is one
*I`m from Bavaria...*..BMW country!

Well actually Very very close to the Austrian Border to Bavaria:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp0WnZ-4Tqg&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp0WnZ-4Tqg&feature=related[/ame]

You know,...? That`s where they made the first Jet Fighter, where the V1 & V2 research Labs ACTUALLY were, where they make BMW`s BMW Turbines, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi,..:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9rUwsbXWpw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9rUwsbXWpw[/ame]

*We Bavarians love making tons of "Greenhouse gas" and  hope You fucking Sau-Preussen croak from it*
See  this guy with Innsbruck license plates ist going to Berlin, to let them smell some Bavarian exhaust to wake them up to REALITY!
*Stick "Global warming" thermometers up Your assholes*....let`s see how many of Your ridiculous "climatology engineered" cars YOU CAN SELL:
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,736103,00.html


> Frost stoppt die Elektro-Euphorie







wäre da nicht das verflixte Winterwetter, das die E-Pläne bremst.
*translation: ...could have worked...If it were not for the Winter temperatures*


...we keep on going! ...because real scientists and engineers will make roadkill out of assholes like You


.the Airbus, the Euro fighter etc...I wrote 3 Patents which are now  used buy the U.S. Navy....have designed and installed Heat recovery systems in large power-plants and I could go on some more if I wanted to
*What have You done?*..."OldRocks"?..*.other than just posting dumb ass remarks!*
In Engineering we have a proverb:
*Those who can, do...those who can`t make stupid comments!
*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/polarbear-albums-co2-reduction.html


Well these were just hobby projects to kill time...recycling junk and "Dilbert" it into something else.


Just watch Westerwall & Skookerasbill...now he is going to paste half a dozen text boxes on the rest of this page, just to bury Your video post under his usual garbage
*@Westerwall...That Greenhouse gas spewing portable helicopter would be just the thing for a Geologist like You! Imagine no more lengthy hiking up slopes of boulders!..*


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2011)

polarbear said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This video is fcukking hysterical..........scientist vs scientist. Check it out..............who looks like a dope??
> ...



Actually I'd use the personal helicopter to go to the bank or stuff like that!  When I'm in the field I enjoy the hikes just as much as the destination.  There is allways tons to see on the hike, and that of course means tons to learn!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 17, 2011)

So the "fact" there there never was any Malaria in Russia is supposed to prove man made GW..:
malaria in russia history - Google Search


> 1921 - Contrary to the brazen lie "malaria never occurred in Russia before" by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) representative in Moscow the fact is there were 10 million malaria cases in Russia in 1921 - reported in the New York
> 1712 - During the initial phases of construction thousands of peasants and workers died of malaria




*Of course the resurgence of Malaria couldhave nothing to do with banning the most effective insecticide we ever had...DDT!*

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> DDT is the best-known of several chlorine-containing pesticides used in the 1940s and 1950s. With pyrethrum in short supply, DDT was used extensively during World War II by the Allies to control the insect vectors of typhus &#8212; nearly eliminating the disease in many parts of Europe. In the South Pacific,* it was sprayed aerially for malaria control with spectacular effects*



And in Australia "climate scientists" point out that the ants are responding to climate change how they make ant hills

One look at what kind of crap they publish will tell you what kind of "science" this GW is:
Assorted dooms-day predictions  from Australia:
http://planetsave.com/tag/australia/

*What a feast for alarmists like OldRocks!*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Actually I'd use the personal helicopter to go to the bank or stuff like that!  When I'm in the field I enjoy the hikes just as much as the destination.  There is allways tons to see on the hike, and that of course means tons to learn!



Yeah after You made a withdrawal with Your Smith&Wesson credit card it would be the perfect get-away!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 17, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> A gigantic solar flare heading to earth..................
> 
> Biggest Solar Flare In Years Headed For Earth « CBS Los Angeles
> 
> ...



Yeah I`v bee following the news here:
BBC News - Solar flare eruptions set to reach Earth






Watch just as soon as solar activity picks up again and we get some heatwaves this summer the Mis-fortune tellers will be at it as usual!


And the recent Years of cold weather they say was caused by Aerosol and such "blocking sunlight"









Look at this Graph above...right vertical axis in Watts per square meter..:
lowest on this Graph was 1363 Watts/squ.Meter high was ~1368 Watts.
D, watts/sq.meter was 5 Watts  so we had increases (long term) of 5 000 000 watts per square Kilometer and the earth`s surface is 510 072 000 km² square kilometers.
Lets just for the fun of it stay with Watts, not Mega, Terra or Peta watts, ...:
*A difference in  2 550 360 000 000 000 Watts of Solar Radiation does according to "climatologists" have no Impact on temperature!*

Or when solar activity was down as seen on the graph above the +/- Watts and they finally had to admit we were in fact cooling off they try tell the gullible public that was due to aerosol and Diesel dust reflection from pollutants.
The state of the climate - Met Office



> The state of the climate
> Changes in the way sea-surface temperatures were measured over the last decade have introduced a small artificial cooling of up to 0.03 °C over the last decade. This is now being corrected.
> The evidence continues to accumulate,* strengthening the link between man's activity and a wide range of indicators of a changing climate, both globally and regionally.
> Increased aerosol emissions from Asia*
> ...



*Look at their "logic" they picked China and Chinese aerosols because of this:*
Snowpack will lead to the coldest night of the season; record breaking temps - Worldnews.com
Record Cold Hits China | Real Science


> *Record Cold Hits China*




*And then they blamed China and their Spray cans because they fucked up their temperature graphs
Man how much more stupid can it get...ARE THERE NO LIMITS???
*



*So, OldRocks
*









I thought You argued with me on the Ozone hole that Aerosol use is down.
*Which is it now, up or down?  
I guess it all depends eeeeeh?

*

*and OldRocks...can You count the decimal places?* *and this is just the VARIATION in Solar Energy hitting us*
 2 550 360 000 000 000 Watts 

Now lets compare that with Your "science"..:
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2010[update][1] and rose by 1.9 ppm/yr during 2000-2009.



*This time lets show here also all the decimal places:
the increase was 1.9 ppm..
so it was an increase of *
*   0.0000019 parts CO2 in 1 part of air
*


*And here is the other Number again the increase/ decrease over various solar cycles in Watts:
*
*
 2 550 360 000 000 000 Watts* 

*How about You IanC...? alles klar jetzt Kamerad?*
*Of course I won`t get pissed off if You subtract some wattage from that huge number for "near total" reflection solar angles...I think I can afford it just like Bill Gates would not sweat it over a few bucks loose change*
And this too IanC...You said repeatedly "You are not satisfied"--- with the graphs an facts I posted so far..
*Let`s try it again..:*
CO2 that our SUV`s have put in the air= 0.0000019 parts CO2 in 1 part of air,
Out atmosphere is:  5×10 exp(18)  kg air
that number times  0.0000019  = 9500000000000 kgs  which had been measured to be able to absorb (9.79*10-4 cm^(-1) - 1.11*10-4 cm^(-1) / 0.5171 cm^(-1) = 0.17 % of the infrared, *but the infrared where this CO2 can absorb is only so much of the total energy spectrum:*





And here is Max Planck`s law in Graphic form:





And here again is where CO2 absorbs Infrared:
14.25µm = 702wnm to 14.75µm = 678wnm 15µm = 667 15.25µm=656wnm 15.7µm5= 635wnm 

So why don`t You look at The Max Planck curve where 15 µm would be...? On that graph scale it`s so tiny You can`t even estimate it any more.
But hey, be my guest and estimate it, but  then use only 0.17 % of the number (=CO2 absorption) *You decided on

*



and after that compare that again with: 2 550 360 000 000 000 Watts
*Maybe this  time it helped explain my choice of Gnats and Elephant euphemisms ?.....Yes? Oui? Doh!*


But wacko  "climatology scientists " keep insisting ,with wacko correlations like this...meant for idiotic newspaper sensationalism that the numbers they have are better than  the numbers from established and proven PHYSICS 









alles klar jetzt Kamerad?...Comprendre?...Capito?....&#1055;&#1054;&#1053;&#1048;&#1052;&#1040;&#1058;&#1068;.??.......&#1500;&#1492;&#1489;&#1497;&#1503;

I could not care less what the chief Moron here believes.
Du bloederSaupreissduverrechtesArschloch Dir muss man ein`s in Fresse hauhen dass Du am Arsch mit deinen Zaehnen Klavier spielen kannst...
*Verstehst Du das OldRocks?
Oh I forgot, You did say , in your upbringing it was forbidden to acquire German and other forbidden knowledge* So how could You have possibly read Max Planck or other German Physics books You Great Grandfather banned
  #123 (permalink) 


> You know, my great-great grandfather, after leaving Prussia in a hurry after the rebellion against the Monarchy, would not allow German spoken in the home.


I don`t believe for 1 second Your Great grand dad was a German ....I think he forbade German and everything that goes with it after he high tailed it from The Fatherland because of this:




*And that`s the way it`s been all over Europe long before Mein Fuehrer  showed up!*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 17, 2011)

Just to put these numbers in perspective...
what these to climaquaxoly unimportant solar cycle ups and downs  2550360000000000 watts can do:
The specific heat of air = cp = 1.006 kJ/kg K (equal to kJ/kg.oC

On our planet there is a total of 5.3 × 10 exp(18)  kg of air
*These "minor solar output fluctuations" are the  power equivalent of an "electric heater" that could heat the entire planetary mass of air by 1.18 Degrees Celsius every week !*






*...That would be some hot plate! ....lucky for us the heat enthalpy of water is what it is!* The more surface is covered by water, the better..so why should I care if New York floods..as the fear mongerers keep prophesizing.
This is getting more  hillarious all the time..first they tell You New York will flood, then they tell You all the water will somehow disappear, like on Venus...according to You know who there was Water on Venus before Venus had a 97% CO2 atmosphere...
Gee, how does water evaporate out into space...maybe we should make space ships like that..then we won`t need rocket fuel to get into space!
 Then they tell us the Ozone hole is gone because  nobody sprays any more aerosols...
Then when China froze over they tell You there was a shitload of aerosol floatingover China that reflected the sunlight back into space.
I wonder how the Chinese made their aerosol, that it just floats over China and does not cause Ozone holes over the poles.
If You spray Your under CFC propellant under-arm deodorant in Texas it goes straight to the poles and wacks a big hole into the ozone layer.
What the f... kind of "science" is all that supposed to be
Religion, yes it would be a perfect fit. 
OldRocks a direct descendant of the "chosen people" ...by only a few generations...in the Bible stories they all got to be 4 or 500 years old too...
that`s how they boarded "Noahs Space Ark" which was made out of monomolecular ice that could evaporate into space and defeat gravity.
Then they landed on Earth and waited for Venus`s Oceans to arrive here just like they did shortly after...
That was "splash down" time when this massive Venus freight ship landed and it drowned the Arabs who were going to sell crude oil anyway..
Moses shook a stick and the molten Venus Freighter water parted..and the children of the chosen people live on even today
It all makes sense...right down to how OldRocks great grand father had to hightail it out of Europe, after Europeans discovered their accounting methods...*he is one of the "chosen People"! *

*Now it even makes sense "ohRockof ages"  how You "explain" everything*


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ9XpNI8hmc&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ9XpNI8hmc&feature=related[/ame]

*Even the constant Global Alarm siren cranking fits to the T*


*Shalom!*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 18, 2011)

polarbear said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > A gigantic solar flare heading to earth..................
> ...



Again, nice math and science. i believe you just owned the warmist with this and they are going to have to put up a serious science backed post to have even a tiny chance of not being owned by you.* the truth must get out that it is bs and appears not the be backed by physics. *

mr.rocks it is on you to provide science that refutes this. seriously as a heart-attack.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Again, nice math and science. i believe you just owned the warmist with this and they are going to have to put up a serious science backed post to have even a tiny chance of not being owned by you.* the truth must get out that it is bs and appears not the be backed by physics. *
> 
> mr.rocks it is on you to provide science that refutes this. seriously as a heart-attack.



Mathew You are absolutely right about Math & Science being nice. I just want to say that I am not the inventor. When I moved south I did not want to cart my precious books on a tarp covered trailer from the Yukon to where I live now. So I had them shipped by U.P.S. The freight bill says the crates weighed 580 lbs total. And what I quote here is for the most part just fetched from what was in  these crates.
I do not own one single book of fiction, and yes that may make Jack a dull fellow, but my family puts up with me any way.
I have an interesting little argument here, for all You guys where the brain region that is responsible for rational thought is better developed than the brain region that conjures up fantasy. Depending which part of the brain is better developed will determine Your life. Some people work in a lab, earning peanuts and others work in Hollywood making a fortune...which says a lot about our society, don`t You think?


But the argument I have here is this:
Enthalpy of Moist and Humid Air


> Specific Enthalpy of Moist Air
> 
> Specific enthalpy of moist air can be expressed as:
> h = ha + x hw  where h = specific enthalpy of moist air (kJ/kg, Btu/lb)
> ...



Carbon Dioxide - Specific Heat Capacity


> Specific heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide gas - CO2
> 
> 
> > @ 200 Kelvin=     0.735 (kJ/kgK)
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes

Seung-Ki Min,1 Xuebin Zhang,1 Francis W. Zwiers1, 3 & Gabriele C. Hegerl2 
Affiliations Contributions Corresponding authors Journal name: 
Nature 
Volume: 
470, 
Pages: 
378&#8211;381 
Date published: 
(17 February 2011) 
DOI: 
doi:10.1038/nature09763 
Received 15 March 2010 Accepted 17 December 2010 Published online 16 February 201

*Real scientists, not someone on an internet board.*


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
> 
> Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes
> 
> ...







From the abstract...

 Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model&#8211;model comparisons12, 13, 14, 15. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.


Interpretation, "because we are too lazy to actually go out and do hard work in the field we created a computer model that will do it for us.  It has no empirical data to support it's findings (*BECAUSE IT"S BEING COMPARED TO ANOTHER MODEL!) *and in fact according to the well known history of the planet it's findings are laughable but we're real scientists because olfraud says we are.  We just don't do real science because that's hard."


----------



## polarbear (Feb 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
> ...



See he won`t quit. His mission in life is to stand on the sidewalk... what do You call these guys again that dress up in clown suits and pester passer byes to come on in and watch a Nickelodien show (cryers?). That`s the way he does it with the URLs he posts here. He wants us to read this crap...never even read it himself else no half intelligent person would post a link like that.:


> Observations (OBS); c, d, *model simulations* with anthropogenic (ANT) forcing; e, f, *model simulations *with



And You caught him again:


> *westwall*
> Interpretation, "because we are too lazy to actually go out and do hard work in the field we created a computer model that will do it for us. It has no empirical data to support it's findings (BECAUSE IT"S BEING COMPARED TO ANOTHER MODEL!) and in fact according to the well known history of the planet it's findings are laughable but we're real scientists because olfraud says we are. We just don't do real science because that's hard."



*Even if they do a "scientific experiment" they totally botch it as well*
You know...the CO2 increase in a plexiglass bubble dome...
 CO2= 0.735 kJ/kgK   Air= 0.746 kJ/kgK  , means it takes 0.011 Kilo joules less energy to heat up 1 Kilogram of CO2 by 1 Degree as it takes for air.
So what did those Idiots do? They kept replacing more and more air with CO2.
Let me make this clearer how stupid this is with a liquid instead of a gas.
You have a cup full of water and start replacing more an more water with alcohol.
So, of course whichever amount of alcohol You add an equal amount of water has got to go, because You are working with the same cup, that can fit only so much. *That too would heat up quicker than a cup with just water, cause ethanol has less specific heat than water.*
And that`s how their "dome of doom" worked.
As if our atmosphere was an encased dome. If You add another gas to it the total volume increases and You don`t take an equal amount of the original gas away..like where would that have gone?...On the same gravity defying space trip as the Venus Oceans?

The more CO2 we do put into our atmosphere the more mass it will gain and that means* it now will take even MORE ENERGY to raise that higher MASS by 1 degree.*


In their "scientific experiment" *there was NO MASS INCREASE *and they replaced a gas with a higher Specific heat (0.746 kJ/kgK  ) with a gas of a *lower specific heat ( 0.735 kJ/kgK  )*

*And jumped for joy when that heated up quicker.
*

So that was supposed to have been a "scientific" GLOBAL SIMULATION...and from that moronic brain child these "scientists" came up with "computer simulations" that are supposed to dazzle REAL SCIENTISTS....
*So now take a CLOSER LOOK how they applied this "logic":*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


> World 	29,321,302 tons CO2 per Year



http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html


>




Somehow in their "Physics" *all that EXTRA MASS in our atmosphere mass is getting a FREE ENERGY RIDE *when they heat that up in their fucked up "computer simulations".

I`ll say it again:
* For some strange reason all this extra mass/ temperature increase  does not consume a single Mega-joule per ton in their fantasy world 
And in their simulation 29,321,302 tons of air per Year ( @0.746 kJ/kgK) is REPLACED BY CO2 and  all that air tonnage disappears somehow into space, leaving no net mass gain of the atmosphere....  just like their Venus Oceans have*

*But they are quick to point out that all this extra tonnage was once under ground as fossil oil instead of where it is now...in the atmosphere!
*

*Shit they can even  make mass  DISAPPEAR on a mega tonnage scale ....like magic...if it showes up at a time when it does not fit into their "theory"*

*So now You know why they have to "Xplain" the lack of temperature increase with Chinese aerosol "reflecting sunlight" back into space*
*They simply will not come clean no matter how much of their fucked up math You expose*
Solar cycles are not the only problem they have when they parade the emperor in his wardrobe in public!


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Yes I am constantly amazed at how badly these climatologists are educated.  They don't know how to set up a basic experiment that is devoid of outside influence  or pre-determined outcomes.  It is maddening to have somejackass like Ed Begley Jr. come on to a program and spout off about "peer reviewed" scientists when they haven't a clue how to do real science!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 18, 2011)

Now comes the scary part. Many politicians that hold office today actually believe all this crap...
*Or have watched how news papers manage to increase their sales..and apply the same principle!*
Which shows that it is no longer the cream and nothing but scum that rises to the top in a democratic society these days.
Obama either believes it or just applies it...at least that Soviet whore Merkel knew all along that the entire scheme is just propaganda that gullible people eat up.* No question with that Soviet Communist bitch which of the 2 possibilities it was!*
You could easily express that mechanism in a very simple equation:

(100% multiplied * real science* audience attendance #)/(*hoax* attendance #) = *population IQ as %*

Just look at the how many people watch a "cell phone radiation can pop corn" video:
video 1= 1 327 213 viewers
Video 2= 1 123 927 viewers
and so on...same goes for "cell phone radiation causes brain cancer"
It does not matter what You picked as the boogerman which is going to kill You if You don`t believe the "theory".
News papers...same thing, "The National Enquirer" managed at times to get circulation figure > 6 Million* just inside the U.S*
and the "Scientific American" only a little over 700 000 WORDLWIDE.

Andrea Merkel is a communist whore, but she was a Soviet AGIP top graduate and she does know how to exploit mass stupidty!

So, ...that`s how she found Obama too. And now this freak show has an even bigger stage prop than Al Gore was

Anyone can do a simple experiment to verify that this collective stupdity  gets the more stupid, the *larger the mass of people You experiment on:*
Wait in a sold out movie theater till the lights go out and then scream "FIRE"...




Not a single person will question it and ask "where?"!...
But if You actually try it out in a theater when only a dozen or so people sit...somebody will ask "Fire?...where?"
*And now You know how mass propaganda functions...the rational few get shouted down by a HUGE MASS of MORONS...
...and this trick is used by almost every democracy today
*
it even works out doors...I forget how many people got trampeled to death here, simply because there was a a thunderstorm in the distance with audible thunder...and they may have believed *it`s an Al Qaeda attack*:





*And that is EXACTLY the methods Al Gore and Obama + this "science" is using to herd people into their cattle coral *

When I was still a Student I used to ride the train, wait till someone reads a news paper like "The National Enquirer" and without him noticing hold a cigarette lighter to the lower corner...*then sit back and observe his totally irrational panic reactions...*
See "OldRocks" I think even if Canada would want to deport me. I`m sure Germany would refuse to accept me back while Nurse Ratched is Chancellor!


> OldRocks @ Now I don't know what your problem is with the politics in *Germany if you are a citizen* here, but whatever it is, *perhaps you should consider moving back* if it means that much to you.




*They never did like my realistic science experiments and choice of lab rats:*







* and prefer to go with the false outcomes of their totally unscientific  computer simulations...(since Auschwitz got all that bad PR)
So I came here and liked what I`ve seen on Missouri license plates..."Missouri, THE SHOW ME STATE"...hey that`s my kind of people!!

*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 18, 2011)

Like I said You don`t need a crystal ball to see the details of Obama`s "plans". These are no longer a secret in Germany and now that the Communist pig Merkel had her "Greenhouse Gas Legislation"  there is no way stopping that Soviet schooled whore:




First Stuttgart 21 ...the 21 comes from the UN agenda 21, the "Greenhouse gas Reduction"











And that`s what all this new train traffic is doing to houses and garages:





Anybody standing in her way:





Gets shot in the face with high pressure water cannons from the police:






And despite almost all of Germany now in riot mode against her she keeps going:
Rheintalbahn: Aufstand gegen Baden 21 - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wirtschaft


> 18.02.2011
> 
> Rheintalbahn
> *Aufstand gegen Baden 21*
> ...



Aufstand = Riot

On the protest sign "Von der Planung keine Ahnung"
Planung is of course planning (as in central from the top down planning) and Keine Ahnung means if You don`t even have a clue how to..

We are supposed to watch the arctic for "early warning signs" what global warming will do to us if we don`t co-operate like dumb sheep...and like feel guilty about drunk Eskimos in Iqaluit eating greaseburegers "because the ice is too thin"...
Well I  say look at Germany as an early warning if you want to see what kind of a "Green Police State" will be made out of Your country too...if You don`t fight this crap before it`s too late.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2011)

And the lists remain the same. Fruitcakes like you fellows, and the lists of scientists in the OP.


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And the lists remain the same. Fruitcakes like you fellows, and the lists of scientists in the OP.








Sure olfraud, sure.  When a computer model being comapred to another computer model is considered hard science you have nothing.  There is no "scientific data" involved.  It is lazy people waving their hands.  Hand ne, meet hand two.  Clap.  That's what you have dood.  You've got two hands clapping.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 19, 2011)

I see, Walleyes. The current low volume and low ice cover in the Arctic is a computer program, correct? Same for the retreat of the glaciers worldwide?


----------



## westwall (Feb 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see, Walleyes. The current low volume and low ice cover in the Arctic is a computer program, correct? Same for the retreat of the glaciers worldwide?







Arctic ice has recovered 26% over the last three years from it's all time low back in 2007.  It will probably amaze you but it takes time for Arctic ice to increase.  It will be another two to three years before the Arctic ice is beyond what it was but it will inexorably get there with time (that's how the planet works you know.  If in fact you had a sudden blast of ice making that made up the years of decline in a single pitch then you actually WOULD have a "rapid climate change", however it is normal activity so it takes years) and what the alarmists are refusing to report is the thickness of the ice which is very thick.  So keep on with your little tales, the truth is being made plain for even the blind to see.


Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 26% Over The Last Three Years | Real Science


Title: Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice 
Authors: S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke 
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany 
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L02707, 4 PP., 2011 doi:10.1029/2010GL045698 

ICECAP

Reports on how even if the Arctic became ice free in summer the recovery would still occur in a timely fasion.


There's plenty more out there for those who care to learn.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I see, Walleyes. The current low volume and low ice cover in the Arctic is a computer program, correct? Same for the retreat of the glaciers worldwide?


*You really are a total retard*...there are just no polite words that would be suitable.
In the "ice thread" it was clearly visible on the NASA Satellite images that the ICE VOLUME HAS NOT GONE DOWN...and You want to change the subject back to that again, after we finally shut You up in that thread!

Let`s just stick with this thread here...:
I`ll quote a few choice examples of what kind of shits for brains idiot You really are :


> My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot
> LOL. Well, the state of Oregon cut the subsidies for individual* solar as the prices has come down. *All for the good, *that encourages the installation of 5 kw units instead of 2 kw units.
> *
> Old Rocks
> ...



I know You told me already, that You were forbidden by Your jewish Parents & grandparents to know anything remotely connected to German...but I put English translation subtitles into the video:
*Click on the Top bar "watch on YouTube" else the subtitles are distorted by the frame size the US Message board uses.*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzDDEg3NKM[/ame]

*If You are such an expert You f...ing Rockhead  why  don`t You go to Europe and tell the Engineers how You to solve that "minor" Problem.*
After all You did say:


> *that encourages the installation of 5 kw units instead of 2 kw units.
> **As for the rest of your nonsense, there is a vast area of roofs in every American city that can solar can be put on. Warehouses, businesses, etc.*



But I already know, You are too retarded to understand any of this.
So instead of a power grid lets use a car.
How would You like a car where a monkey under the hood is in control of the throttle?
If You have to slow down in city traffic the monkey floors it and if You have to get going at a green light he stalls the engine?
*Fuck You are by far thee most stupid idiot I have EVER ENCOUNTERED!*

And this is what happens when politicians are "planning" soviet style from the top down.
EVERY POWER ENGINEER in Germany has warned about this...but it fell on deaf ears!

*Here too:*....*.We Germans have lat least earned what happens when You run a Nation according to "Mein Kampf"*
*And here is Your President now with "My Plan"...holy fuck! He has a "plan" how to set up a power grid infrastructure*

*...and the engineers who do know and are trying to tell him it won`t work quite as he imagines  are all evil and have been bribed by the coal and oil lobby to say that*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/ame]

You wanna know who had the last laugh?
*THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY that freaks like You hate so much!
ALMOST ALL THE WIND/SOLAR power from the European grid has not saved ONE SINGLE LITER OF FOSSIL FUEL... BUT went instead into :*

Uhde GmbH - Press release - New Uhde electrolysis plant opened at Marl Chemical Park


> New Uhde electrolysis plant opened at Marl Chemical Park
> 
> On September 19, 2007, a new electrolysis plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda was officially opened at VESTOLIT in Marl. The plant, which was engineered and built by Uhde at Marl Chemical Park, *the third biggest chemical site in Germany*, was commissioned in April 2007 and is due to be handed over to the customer in the coming weeks. The plant has an annual production capacity of *250,000 tonnes of chlorine*, which is used as feedstock at the company's PVC plants, and *280,000 tonnes of caustic soda.
> *




And:
*Uhde to supply energy-efficient hydrochloric acid electrolysis ...*
01-11-2010: Uhde has been awarded an engineering and* procurement contract for the construction of a hydrochloric acid electrolysis plant
*

Your Petrochemical News - Uhde to supply energy-efficient hydrochloric acid electrolysis plant to Yantai Juli, China



> Uhde to supply energy-efficient hydrochloric acid electrolysis plant to Yantai Juli, China
> Thursday, Jan 07, 2010
> Uhde has been awarded an engineering and procurement contract for the *construction of a hydrochloric acid electrolysis plant by Yantai Juli Isocyanate Co. Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of polyurethane. The plant, with a production capacity of 100,000 tpa hydrochloric acid, will be constructed at Laiyang, Shandong Province, China, approximately 100 km north of Qingdao. Commissioning is scheduled for the end of 2011*.



*Just Google "large scale hydrogen elcrolysis using wind and solar power"
Then You will see that Krupp and Ude chemical Corp have been THE SOLE BENEFICIARIES OF YOUR FUCKING RETARDED "CLIMATOLOGIST POWER GRID SYSTEM: SO FAR
*
 And this is where this "environment friendly power went"
largest electrolysis - Google Search

So in other words the German tax payer...You in America will be next have been subsidizing the chemical Industry to make a shitload of chlorine gas amongst other things and doing it with power that they got for almost nothing, because the power grid had no use for a power system the monkey controls the engine throttle.
And "climatologists" who fucked up our power grid  with soviet style "planning" also say that one single Chlorine atom can destroy several hundred Ozone Molecules...do they not.
*So no all You greenhouse gas fuckheads,....when are You going to take ownership of You gigantic fuck-ups...?*
Like I said already total retards can only make totally retarded statements and utterly stupid remarks...why retards like "OldRocks" have the right to cast ballots...I don`t know!
What the fuck is Your level of "education" anyway?...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> Actually I'd use the personal helicopter to go to the bank or stuff like that! !



Are You also a hi tech freak like Your`s truly...I love this one.
nano battery technology can keep a 19 gram hummingbird nano spy drone aloft for 8 minutes.
The bird is fully equipped with bi directional links, remote control, audio and video channels.
Problem is If You want the "hummingbird" You might have to pay $4M.
No sweat, because once You own one You won`t have any problems making huge buck$ at wall street with top notch insider information!
http://www.youtube.com/user/reztirpswbb#p/a/u/0/8Rq1Ih1sgRk

*It has just gone from experimental status to operational*

Too bad they don`t use these to ease drop a little on these Global warming con artists.
I guess we have to "Dilbert" our own then


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2011)

*OldRocks*....:
*Your stupid comments are getting..more and more well what is the super-hyper-lative of stupid.
And stupid asses like You cheer for a cotton picker brained  President who announced  "My Plan"...is to phase out coal fired power plants and  fuck around with wind mills and solar panels instead*

And when Skookerasbil posted that video here I pointed out how simple minded this *"go green " pseudo science* is...Your responses  to that were:


> *OldRocks*
> ......And the lists remain the same. Fruitcakes like you fellows, and the lists of scientists in the OP.
> ....With a fraud like you? Only mdn would be out of his depth there. But not far.
> ....My, my, our pretend scientist has his panties in a knot



*And here is how You figure it works in the real world:*



Old Rocks said:


> LOL.  Well, the state of Oregon cut the subsidies for individual solar as the prices has come down. *All for the good, that encourages the installation of 5 kw units instead of 2 kw units.*
> 
> 
> *As for the rest of your nonsense, there is a vast area of roofs in every American city that can solar can be put on. Warehouses, businesses, etc.*



*You "OlDRocks" are the dumbest, most stupid, most retarded idiot I have EVER encountered...
Comparing a puny 5 kilowatt household Solar system, synced to the grid with a Radio Shack Inverter to a DEMAND POWER GRID...
*

*Is that how You would grid tie  a 1000 Megawatt power generator with a monkey in control of the turbine wickets/Spillway gates/Fuel Racks/Burner controls/Steam Turbine primary/.....sync all that to 60 Hertz and adjust the Power factor on demand.....and so on and on ?
Holy shit I would not want to be within miles if You` tried...There would be nothing but puddles of molten metal left.

This is what happens when a major power plant is out of phase with the grid.Cause of accident the wickets gates were not modulated just right...and that`s all that`s left of this power plant today:





Here are all the pictures of that Russian Power plant
Sayano Shushenskaya accident - Google Search
And here is the failure analysis:
International Water Power and Dam Construction



Sayano Shushenskaya accident  presenting a possible direct cause
It has now been over a year since the catastrophic accident at the huge Sayano Shushenskaya Dam and Hydroelectric Station in southern Siberia which cost the lives of 75 people and nearly destroyed the 6400MW powerhouse. 
This hypothesis is that the explosion was caused by water column separation in the draft tubes of the destroyed units. This condition can readily be caused by a too-rapid wicket gate closure during unit load rejection. Adjustment of governor times to unsafe values to achieve fast response to operating load changes may have occurred in recent times in response to a need to improve grid frequency control. This, combined with compromised stud connections due to poor maintenance, can explain the extreme violence of this accident. 

At 08:13 and 25 seconds local time on 17 August 2009, Unit 2 experienced a load rejection, which was followed immediately by a loud bang heard in the administration and control building adjacent to the powerhouse
		
Click to expand...


As if German Power engineers would just try grid lock all these Windmills and Solar farms the way The Soviet schooled Pig Merkel and her admirer Obama figures it should work ...NO PROBLEMO BRO...!.......even OldRocks knows how "simple" that is!


Actually I wish they would let You try, just as long I get the video camera footage...so I can have a good laugh..!!!!!
[/COLOR]*


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMbN9nb3qyk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMbN9nb3qyk[/ame]



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V3OZMW_45M&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V3OZMW_45M&feature=related[/ame]


*What the fuck do You think I do for a living...flip Hamburgers @ MacDonald`s ?*.....
Or did a "renowned climatquackocologist" determine  that driving heavy transport  for off duty fun time somehow causes Engineering amnesia?
I`m not a Russian "schooled" fuckup chernobyl disaster Engineer either, like that Soviet pig Angela Merkel the "climate chancellor" of Germany who is responsible for the hugest engineering fuckup EVER!
I am in fact GERMAN, *Your and Your relative`s worst nightmare*...and brown is my favorite shirt color.. Du total verblödeter Jude.

*That`s why I had all these laughs about AsskickingBills`s avatar:*








....*that`s How You would do it with Your ridiculous 5 KW solar "POWER"!*

*....I` rather take "Global warming", if it were real any day...here is what a little bit of snow and "some minor local cooling" as You assholes call it can do:*.
*watch the guy way at the end of the road, frame right... totally freaking out...shit even  battle experienced  Marines can`t run that fast for cover when there is some major "income" heading their way
*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYUmdqQ94Ao&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYUmdqQ94Ao&feature=related[/ame]

*"OldRocks" or whatever You name is, You have never even seen the inside of a power-plant., and I doubt you`d even be able to figure out how a simple car alternator works!*

So tell me *who is supposed to build these massive electrolysis plants the likes of which world has ever seen...which are supposed to handle the power load changes on this dope head Solar/Windmill power grid system*

You know...+ a pipeline system for it...You know of course that Hydrogen Gas seeps through solid steel...no of course You would not even have a fucking clue! 
So then tell us all how You and Your fuck head "scientists" would do that.
And who is supposed to finance it?
Do You think You could find enough investors to blow trillion$ on a crack pot idea like that...?...Or is that supposed to be a Soviet style Government owned industry?

Why am I even asking You..?...You would solve that problem by recycling car batteries from cars seized by the "Greenhouse gas Police" to store all these Giga Watts...of course!
Why did`nt we engineers think of that!...

http://www.youtube.com/user/rextundra


> *The wind energy ""problem" is science not the people pointing out the flaws with wind power. Wind can not replace base load power on the grid!!! So the coal plants burn coal every day. "*



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppLh5pGX3qQ&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppLh5pGX3qQ&feature=related[/ame]


> The Wind is free....Converting it to electric is expensive. &#65279;* With over 100.000 turbines on line we still wait for the first coal generator to be closed. Billions spent with little in return*.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*And "OldRocks" since You have no knowledge other than non-German I have to tell you also that:
A German billion is 1000000000000..... A U.S. billion is only 1000000000 The German word for Your mere  billion is only eine Milliarde *<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I`m only reading and responding to You because I really like picking on total retards that like shooting off their mouth...it`s almost as much fun as this was:





*They just hated it when you gave them a broom or a shovel to clean up their own shit ..You know, welcome to reality..!, we all have to work for a living, why should they have been exempted* 

*
and I know where You are coming from! You all but said it:
*


Old Rocks said:


> You know, my great-great grandfather, after leaving Prussia in a hurry after the rebellion against the Monarchy, would not allow German spoken in the home. .



*I have always loved a turkey shoot!*
*....:And You are totally out-gunned here!*





;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*Try peddle Your crap there, You might have better Luck...on the second thought, no, could be maybe You`ll learn something:
http://www.kidsites.com/sites-edu/science.htm
Nah You are not even at that evolution stage yet...You`ld have to start way further down, down at the ground level, You still live in the trees!
*
The Problem is, that Your relatives never did understand what that really meant:


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2011)

It does take "judge mentality" to make utterly judge mental and prejudiced call like this:
Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 


> Climate change denial
> Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming,
> .[2] *Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.*[3][4][5][6][7] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[8][9][10][11][12][13]



And augment it with "most climatologists agree that blah blah" like they were some neutral non-lobby organization...even after this:
The Climategate Chronicle: How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


> *Researchers 'Beef Up' Appeals by Environmental Groups*
> 
> Wigley's calls fell on deaf ears, and many of his colleagues unthinkingly fell in line with the environmental lobby. Asked to comment by WWF, climate researchers in Australia and Britain, for example, made particularly pessimistic predictions. What's more, the experts said they had been fully aware that the WWF wanted to have the warnings "beefed up," as it had stated in an e-mail dated July 1999. One Australian climatologist wrote to colleagues on July 28, 1999, that he would be "very concerned" if environmental protection literature *contained data that might suggest "large areas of the world will have negligible climate change."*



Then look again at Dr. Heinz Hug, a world renowned expert in Physics and Infrared Spectroscopy:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact


> The Climate Catastrophe
> - A Spectroscopic Artifact?
> 
> by   Dr. Heinz Hug




So, if You did not study physics Yourself it`s not easy who do You believe,...what you read in the Internet, or what somebody like Dr.Heinz Hug and others tell You is written in Physics books, the kind of Physics that had unlocked the secrets of nuclear power and landed a man on the moon, just to mention a few unimportant examples.

So, next thing You do is look up to Your leader, Obama or in Europe they all look at the soviet propaganda pig Andrea Merkel.

And every scientist in the field of physics and Chemistry + Mathematics is flushed down the toilet, no matter what their achievement were they are not "real experts" on this subject like "climatologists".

So if we take this method of deciding what is true and what is a lie and apply it here:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgJTR6ZR24&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgJTR6ZR24&feature=related[/ame]

Listening to experts and seeing not just a computer simulation, but the real thing..how come nobody other than Iraq and Al-qaeda has been found guilty....?

So are we in denial or are we all just plain stupid, and should let all our decision making up to the political leadership?..I think we already did in 4 or 5 Year installments.
It`s only on payday, I meant to say election day  when the people who foot the paycheck money have a voice.
Try writing Obama for example about the huge power grid engineering fuckup by Angela  Merkel..a letter now matter how many engineers signed it will land straight in the waste paper basket. But Al Gore could walk right into the Oval Office.

Well that`s just the way it is and I have no problem engineering my personal transportation and my dwelling so it won`t cost a dime for either except insurance & taxes.

But as for knowing who is a fucking liar and who is not when it comes to science and engineering I don`t need Your "qualified advice" OldRocks or whatever You are!
I`ll be a little too busy with other things from now on to keep on reading or writing here.
It`s been both very nice and also very amusing for me here.
Take care and my best wishes to all of you
from deep within the heart of Canada
Signed B.Berger


----------

