# Arctic ice thins dramatically



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)

PASADENA, Calif.  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASAs Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Oceans ice cover.

Ron Kwok of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older multi-year ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Arctic ice thinned dramatically between 2004 and 2008 | VANCOUVERITE


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)




----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)




----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 27, 2009)

I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.


----------



## elvis (Aug 27, 2009)

Chris Chicken Little is at it again.


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.



The melting arctic ice won't raise the sea level.

The ice in Greenland and Antarctica will.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.
> ...



Will it raise taxes?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.



Grasping at straws?

They must be causing the land based glaciers to melt as well.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.
> ...



 Still pitching for more taxes and forced product and service sales I see. You love supporting monopolies, just admit it, you only want two rich people to run the world.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.
> ...



No, that is caused by the big round fire  thing in the sky.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 27, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Actually, not really, but I won't offer Chris the real answers normally. Just think of it this way, the world has to balance itself out everytime something goes "unbalanced" ... nature has developed checks and balances that do this. If all the arctic ice melts the water table would also drop drastically. So ... to keep the water table at the right level more water from someplace else has to go into the ocean to raise it, since Ice takes up more space than water.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 27, 2009)

Wow Chris I see your FACTS have been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
 As  for balance the south pole  ice caps are growing.
Dont tell Chris.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 27, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
> As  for balance the south pole  ice caps are growing.
> Dont tell Chris.



Actually, it doesn't float on top of water, 75-90% of all ice on water is below the surface, displacing that much of it. So yeah, when it melts the water level should go down, on a global scale it's actually quite a bit, so land mass temps rise a little to melt the ice on there thus keeping the oceanic levels the same. My point though is that Chris is ignoring most of the science and findings just to cherry pick what he wants so he can help force all competition out of business. He's probably on Gore's payroll.


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

The  Ice mass is less dense then an equal volume of  water, when the ice melt it returns to  the original state .
Density of Ice


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 27, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The  Ice mass is less dense then an equal volume of  water, when the ice melt it returns to  the original state .
> Density of Ice



Um .... did you take science in school at all? Density isn't volume. Ice has an increased volume, thus why it's less dense and floats near the surface. Volume is what displaces water, density only determines the "order" the matter lies.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 27, 2009)

Yes  I did ,Im not the one who is claiming the water level changes as the ice melts.
A volume of water  when it freezes get less dense , the water displaces the excess   volume of the ice. When the ice thaws, it return to the more dense state  the level remain the same.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yes  I did ,Im not the one who is claiming the water level changes as the ice melts.
> A volume of water  when it freezes get less dense , the water displaces the excess   volume of the ice. When the ice thaws, it return to the more dense state  the level remain the same.



Just wow ... rule one of physics, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Density is the measure or weight when compared to the measure of volume. So, for an equal amount of liquid to become less dense the volume *must* increase. That's the highschool explanation, the chemistry explanation is the polarization of the molecules creates empty pockets of space when freezing the H2O. This polarization creates a crystalline formation of the molecules. When in liquid form the molecules are able to "overlap" and fill in space, when in frozen state they go into a specific pattern, increasing the size of the mass.

Volume displaces the water by the difference when ice forms in liquid H2O because of this effect. Okay, science lesson over, if you want to actually learn about it I recommend more than Google can offer, there are chemistry books in your local bookstore, I recommend you buy one and read it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

The excess volume is the part  that floats.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 28, 2009)

Think of ice cubes in a full class of water. If you do not drink any water and the ice melts, does the glass overflow?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

If the entire ice mass were under water  and melted  their would be  a change in th water level , but as we agree ,  part of the ice mass is above the water level.
  the %  of change in density.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Think of ice cubes in a full class of water. If you do not drink any water and the ice melts, does the glass overflow?


No.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The excess volume is the part  that floats.



Wow ... just wow ... your naiveness in science is only made more astounding by the fact that you can't even understand the simplified version I posted. 

The excess "volume" isn't the part that "floats". Reread what I explained to you, then again, buy a chemistry book, hell, even an elementary level book explains it now.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> If the entire ice mass were under water  and melted  their would be  a change in th water level , but as we agree ,  part of the ice mass is above the water level.
> the %  of change in density.



No, another good example is arctic sailors have a saying, "if you see the tip of an iceberg above the water, you are already on it."


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

Im sorry I give up ,perhaps you can gain some insight here.
Ice caps melting = water rising? Text - Physics Forums Library
God be with you kitten.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Im sorry I give up ,perhaps you can gain some insight here.
> Ice caps melting = water rising? Text - Physics Forums Library
> God be with you kitten.



Holy shit! I know chemistry, was the only class in school I enjoyed besides electronics (which I got kicked out of for hacking the teachers computer). I explained it to you, and now you post something no more credible than Wicrapedia? Shit, you are just as dense as your evil twin (Chris). 

Though I know you won't understand all this: Ice Physics

I recommend the series "How Things Work" for you though, it's more your level of understanding.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Hey, this one has cute little pics for you:

The Physics of Ice


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

Neither one of those links helps your case, Nothing can.
Ice is 9% less dense than water, when it melts  the atoms get closer  and  the volume decreases 9%

Here is one from next weeks summer camp  dont miss it.
Melting Icebergs Global Warming Polar Ice Caps Sea Level Science Experiment of the Week 215

IThis Week's Experiment - #215 Melting Icebergs

This week's experiment comes from a report I recently heard on National Public Radio. Unfortunately, I was driving and could not write down the fellow's name, so I could give him proper credit. He was talking about the facts and fictions of global warming. One point that he mentioned was one that I had heard many times and had never thought all the way through. What would happen if the global temperature rose enough for much of the polar ice caps to melt? All of that extra water would cause worldwide flooding, right? Lets investigate. You will need:
a glass 
water 
ice cubes

Try to get a large lump of several ice cubes frozen together. You can place several ice cubes into a bowl and leave it in the freezer over night and they should freeze together. Place the ice cubes into a glass or bowl. Add enough water to fill the glass to the top. Add as much water as you can, until the glass will not hold any more without overflowing.

Now, look carefully at the glass, water and ice. There is quite a bit of ice sticking up above the glass. What will happen when the ice melts? Now that you have formed a hypothesis (a scientific guess), watch to see what happens. Be sure that the glass is not bumped or disturbed. As the ice melts, does the water overflow?

No, it does not. Even when all of the ice has melted, the glass is just as full as it was when you started. As water freezes, it expands. It still weighs the same, but it takes up more space. This means that it will float when you put it into water. As it floats, the part of the ice that is underwater takes up exactly as much space as the water that it formed from took up. When it melts, it will take up that amount of space again, and so the glass does not overflow.

Back to what would happen if the polar ice caps melted, there is a big difference between the two polar ice caps. The North polar ice is all ice, floating in water. If you could selectively melt just the northern ice cap, sea level would stay the same.

The southern polar ice cap is not floating. Instead, it sits on the continent of Antarctica. If it melted, then the sea level would rise. The fellow that was giving the information said that most of the figures for global flooding overstated the rise in sea level because they failed to take into account that the northern ice would not change sea level. I have not been able to verify that, but I will keep my ears open. And of course, global warming would also melt a lot of ice in other parts of the world, not just the ice caps. Still, it does make a nice experiment of the week.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Fitnah, buy the "How Things Work" series, please.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

Sure, but that wont change  you believing something that isn't true.
Do the above experiment .
It works every time.
I promise.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sure, but that wont change  you believing something that isn't true.
> Do the above experiment .
> It works every time.
> I promise.



I know more about chemistry than you seem to understand. We did the "experiment" you posted in class using many variations. I won't bore others with the long list of results, but needless to say, I still have no idea what your point is. Mine was simple, melting ice = no reason for concern.


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Im sorry I give up ,perhaps you can gain some insight here.
> ...



I recommend you read the following MIT article....

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



*yawn* Read it along with the hundreds of others that contradict it, unlike you, I like to know the whole picture and I don't like monopolies.


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



There is nothing so closed as a closed mind.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Then why is yours closed to opposition?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but that wont change  you believing something that isn't true.
> ...





KittenKoder said:


> Actually, not really, but I won't offer Chris the real answers normally. Just think of it this way, the world has to balance itself out everytime something goes "unbalanced" ... nature has developed checks and balances that do this.* If all the arctic ice melts the water table would also drop drastically. So ... to keep the water table at the right level more water from someplace else has to go into the ocean to raise it, since Ice takes up more space than water*.


I contend the floating ice would not cause  any rise in the water level when it melts. Ice is 9% less dense than water.9 % of the ice protrudes above the water level  when the ice melts it reduces in density 9% no change in water level.
Run off from grounded ice melt would cause  water levels to rise.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



There are a lot more factors involved, one of the reasons Chris can't see reason. A 9% change in oceanic levels would be a "lot" actually, keeping in mind the vast area they cover and how small we are. As I said, I am a "big picture" person, I don't like ignoring most of science just to make a point.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

There is no change Kitten .Not 9 % not .009 just what ever solids ( dust and debris ) trapped in the ice that  are released  and sink to the bottom of the ocean as sediment . Im sorry .


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There is no change Kitten .Not 9 % not .009 just what ever solids ( dust and debris ) trapped in the ice that  are released  and sink to the bottom of the ocean as sediment . Im sorry .



9% of a centimeter is not noticeable, but 9% of several hundred miles is. So yes, the area covered does matter a lot.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > There is no change Kitten .Not 9 % not .009 just what ever solids ( dust and debris ) trapped in the ice that  are released  and sink to the bottom of the ocean as sediment . Im sorry .
> ...


There is no change  in the water level when floating ice melts period.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Just wow ... if it was on the top of the water then the difference would be even greater though it would be an increase, which with salt water smaller pieces will float more on the top (as you have pointed out) however with large bodies of ice only a small portion is above the water, so it melting would increase it's density, thus decreasing it's volume. Are we going to keep going around with logic or will you just fess up that you are only using talking points? You sound too much like Chris right now. Again, 9% of a centiliter is not noticeable, but 9% of thousands of gallons is.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUBLMaVhr6Q]YouTube - Watching the ice melt.[/ame]
0 x 100,000,000,000=0
Im out.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Fitnah ... you really missed it, that's a very small amount compared to the oceans.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...


yes
LOL
that is going to happen either way


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Fitnah ... you really missed it, that's a very small amount compared to the oceans.


also the ice was contained by the walls of the glass
so they could put in more ice to make it seem to stay the same level


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Fitnah ... you really missed it, that's a very small amount compared to the oceans.
> ...



True. The problem with people on the two extreme sides of the environmental argument is that neither is capable or willing to look at the whole picture. The reality, yes our species, like all others, is making an impact on the environment, but no, we should not go to an extreme to change that for many reasons. But neither side cares about that middle ground.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> ...



you are wrong again. weren't you spouting off about 3rd grade science and
the little experiment with a glass of water and  ice cubes in it? maybe you should do this experiment and then come back and report your findings.

you have no clue at all!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Let me guess, that's as far you went in science? Explain where you get that I was wrong, otherwise you are just trolling.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



you are pathetic. no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong, you always come back with some bullshit lines.

the water level is not affected by melting of ice, other than temperature change. so you are wrong when you say the level goes down when ice melts. this is simple physics. look up archimedes' principle. or do the little experiment.

then finally admit that you are wrong.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Using a "glass of water" for comparison to "vast oceans" is pathetic. Simple physics states that the water level *will* go down, but in a tiny glass of water the difference is imperceptible to the eye. Mathematically though it does happen. Again, tiny brain sees a tiny picture and think it reflects the huge globe.


----------



## elvis (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



can you give me a chance since I've never asked?  if the water level is not affected by melting of ice, why is there such panic about Arctic ice melting?  Thank you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2009)

March 17, 2012
The Last Dry Spot on Earth

Scientist have concluded that the melting of the polar ice caps was directly attributable all of the dire "We must stop man made Global Warming!" Threads on the Internet.

Issac Bradbury, the worlds last leading Climatologist said, "Look, we all knew that as a 'science' climatology ranked some where between palmistry and phrenology, but we had a great time getting taken serious and women basically threw themselves all over us to find out how they could 'save the planet'. 

Now that we've had a chance to review the data we find that the Earth ate up the CO2 from SUV's like it was cotton candy, but what it couldn't handle was the output from electricity used to power the computers, storage and server farms to post "Man Made Global Warming!!" Warnings.  I mean how many fucking times did you have to post the EXACT same nonsense?"


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



the panic is not mine. water level is affected by ice melting on greenland for example. that is like pouring water into a bucket, the level will rise. already swimming ice will do nothing.

but *if* the oceans are warming, then the floating ice will melt, too. and if the oceans *are* warming there will be other consequences.

there is much misinformation which feeds panic but there is much misinformation to counter this "panic", too, see kittenkoder.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



sure, in kittenkoder's universe everything is possible, la di la


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



"Floating" ice is mostly "under water" ... that's why you still fail.


----------



## elvis (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



so you are not on the Al Gore "bandwagon"?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



No, he's just a troll on my back because he has less of a life than I do.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



yeah about 90% of it is under water, as i explained to you earlier in another thread, glad you digested this lesson.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



See? Eder is just a troll who has latched onto me like a leech ... since he's now repeating what I said a loooooooong time ago.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Thank you Eder, for proving my opinion of you to be fact.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



i guess not, i don't think about this stuff that way. i think the alarmists are not helping, see greenpeace, and chris. makes it easier for people in denial to ridicule everything without trying to understand the argument.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



i am on your "ass", because you are an annoying bullshitter who accused others including me of having no clue about science while being totally wrong about science. this is too delicious to pass. so what about the water level? found it out yet?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Thank you Eder, for proving my opinion of you to be fact.




you are welcome. but you are still confusing opinion and fact.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Eder, for proving my opinion of you to be fact.
> ...



Nope, I don't. I have an asshole on my ass ... just wish it was only my asshole. You are trolling, almost everything I have stated as fact you eventually repeat then claim that I never said it. You are nothing original, just a simple minded (if any) troll, but thanks for playing.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



thanks for lying, again.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Sorry, I am not ma Kettle.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



but, if you were a kettle, filled with water and ice cubes, would the water level sink, rise or stay the same after the ice magically disappeared by "melting". just to bring you back on track.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



It would sink minutely ... according to chemistry and physics. Imperceptible on such a small scale, but it would drop. Of course ... you will now change your tune ... again, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


Yes, the exact amount  of the original value of the water before it converted to the less dense state,
The out of water ice is the difference .When the ice melts  the ice revert to its more dense state  the" out of water" ice "disappears"  and the water level remains the same.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS7Q4pNm1HM]YouTube - Everwonder Why Ice Floats on Water?[/ame]

Im staggered by the failure of some to  not grasp this simple fact   and perplexed that  they are arguing against  Al Gore cataclysmic visions.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKiq5EwkzDg]YouTube - Mr Wizard debunks ice caps melting will cause the shores to flood[/ame]


DiveCon said:


> also the ice was contained by the walls of the glass
> so they could put in more ice to make it seem to stay the same level


Sad.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



and can you explain why that would happen, and how long that sinking of the level (minutely) would last?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isWAUI4j1tQ]YouTube - Global Warming Bunk: Dissolving the Polar Ice Caps Fear[/ame]


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You have some serious comprehension error in here. DiveCon was dead on, all your "experiments" are on such a small scale you have to multiply the very slight changes by thousands to equate it to global, which according to real science (not bargain basement "Mr Wizard" crap) water expands when it's frozen, 90% of all ice on water is *under* the water, thus displacing the water by the 90% of the amount it has expanded, thus when it thaws it will "shrink" by that amount, lowering the water table by that same amount. It's logic, simple, and very easy to grasp, the fact that you don't grasp it is saddening, our schools are seriously failing now.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Yep, changing your tune again, now you are going to claim that you said that water expands when frozen first aren't you?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



stop your compulsive lying for a second, if you can. i am changing no tune, i want to hear an explanation for your opinion. and i mentioned temperature change already, which might have a minute effect in a small vessel for a short time, in the ocean you are just shit out of luck with that caveat. but you did not present this, i did.


so where were we, ah. you being wrong.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I have already stated the science behind it in the thread, you ignore facts I post just because you have a few too many hamsters up your ass then accuse me of lying, the sad fact is it's you who lies. I will not dig those hamsters out for you, get it through your thick skull perv, I don't like you, period. Harassing me like this won't change that fact, but it's funny because you have lost all credibility now.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



so that is your concession, i guess. hey, i don't like you either, surprise.

still, laws of physic and chemistry don't care for these animosities among message board posters. one could say they don't give a fuck about that.

for the record, water level stays the same.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


And can she explain why if she believes this can happen she is arguing against Al gores crazy shit instead of for it?
Science  confirms  the thermal energy  of increased temperature of water result in an increase in expansion of the volume ,as the atomic activity increases creating an imperceptible rise  not lowering of water level .

In the liquid state, most water molecules are associated in a polymeric structurethat is, chains of molecules connected by weak hydrogen bonds. Under the influence of thermal agitation, there is a constant breaking and reforming of these bonds. In the gaseous state, whether steam or water vapour, water molecules are largely independent of one another, and, apart from collisions, interactions between them are slight. Gaseous water, then, is largely monomerici.e., consisting of single moleculesalthough there occasionally occur dimers (a union of two molecules) and even some trimers (a combination of three molecules). In the solid state, at the other extreme, water molecules interact with one another strongly enough to form an ordered crystalline structure, with each oxygen atom collecting the four nearest of its neighbours and arranging them about itself in a rigid lattice. This structure results in a more open assembly, and hence a lower density, than the closely packed assembly of molecules in the liquid phase. For this reason, water is one of the few substances that is actually less dense in solid form than in the liquid state, dropping from 1,000 to 917 kilograms per cubic metre. It is the reason why ice floats rather than sinking, so that, during the winter, it develops as a sheet on the surface of lakes and rivers rather than sinking below the surface and accumulating from the bottom.

As water is warmed from the freezing point of 0° to 4°C (from 32° to 39°F), it contracts and becomes denser. This initial increase in density takes place because at 0°C a portion of the water consists of open-structured molecular arrangements similar to those of ice crystals. *As the temperature increases, these structures break down and reduce their volume to that of the more closely packed polymeric structures of the liquid state. With further warming beyond 4° C, the water begins to expand in volume, along with the usual increase in intermolecular vibrations caused by thermal energy.*

ice (solid water) :: Properties -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> You have some serious comprehension error in here. DiveCon was dead on, all your "experiments" are on such a small scale you have to multiply the very slight changes by thousands to equate it to global, which according to real science (not bargain basement "Mr Wizard" crap) water expands when it's frozen, 90% of all ice on water is *under* the water, thus displacing the water by the 90% of the amount it has expanded, thus when it thaws it will "shrink" by that amount, lowering the water table by that same amount. It's logic, simple, and very easy to grasp, the fact that you don't grasp it is saddening, our schools are seriously failing now.


You almost have it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




The 10% that is  not underwater, is what keeps the water level from not changing.
0 time a hundred bilion is still 0, no change is no change.
It is not the schools that have  failed in this case.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


It appears KK is the one on the Gore  Band wagon. She is the one who see  an impact from  floating ice melt.Run off from grounded water is a different story .In anycase the "proof of man made global warming is garbage of the first order.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I have already stated the science behind it in the thread,.


No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound  failure to grasp  the relationship between  volume, weight  and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume  than water as it is less dense,  as the ice melts  its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I have already stated the science behind it in the thread,.
> ...




give up, it is easier to keep your average house cat from crapping on the bathroom carpet by rubbing its nose in its own turds than to get kittenkoder to admit a mistake.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



*really evil grin* You have proven my point correct. Now, for the sad sad hammer fall. The fact that you can't keep your own lies straight is what has shown my opinion of you as fact. I said, a while ago, that 90% of the ice in water was below the surface, the funny thing I was wrong, and you said I was but did not show how I was wrong so I ignored your point. You really should have stuck with that. I was wrong because of one fact, salt. Salt water is denser than pure water, and salt doesn't freeze, so the ice in bergs would float up a bit more, the amount would be about 85% under water. But now you completely turned a 360 in a failed attempt to discredit me by saying my original post was accurate and claiming credit for that point ... so yeah, you are a troll, and worst, you are an idiot troll.  Thanks for playing moron.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

Salt water freezes  ,just at about 3 degrees lower  than pure water.
Since the ice is  just as salty as the water the have the same same initial density .
The equation and weight volume density ratio remains the same.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-15.html#post1401645



L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



complete deflection. what about the water level, i always said *about 90%* or *about 10%*. guess what, i know that ocean water is salty. does not change anything about the water level after melting.

your gymnastics are awful.  next time you accuse me of lying, support it with something, ok?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

If the ice were salty and the water was fresh, there would be a net gain in level after the melt. As salt water is  more dense,  this doesn't help KK kause though.
But we now know who flunked 4th grade science.
Im sure they let  her through to the next grade anyway.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Some dead horses get boring after a while. I recommend you both learn something, Fitnah science, Eder honesty.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

It inst boring at  all , this is a first for  me I have never seen anyone argue against  proven science like you have. 
Your  post about the ice floating higher would be true if the ice were fresh water ice floating in sea water, it isnt , the salinity is  the same as the sea water so  the buoyancy ration is the same as if both were fresh water.
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level
But this is the opposite effect you are trying to prove.(The water level drops)
You will never be able to prove ( that the result of the ice melt results in lower water levels )what you want to prove so you  will have to make it all personal.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It inst boring at  all , this is a first for  me I have never seen anyone argue against  proven science like you have.
> Your  post about the ice floating higher would be true if the ice were fresh water ice floating in sea water, it isnt , the salinity is  the same as the sea water so  the buoyancy ration is the same as if both were fresh water.
> Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level
> But this is the opposite effect you are trying to prove.(The water level drops)
> You will never be able to prove ( that the result of the ice melt results in lower water levels )what you want to prove so you  will have to make it all personal.



You haven't met Chris and Old Rocks?


----------



## amiam* (Aug 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.
> ...



Another straw for you to grasp....consider each nuclear sub as a heat source, does the introduction of these heat sources into the arctic oceans have an affect on the arctic ice?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Some dead horses get boring after a while. I recommend you both learn something, Fitnah science, Eder honesty.



getting advice from kittenkoder about science and honesty is like getting advice from the grand ayatollah khamenei on free elections and fellatio.

and since kittenkoder insists on being a complete brain dead ass, i will post this, too.

this is from the same thread where i introduced the about ten percent/ 90 percent number. old rocks countered kittenkoder with around 9 %, because he actually knows what he is talking about. Kittenkoder was putting it around *30 percent*. that would make 30 percent of ice being above the surface. and now she has the chuzpe to claim she is putting out the 90 percent number for a long time.

d'oh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-15.html#post1401003



Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

"Somewhere around there" is already an admission of not knowing ... try being honest Eder.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

For those who don't realize water expands when frozen, take a mason jar, fill with water, seal, and freeze. Go ahead, nothing will happen, by your own flawed knowledge.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > It inst boring at  all , this is a first for  me I have never seen anyone argue against  proven science like you have.
> ...


They are both on ignore and presumably wrong about everything, I dont expect any different from them, you and dive on the other hand, I expected you  both to be open to reason and be aware of and accepting of plain old facts. Especially widely known provable facts.



> If all the arctic ice melts the water table would also drop drastically. So ... to keep the water table at the right level more water from someplace else has to go into the ocean to raise it, since Ice takes up more space than water.



 you have stated that part of the ice floats above  the water , yet you refuse to realize that  the weight of the ice does not change, only its density  changes (mass of 1, density of  9.2), when it melts  and  the ice  returns to water (mass  of 1 ,density  of 1) the denisty decreases no water is  left floating above the water ,the displacement is   gone , they are said to be in dynamic equilibrium .
Just retract your statement or prove it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> "Somewhere around there" is already an admission of not knowing ... try being honest Eder.



honest, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 




KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...





KittenKoder said:


> "Somewhere around there" *is already an admission of not knowing* ... try being honest Eder.



now, care to explain how these two comments result in honesty?

in one part of the thread you state something incorrect (you are admitting now that you did not know better), later in that thread you get educated by two posters about the scientific facts.

somehow you processed this information and in your confabulating mind it was you who presented this basic fact. seek help.

and then in this thread you accuse me of this: 



KittenKoder said:


> Nope, I don't. I have an asshole on my ass ... just wish it was only my asshole. You are trolling, *almost everything I have stated as fact you eventually repeat then claim that I never said it.* You are nothing original, just a simple minded (if any) troll, but thanks for playing.



i almost admire your brazenness.


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2009)

amiam* said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Nuclear subs are melting the ice cap and the glaciers???!!!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> amiam* said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No more of a narrow minded stretch than what you post. no less crazy to.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > amiam* said:
> ...


except amiam* was only JOKING and that moron chris didnt get it


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That was just the cherry on top.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

amiam* said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


Welcome to  the idiocy zone , you are now on ignore.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> amiam* said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


you mean you didnt get it either?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 28, 2009)

Ok Yeah I get it.
Sorry amian.
Still waiting for KKs retraction of this childish nonsense


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ok Yeah I get it.
> Sorry amian.
> Still waiting for KKs retraction of this childish nonsense



You will be waiting a long time.

KK thinks she is smarter than the scientists at MIT.


----------



## concept (Aug 29, 2009)

How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?

Broken up by ages of warming. If all of the arctic ice melts, I wonder what kind of dinosaur fossiles we will find there?


Sheesh. This is yet another opportunity for fearmongering and power grabbing by the left.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

concept said:


> How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?
> 
> Broken up by ages of warming. If all of the *arctic* ice melts, I wonder what kind of dinosaur fossiles we will find there?
> 
> ...


 you MUST mean the antarctic, because the arctic is an ocean


----------



## concept (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?
> ...



that too.


----------



## JW Frogen (Aug 29, 2009)

concept said:


> How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?.



Obviously a poster who has never been married.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 29, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?.
> ...




LOL!  Mrs. Code is out of the room.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 29, 2009)

The thing is if that ice melts and reveales the dark water or land beneath then we will be in VERY big trouble. The sea level will rise the, sea water will become diluted with all that fresh water, there will be MASSIVE die off of species that can't live in fresh water, the weather patterns will change, we may even see the jet streams change. Oh and one more thing when the ice melts and reveals the "permafrost" it will thaw and release METHANE which we all know is an even worse green house gas.


----------



## concept (Aug 29, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > How many ice ages have there been? 4 or 5?.
> ...





Good one.  LOL


----------



## concept (Aug 29, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The thing is if that ice melts and reveales the dark water or land beneath then we will be in VERY big trouble. The sea level will rise the, sea water will become diluted with all that fresh water, there will be MASSIVE die off of species that can't live in fresh water, the weather patterns will change, we may even see the jet streams change. Oh and one more thing when the ice melts and reveals the "permafrost" it will thaw and release METHANE which we all know is an even worse green house gas.



Arrgh it's the end of the world. 

More fearmongering. Please.

What's up with that antarctic ice though? That ice doesn''t subscribe to the loony toon theory and is thickening. Must be NEOCON ice.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

Still cold and wet in the summer in Western Washington ... so where are our "record highs"?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 29, 2009)

Is it your intention to get the last word and still leave your distortions of known science standing as if they were unrefuted ?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1465686-post103.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1464213-post95.html


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Still cold and wet in the summer in Western Washington ... so where are our "record highs"?


its only 53° here right now
and its still fucking SUMMER
or its SUPPOSED to be


----------



## elvis (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Still cold and wet in the summer in Western Washington ... so where are our "record highs"?
> ...



same in Michigan.  It's been an unbelievably mild summer.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Meteorologists for the "national weather center" claim we have broken a lot of high records here, so far we have only had a few days that did, the rest barely even made it to average. I just don't get where they are getting these record highs from.


----------



## elvis (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Follow the money.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



I know ... just trying to get a straight answer from the environuts about something for once.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



We are all waiting for something
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1466763-post114.html


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Thought I told you I lost interest in that topic. But here, simple logic:

1. When water freezes it expands. (Chem 101)

2. 90% of ice is normally under the water, except salt water it's about 85%. (Physics 101)

3. When water thaws it shrinks. (Chem again)

4. Logic: When the amount of water displaced by the volume decreases the level of the water line will drop. (Simple geometry)


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



About 9.3 % of the ice remains above water.

The ice expands about 9.3%from its original volume.

 How much does it  shrink when it thaws?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 29, 2009)

[/IMG]
TRY THIS


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 30, 2009)

As for your failure to understand the properties of sea water  and Ice .
 If frozen freshwater was floating on sea water it would float higher , the frozen ice is sea water and floats at the same level as  if  all the water in question were fresh water.  The opposite effect would happen if  they were reversed .


----------



## mal (Aug 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.



OUCH!... Stop Slapping the Global Warming Monkies and the Climate Change Hysterians around with Information like that, Fit!...

They like to be Selective with the Data they Base their Delusions on!... 



peace...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 30, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> TRY THIS



clearly the ice mass above the water level will be zapped by a winged mustached wizard and disappear forever from teh earth. but the wizard is very small and sooper-fast, so no one will ever be able to prove that awesome fact. i know it, however. that is why the water level sinks when floating ice melts. yeehaw!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 30, 2009)

Wizards, yeah I was out that day.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

One thing that has yet to be answered (by the environuts) is: What purpose does this ice serve in the balance that we call nature?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> One thing that has yet to be answered (by the environuts) is: What purpose does this ice serve in the balance that we call nature?



you should read this book, maybe you can understand its message.






[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Flo-Lyin-Lucados-Hermie-Friends/dp/1400302862"]Amazon.com: Flo the Lyin' Fly (Max Lucado's Hermie & Friends) (0023755044563): Max Lucado, Max Lucado's Hermie & Friends: Books[/ame]


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

Why not answer the question instead of trolling Eder?

What purpose does this ice serve in the balance that we call nature?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Why not answer the question instead of trolling Eder?
> 
> What purpose does this ice serve in the balance that we call nature?



Dear Flo, posing the same flawed question over several weeks in numerous threads to disrupt threads or to deflect from your arrogant ignorant stubborn stupidity AND ignoring the numerous times your "question" was adressed is trolling. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-17.html#post1403755

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-16.html#post1401914


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

Why not simply say you don't know instead of trolling?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Why not simply say you don't know instead of trolling?



i answered it. did you find out what happens to ice when it melts and how it affects the water level, flo?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Why not simply say you don't know instead of trolling?
> ...



You only dodged and trolled, answer it, it's a valid question on the topic. If the ice is so important, what purpose does it serve in nature? How is it part of the balance? Unless this can be answered then all this "the ice is melting" ranting is moot.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...




*Ferrous Cranus*


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



This is why you are shown for a liar and troll, you do not answer a valid question, the question has no insult in it, it has no ulterior motive, it even has a logical and scientific answer. However instead of answering it or admitting to not knowing the answer, you just accuse the one who asks of what you are doing in response. Is your life so pointless that you cannot even admit you have no idea what the answer is, that you can't even guess at what the answer is? 

No, I asked the question and have gotten no answer, if you fear the question then go ahead and ignore it like the fool you have shown yourself, just like the environuts have ignored it because they have no answer or even a hint of how to find the answer.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 31, 2009)

thermohaline circulation


----------



## Roxiebell (Aug 31, 2009)

what they really are and thats EVIL!  and "oh yeah" and they are CRAZY  I'm SICK of them.

Being Green is being MEAN! Sane folk need to start calling them OUT on their "inhuman-agenda"! I'll like to hook them up to their "electric cars" and/or air drop them in the artic so they can "pet" the Polar Bears they care about more then people.  

Every 30 minutes an African child DIES of malaria and thats all on the GreenPieceofshyt EnviroNUTS anti DDT & development campaigns.  I'm not inclined to be "civil" toward or even "tolerate" this type of Terrorism that KILLS so many people. 

This is no longer an "adopt a highway", or "don't litter" campaign, that we all bought into, these groups are DANGEROUS to mankind and they need to be STOPPED!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> thermohaline circulation



Shush you.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



shit, i am so afraid. your projector is going to overheat. the way you phrased your question is telling. and the point in the thread where you think your stupid question will save you from admitting you failed in basic physics and chemistry, logic and common decency, is also telling.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 31, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You have no room to talk about decency.  

To you I admit nothing, until you come up with proof. I don't need to. I have asked this question everytime someone mentions ice melting, it's a valid and open question, but without an answer their doom and gloom is meaningless. If you are not going to address the topic, why are you here? So, either answer the question or address the topic and quit trolling, or stop projecting your inadequacies onto other people.

What is so important about the ice? Why does nature need it?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 31, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...





"quak quak, to you i admit nothing, because i don't like you, you stink. i am taking my ball and go home."

hey, flo, i will answer your stupid question, again. nature does not need ice!

troll troll troll your boat, gently down the gulf stream, merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream


----------



## Chris (Sep 4, 2009)

Roxiebell said:


> what they really are and thats EVIL!  and "oh yeah" and they are CRAZY  I'm SICK of them.
> 
> Being Green is being MEAN! Sane folk need to start calling them OUT on their "inhuman-agenda"! I'll like to hook them up to their "electric cars" and/or air drop them in the artic so they can "pet" the Polar Bears they care about more then people.
> 
> ...



So you are pro DDT?


----------



## Chris (Sep 21, 2010)

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice. 

On September 10, 2010 sea ice extent dropped to 4.76 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year; sea ice has now begun its annual cycle of growth. 

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum extent is 240,000 square kilometers (93,000 square miles) above 2008 and 630,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the record low in 2007. This is 340,000 square kilometers (130,000 square miles) below 2009. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Oddball (Sep 21, 2010)

Wait a minute...A little while back, it was the_* second*_ lowest ever.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/127821-july-sea-ice-second-lowest-ever.html







OK, boys, break's over....Gotta get these goalposts over to Chrissy's house by lunch time!


----------



## Chris (Sep 21, 2010)




----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2010)




----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 22, 2010)

Damn that Global Warming. I mean Global Climate Change, err no sorry this just in. Global Climate Disruption. Why if we all just started walking around, all the Nations in the Developing world would stop too and we would all be saved. 

Oh the Humanity.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 22, 2010)

This crap is old!!!!

What was the cause of the ice receeding all the other times it receeded?

Why is'nt New York still covered by a glacier? 

Please....! I just want an answer to that Chris! 

BTW.... Sean Connery is insulted with your avatar. 

He told me so.....  He said to use a pic of Barney the dinosoar.


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> This crap is old!!!!
> 
> What was the cause of the ice receeding all the other times it receeded?
> 
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the we have the hottest year on record.

Why?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > This crap is old!!!!
> ...



Could it be that High "activity" does not directly correlate with Higher temperatures on earth?

lol


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Wrong.

It is because we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the we have the hottest year on record.
> 
> Why?



I have no idea....! For all I know you are lying again..... From what I have heard.... Mars is hotter now too...! 

Why??

I know I know.... dust-storms! Whatever 


You still have'nt explained the reason for the previous ice ages going bye bye


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the we have the hottest year on record.
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 22, 2010)

If you say so.... 




Dont forget your meds tonight, OK?


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > This crap is old!!!!
> ...






Because NOAA is only using the weather stations that are located at airports thus benefitting from those wonderful warm acres of tarmac.  That's why.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


>





I'll raise you an _accurate_ graph!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 22, 2010)

Looks to me like they are saying exactly the same thing. 2010 will be, by a very small differance, the third lowest ice extant on record.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 22, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



And the why of you posting something like that is that the only way you can argue is to outright lie. The temps that NOAA gets from it's stations have a very good coorelation with the temperatures done by the satellites.

Only In It For The Gold: UAH Temps Remain Extraordinary


----------



## elvis (Sep 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > This crap is old!!!!
> ...



Because you pulled your head out of that sheep's asshole.


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Really now?  Well lets see here, here's the story of just a single weather station and how its data has been manipulated.  Funny how the "researchers" deemed it neccessary to go back a couple of decades to "correct" the readings.  WUWT has both the raw NOAA data and the "researchers" "corrected" data.  Who's lying there?

And what was that about the satellites?  Oh yeah their data has been removed because they are reading 15 degrees to high on average.  Are those the satellites you're talking about?

Michigan Sea Grant Coastwatch

So tell me once again who's lying?


----------



## konradv (Sep 24, 2010)

As you said, "a single station".  Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.  The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same.  I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them.  Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence.  The preponderance of data over long periods IS.  The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for.  Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2010)

konradv said:


> As you said, "a single station".  Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.  The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same.  I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them.  Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence.  The preponderance of data over long periods IS.  The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for.  Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.







  Typical.  Try to implicate the whistle blowers for the very thing they are demonstrating your representatives are doing.  You are a tool.....and not a very good one either!  Did you take the propaganda seminar that the alarmists are pushing to save their religious exercise?


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

sea ice minimum third lowest since 1979? wow!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
> 
> On September 10, 2010 sea ice extent dropped to 4.76 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year; sea ice has now begun its annual cycle of growth.
> 
> ...



Hate to break it to you DUMB FUCK but you just PROVED that the ice is getting thicker. It has increased since the lowest every year. Ohh and remind me again how a 31 year record in the history of the Earth MEANS anything?


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

konradv said:


> As you said, "a single station".  Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.  The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same.  I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them.  Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence.  The preponderance of data over long periods IS.  The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for.  Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.



don't you mean the story of 'one satellite'? and without the skeptics there would have been no public admission of bad data being compiled by a seriously flawed satellite.


----------



## k2skier (Sep 24, 2010)

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This years minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007. However, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.


----------



## Chris (Sep 24, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
> ...



We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years.

The ice is not getting thicker, it is getting thinner.


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

k2skier said:


> NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010
> 
> The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This years minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007. However, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.



depends on who you ask.


> A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.


----------



## Chris (Sep 24, 2010)

IanC said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010
> ...



Link?


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

sure-  





> Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397
> 
> Authors: J.L. McKay, A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, C. Not, L. Polyak, and D. Darby
> 
> Abstract: Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near- surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (*156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600&#8211;7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500&#8211;3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.



http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf


----------



## Flopper (Sep 24, 2010)

*I didn't read all the first page.  Have we decide it's Obama's fault yet?*


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

is that supposed to be comedic relief?  fail!

everyone knows its Baby Bush's fault


----------



## k2skier (Sep 24, 2010)

Fron your source Ian...


There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the
Arctic has been experiencing dramatic environmental
changes (e.g., Serreze et al. 2000; Comiso and Parkinson
2004). *Most notably, there has been a rapid decline in the
extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently
in winter as well *(e.g., Parkinson et al. 1999; Comiso 2002;
Serreze et al. 2003; Rigor and Wallace 2004; Meier et al.
2005; Comiso 2006; Comiso et al. 2008; Stroeve et al.
2008).* It has been suggested that if the present trend continues
the Arctic could experience ice-free summers within
30 years* (Stroeve et al. 2008). There is, however, debate on
the relative influence of natural versus anthropogenic forcing
on these recent changes. The decline in sea-ice, which
began in the late 1970s, occurred contemporaneously with a
major shift in Arctic atmospheric and oceanic circulation
(Walsh et al. 1996), hence referred to as the Arctic Oscillation
(Thompson and Wallace 1998). At this time, there was
a weakening of the Arctic High that is situated over the
Beaufort Sea and intensification of the Icelandic Low, conditions
characteristic of the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation
(+AO).


----------



## Tom Clancy (Sep 24, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Wait!

If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle? 

Impossible..


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2010)

k2skier said:


> Fron your source Ian...
> 
> 
> There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the
> ...






Yes the last 30 years have seen a lowering of sea ice.  So what.  Go back the 1820's and 30's and you could sail almost 200 miles further south into the antarctic than you can now.
I doubt there were a bunch of SUV's polluting the atmosphere back then so why was there so much LESS ice 185 years ago?


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...







Oh no!  Heaven forbid that the Earth should actually function on its own without mans influence.  The "elite" know whats best for man and beast don't you know!


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

K2skier-  the title of this thread is 3rd lowest EVER and your quote in colour said outside of natural variability. I disagree with those two statements because they are absurd. Do you continue to believe them even given peer reviewed evidence to the contrary? It is patently false to anybody with a brain that either statement could be true.


----------



## Chris (Sep 25, 2010)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2010)

2011 better fucking beat 2007 or global warming will become a laughable joke.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2010)

*If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle?*

It could be the earth's cycle, if there weren't other confounding factors to consider, like the increase in GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial revolution.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> *If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle?*
> 
> It could be the earth's cycle, if there weren't other confounding factors to consider, like the increase in GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial revolution.







Prove it.  We can prove climate cycles.  We can prove the relationships between the La Nina and El Nino cycles, we are beginning to get a small handle on how the solar cycle affects the climate.  What have you got?  Oh yes that's right, you've got CO2, well we can prove that the temperatures rise and then 800 years later the CO2 increases.


Yep, that's right, you've got nothing.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

to westwall +/or Old Rocks-

science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
> 
> science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?







No they are simply not telling the truth.  Although to the credit of the original IPCC report's author buried within the report that claimed that CO2 had a residence time of 200 years was the little snippet that it had a measured RT of 4 to 15 years.  That is well documented and is well known among the honest scientists of the world.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
> 
> science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?



True, but lets say that the natural ability  of the oceans at removing the co2 is quite slow and while what ever  that is adding it to the atmosphere is being replaced by co2 moving out of the oceans...Oceans don't act as a one way sink, but they take in co2, but also co2 goes back into the Atmosphere from them...So overall the "theory" behind hundreds of years is the imbalance of co2, which pretty much means that there is a ever increasing percentage of co2 in the Atmosphere as there was before and so on. 

Everything is a cycle and if you add more into one part of the cycle it don't always mean the whole cycle becomes faster at what it does, so you get a imbalance.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2010)

One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
> ...



I thought that the balance between atmospheric CO2 and ocean dissolved CO2 was something like 1:50. Have we actually released enough CO2 from fossil fuels to account for  roughly 50 times the measured atmospheric increase?


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

Matthew said:


> One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.



hmmm.... does that mean the linear increase of temps since the Little Ice Age could be the source of much of the increase in atmospheric CO2? released by the oceans in response to increased temperature?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

I take it that some of you might actually understand that they only started keeping records on sea ice about 35 years ago...........


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.
> ...



Yes., within other interglacial periods of the last 500,000 years do have a increase in co2 with them as the worlds warm and the oceans release co2. But only of 300-320 from 210-250 within the peaks of the ice ages to the peak of the interglacial periods. 

For your other question above: Yes, but 50/1 is the ability as a whole to take up co2. But with a warming ocean that can take up less and releases a higher percentage of that.. Wouldn't it mean more Atmospheric co2. Remember the extra co2 we're adding is not a big number and so most of the co2 is in fact being removed, but what we're seeing as a increase is just the imbalance.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I take it that some of you might actually understand that they only started keeping records on sea ice about 35 years ago...........





Through satellites, yes...But ice cores and other measuring tools give a us a solid idea of temperature and co2 levels of the past.  I think science needs to understand our planet and more measurements should be taken to improve our knowledge....I believe it is the best way to understand and gain knowledge and understanding. Could it be off, yes.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Before the IPCC announced that atm CO2 remained for ~100 years, research said atm CO2 was recycled every ~10 years. If the shorter term is correct that doesn't leave much time for an imbalance to accumulate. 

As far as ice cores to approximate temps and CO2 level- I think they are useful but it is very problematic to compare them to actual direct measurements. The treering data used in preparing the Hockey Stick is a case in point. The proxies were only sensible to the 60's so the later data was discarded, leaving people with the impression that the figures were much more reliable than they are.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 27, 2010)

The lowest ever. lol

You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location?  That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time?  Your crap stinks dude.  Just saying.


----------



## Chris (Sep 28, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The lowest ever. lol
> 
> You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location?  That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time?  Your crap stinks dude.  Just saying.



Changing the subject and personal insults.

Just what I expect from someone with no facts to back up their opinions.

Why don't you just admit you are wrong?


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The lowest ever. lol
> ...







Uhhhh because we're not.  Read my tag line "He who asserts must also prove"  Aristotle was a far smarter than you or I  and his admonition still holds today.  You have to prove your theory without manipulating data.  You can't.  Climatologists make incredible predictions about what is going to happen in the future and yet they can't reproduce the weather that occured 10 days ago.  You expect a thinking person to accept that kind of crapola?

You're dreaming pal.  No matter how much drivel you spout the fact remains that if CO2 were a driving force in global temperature it would allready be much warmer than it is.  Thus you fail.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 28, 2010)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




What I was stating is that you have a level of co2 being absorbed into the oceans, which maybe 50/1 rate, but the imbalance comes from, 1# more being put into the Atmosphere over a short time scale, which adds a good 100 ppm that other wise would be within the earth within oil shale, ect and 2# warming oceans cause this to slow down even more...Which increases our imbalance. Case and point the co2 may not have a very long time within the Atmosphere, but remember the carbon cycle is a "cycle" it's not only gets absorbed, but goes back into the Atmosphere and so as the oceans warm the oceans ability lowers to absorb carbon becomes less and it releases more of it. If the oceans got colder then the opposite would happen...Yes over time this would balance its self out and likely within a hundred or so years if we switched over to things like Nuclear, which has very little co2 output would start going down. 

The climate system is not use to 390 ppm at least not the one that we have grown to love. 






This shows that only 3 periods of the last 650 thousand years where the only times to get above 300 ppm. What these periods are the  interglacial I was talking about above with the oceans ability to hold onto the co2 as they warm becomes less and releases it.  I happen to find the increase of co2 very interesting because we're at a very high level that likely no human being has ever seen in the history of man. The fact that the peaks of co2 in the Atmosphere throughout the last million years happen ever warming of some sort is because of this. Co2 yes warms the planet, but it was very likely solar forcing that caused these other periods; not unlike the Holocene that we love now. But co2 also has the ability to warm if there is enough of it too and cause a warmer period then it might otherwise be.

The climate forcing of co2 is quite low when you think about it. Yes it might warm our planet some, but 4-5c like some believe is not going to happen in 90 years. Warming in the last 20 years has been around .14c to .17c per decade, which is pretty slow. 

Decade            Annual Rate of Increase (Atmospheric CO2)

2000 &#8211; 2009         1.92 ppm

1990 &#8211; 1999         1.52 ppm

1980 &#8211; 1989         1.61 ppm

1970 &#8211; 1979         1.22 ppm

1960 &#8211; 1969         0.86 ppm 


So lets say F(x)=1.92(x)+389ppm
So this tells us if things remain the same each year will hit 400 ppm around 5.5 years and we will get to 450ppm around 32 years or 2042...Doubling at 89 years from the 280 ppm in 1800 at 560 ppm, which will be 2099. Of course this is more likely to get to this level much faster as this is increasing in its rate.

So a linear increase would cause doubling by 2099. But the truth is a doubling don't have the effect that the hypers believe because co2 has a far lower warming effect on earth...More like 1-1.5c warming by 2100 for that doubling. Which would be good for plant growth and good for humans. More growable lands within Russia, Canada for one. The forcing is has got to be below 2.5 as far as I can see, which is why warming as been so much slower then they expected it to be. They where thinking 3.5-4.5 like forcing for people like Hansen. Also you have lower solar output too.


I agree with you about the ice cores...


----------



## Chris (Sep 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



No, you are dreaming.

The earth is heating faster than the scientists expected. It turns out that their estimates were low in terms of how fast it would warm up. And then there are the multiplier effects of a melting pole and the arctic methane bomb. No, the hottest year in recorded history and a melting pole are not "drivel." But your posts are.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






CO2 "forcing levels" are greatly overstated.  Assuming that CO2 raises the temp by .6C (unproven and not likely to be proven but I will give them that for the sake of argument) if you double it the temp increase is only .4C, double it again and the temp increase drops to .2C,  ad infinitum.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






This is the most laughable assertion I've heard in a looooong time.  Hansen's predictions were off by 300% AND the CO2 levels increased FASTER than he predicted.  So the temps came nowhere near what he claimed and the CO2 levels were vastly more than he predicted....  Once again you lose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 28, 2010)

Still ignoring the fact that this thread PROVES that according to the records since the LOWEST point measured in 31 years that for the last 3 years the ice has gotten thicker. Your thread is absolute proof that the ice is getting THICKER not shrinking.

So much for all the hooey about shrinking ice caps.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 28, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The lowest ever. lol
> 
> You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location?  That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time?  Your crap stinks dude.  Just saying.



And you are not aware that we haven't been here for those millions of years? Perhaps you thought Alley Oop was real history? 

Look, silly ass, we are not worried about the state of the planet, we are worried about the nearly 7 billion people that inhabit it. There are ample geological evidences for the chaos that an adrupt climate change creates, even for rather sparse populations.

The present warming and retreat of the glaciers and ice caps is occuring at a time when we have a very large population of humans, with a poorly organized system of distribution of food. A major interuption of that distribution system, and you will see the population decline adruptly and painfully.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 28, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still ignoring the fact that this thread PROVES that according to the records since the LOWEST point measured in 31 years that for the last 3 years the ice has gotten thicker. Your thread is absolute proof that the ice is getting THICKER not shrinking.
> 
> So much for all the hooey about shrinking ice caps.



So much for your ability to research or even tell the truth.

Polar Ice Cap Shrinks Further and Thins - WSJ.com



Equally troubling to some scientists is that the overall Arctic ice cap is thinning. That has been hard to measure in the past because the Arctic is vast, and because sea ice can move.

Scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have now used satellite data to create the first map of sea ice over the entire Arctic basin. Their chief finding, based on data from 2005 and 2006, is that older arctic ice is on average nearly nine feet thick. Submarine measurements from the 1980s found that the ice then had been more than 4½ feet thicker, according to Ronald Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion lab.

"The sea-ice changes we're seeing go hand-in-hand with temperature changes," says Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. "There really isn't another overriding mechanism we see that can cause these long-term changes."


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 28, 2010)

New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

July 07, 2009

PASADENA, Calif. - Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover. 

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Once again, Walleyes, you lie when the truth is very easy to find. And you back your lies up with nothing but yap-yap.*


Logical Science
Other Climactic Behaviors and Mechanisms Correctly Predicted & Reconstructed by the Models

Most notable is that the models have not only correctly predicted temperature trends but they've predicted how the earth will change.  The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed; 
Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere.  For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed; 
Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models. 
Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed. 
Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content. (Fig 6)


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 28, 2010)

&#8216;Hansen has been wrong before&#8217;&#8212;Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hansen has been wrong beforeMaybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist
> 
> Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
> 
> ...



So, if you make a bunch of guesses and one of them is close, your a genius and fricking scientist.  Who knew?


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2010)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I am not sure about how much we agree and disagree on. My position is that CO2 recycles about every 10 years. Because the dissolved CO2 is ~50:1 most of what we put in the air disappears in ten years. I don't know the numbers for how much we emit compared to how much the the atmospheric increase is but I wonder if the difference in pCO2 for warming oceans doesn't account for most of the observed increase. I'll look into it. The lag time in historic temp/CO2 correlations seem to imply that temp increases release CO2 not the other way around.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The lowest ever. lol
> ...







olfraud if you cared about the 7 billion people on the planet you would be doing everything possible to eliminate the third world.  Cousteau wanted to kill 300,000 or so a day so thankfully he didn;t have a say in how those 7 billion are "saved".  If you elevate the third world to first world status the population rates will drop out of sight, the pollution they spew will cease, but no your proposal is to make eveyone go back to third world status.  That's real good for the wealthy but not so good for the poor folk.

Your policies (well, the ones you pay homage to) will make mankinds life much worse (except for the wealthy, they allways do well) and how about you faux environmentalist...you tell us how we have to live and yet you work in a notoriuosly polluting industry for a notoriously polluting company...you CLEARLY couldn't give a crap about your neighbors.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> 
> July 07, 2009
> 
> ...






How about some more recent data there olfraud?

Below is a graph of the most recent sea ice extent and you will see we are ABOVE the 2007 and 2008 levels allready (and have been for the WHOLE year so your constant yammering about sea ice loss is exposed as pure and utter horse manure) and the trend is rising fast.

And then there is a image showing the Arctic sea ice xtent in 2007 and today.  As you can see...even with your blinders on the ice is significantly greater than 2007.  So pull your head out of your sphincter and come up with something new.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hansen has been wrong beforeMaybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist
> 
> Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
> 
> ...







Let me give you an analogy of the methodology.... a man goes to a horse betting track and there is a guy there with a little sign on his back that says I will pick you a winner guaranteed.  There are two possible results.  You give him your money and you win.  You lose so you go back and get your money back.  However the man allways wins because he tells you one horse and he tells somebody else a different horse etc.  Eventually he wins and gets to keep that mans money..but you, you just lose.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)




----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hansen has been wrong beforeMaybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist
> 
> Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
> 
> ...







I'm going to quote you.  that is from a non science blog so you can't use it!


What a tool.  And a dull one to boot.


----------



## Chris (Oct 5, 2010)

Average ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), 2.14 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 600,000 square kilometers (230,00 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea near Svalbard. 

The U.S. National Ice Center declared both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route open for a period during September. Stephen Howell of Environment Canada reported a record early melt-out and low extent in the western Parry Channel region of the Northwest Passage, based on analyses of the Canadian Ice Service. Two sailing expeditions, one Norwegian and one Russian, successfully navigated both passages and are nearing their goal of circumnavigating the Arctic.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Chris (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2010)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

The carbon cycle and climate
31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






So in other words it is absolutely pointless to do anything about the CO2 in the atmosphere as it would take several THOUSAND YEARS for any effect to be observed.  In other words we can rip you off blind, crush your lives under onerous laws and there is no evidence to support what we say.

However, if you're rich....wellllll you can still live your life of excess...

Twits!

Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society
> 
> The carbon cycle and climate
> 31 Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
> ...



Seems like I mentioned the same thing the other day and you or one of your minions totally discounted it.  Now its convenient your back on it.  Nice.

P.S. we will all die in months should we stop consuming things that require CO2 discharges.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 12, 2010)

Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute. 

The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society
> ...






Oh, please don't confuse them with simple facts, it hurts their heads.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.
> 
> The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.







Ohhhhh, owwww, seems like olfraud doesn't like getting bitchslapped by his betters so lashes out yet again!  Score Saveliberty 1
                                          olfraud      0


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 12, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.



Your subject line says "third lowest ever."  Of course, here it says third lowest in satellite record.  Which doesn't go that far back.  The earth, with its shifting climate and changes in ice cover, has been around much, much longer than satellite records.  You realize that, right?


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
> ...







No, they don't.  They kind of remind me of religious fanatics who claim the world is only 5,600 years old thanks to some calculations by Bishop Usher a couple of hundred years ago(and who rdean just loves to lump in with anybody who is sceptical of the alarmist POV).

Well the alarmists claim that only the last 200 years matters (because of the age of industrialization) so they are even more rigid than the religious fanatics.

I guess that makes them Alarmist Fanatics!   Or is that Fanatical Alarmists......


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.
> 
> The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.



My statements are, as usual, accurate and to the point.  It just doesn't fit your global warming faither beliefs.  Did you notice it will take several thousand years to reverse the "damage"?  Gee, haven't been ading to the CO2 for more than 300 years.  Must be another source huh?


----------



## konradv (Oct 12, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
> ...



Gee, what would we do without you?  You realize it's all about the gases, right?


----------



## konradv (Oct 12, 2010)

westwall said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy?  Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years?  What happens if the trend continues?  You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk.  It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2010)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Steerpike said:
> ...






Right back at ya konrad, do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period?  Do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Do you deny that the Vostock Ice Cores show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins to the time the CO2 levels rise?  Do you deny that the Earth enjoys long climate cycles (lasting THOUSANDS of years)?  

Answer those questions first little one.  I attempt nothing.  I merely point out the extraordinary limitations of your failed religion.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.
> ...







Yes it's amazing how we can do so much damage in so little time


----------



## konradv (Oct 12, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No, I'm saying it's irrelevant.  You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.  Where are the extra gases coming from?  Where is the extra energy going that they trap?  How about answering those questions?  You keep talking about natural cycles, but seem to be unwilling to discuss the possibility of unnatural ones.  Doesn't fit into the tenets of YOUR religion?


----------



## Chris (Oct 20, 2010)




----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







First off I have no religion.  I'm an agnostic.  Secondly, science requires you to disprove what has allready occured as that is most likely the cause of what is currently going on.
In other words if natural cycles were responsible for what occured in the past, then it is most likely that natural cycles are responsible for what is happening today.  

So far all empirical data shows that natural cycles are STILL the most likely cause of what is happening today.  Alarmists have no empirical data to support any of their contentions.  They have failed computer models that they base all of their alarmist beliefs on.  And where they do have data....they suppress it if it doesn't agree with them, or "revise" it to match what they want it to say.

Anyway you cut it konrad, your side is wrong....on all counts.  And not just a little.


----------



## Chris (Oct 23, 2010)




----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Well, these people deny that twaddle. And they are far more respected as scientists than you will ever be.*

temperature variations over the past two millennia
Michael E. Mann*,, Zhihua Zhang*, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley§, Sonya K. Miller*, Scott Rutherford¶, and Fenbiao Ni 
+ Author Affiliations

*Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; 
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; 
§Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9298; and 
¶Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809 
Communicated by Lonnie G. Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, June 26, 2008 (received for review November 20, 2007)

Abstract
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.


*As for the Roman Period, the proxy data is simply not accurate enough at present for that period to definitively state the comparison one way or the other.

As for the rest of your silliness, you still deny that the GHGs are having a major effect on the climate, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of scientists state the affirmative on that issue.*


----------



## Chris (Oct 29, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Oct 29, 2010)

We'll grow barley in Greenland......Again.


----------



## Chris (Oct 29, 2010)




----------



## loosecannon (Oct 29, 2010)

On average 

there is a 100 year weather event of every variety (hurricane, drought, record rainfall, hail, tornado, etc) 

across 40,000 sq miles of the earth's surface  (an area larger than the state of Maine)

every single day.

On average 

there is a 10 year weather event of every variety (hurricane, drought, record rainfall, hail, tornado, etc) 

across 40,000 sq miles of the earth's surface (an area larger than the state of Maine)

10 times 

every single day.

Freak weather has always been the norm

and will never be the exception

Chris is either a lying sack of shit.....

Or he is posting drunk!


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







  MICHAEL MANN!  He's the jackas that tried to obliterate the MWP so his little hockey stick would work!  

EPIC FAIL


----------



## Chris (Oct 29, 2010)




----------



## Chris (Nov 15, 2010)

After reaching its minimum extent on September 19, Arctic sea ice grew rapidly through the first half of October before slowing down late in the month. Even with that rapid growth, ice extent for October was the third lowest for that month in the satellite record. Air temperatures in the Arctic were higher than normal.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## elvis (Nov 16, 2010)

merged.


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2010)

For instance, during the warmest part of 2010, the total amount of Arctic sea ice -- the so-called "seasonal minimum" -- was the third-smallest ever recorded. The smallest and second-smallest seasonal minimums were measured in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Natural variability, including factors like cloud cover, can easily explain differences in melting from year to year, Stroeve notes. But the big news is that the smallest amounts of Arctic sea ice ever measured have all occurred in recent years. "Basically, ever since 2002, we've had one pronounced record minimum after another," she says. "The data all point to a strong warming signal."

Stroeve explains that highly reliable data on the extent of Arctic sea ice has been collected since 1978. From then until now, she has found clear evidence of a 30-year melting trend, which, she says, "cannot be easily explained away by natural variability." But her work is even more notable for its findings about the speed of the change. Over this same 30 years, a relatively brief period, Stroeve has found that some 40 percent of the region's summer (or more precisely, September) ice has melted.

The fast pace of melting is seen even more dramatically, she explains, when one considers the age of the Arctic ice. Many parts of the Arctic Ocean freeze each year during the coldest months. But only ice that lasts throughout the year gradually becomes thicker over the course of consecutive seasons. "In the 1980s, the Arctic contained roughly 386,000 square miles of ice that was determined to be at least five years old," she says. Now, "at the end of the melt season in September, only 22,000 square miles of such older, thicker ice remains." In other words, the region has already lost more than 97 percent of the thicker year-round ice that existed just three decades ago. As she explains, "all the climatic processes seem to be pushing rapidly toward a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean."

Measuring fast-melting Arctic sea ice | Meet the minds behind all that climate change data | Grist


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 17, 2010)

Chris said:


> For instance, during the warmest part of 2010, the total amount of Arctic sea ice -- the so-called "seasonal minimum" -- was the third-smallest ever recorded. The smallest and second-smallest seasonal minimums were measured in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Natural variability, including factors like cloud cover, can easily explain differences in melting from year to year, Stroeve notes. But the big news is that the smallest amounts of Arctic sea ice ever measured have all occurred in recent years. "Basically, ever since 2002, we've had one pronounced record minimum after another," she says. "The data all point to a strong warming signal."
> 
> Stroeve explains that highly reliable data on the extent of Arctic sea ice has been collected since 1978. From then until now, she has found clear evidence of a 30-year melting trend, which, she says, "cannot be easily explained away by natural variability." But her work is even more notable for its findings about the speed of the change. Over this same 30 years, a relatively brief period, Stroeve has found that some 40 percent of the region's summer (or more precisely, September) ice has melted.
> 
> ...



Yes, thank you Chris.

Julienne Stroeve is hot, look at her face, a Goddess. Chris really did her a disservice when he meticulously performed his cut and paste (chris is a one-fingered typer hence no commentary or insight of Chris's own). 

The Goddess of Global Warming, pretty cheesy how they make her look like a slut to promote Global Warming. Too bad Julienne isn't Brazilian, the Brazilian women wear very little in that hot, tropical, heat.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 17, 2010)

So much gets blamed on Global warming/climate change. Why even the Amazon river is drying up. Never happened before? Wrong they have discovered drawings that are some 5000 years old. So 5000 years ago the river was as low or lower. Global warming? I doubt it.


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2010)

The temperature is rising again in the Arctic, with the sea ice extent dropping to one of the lowest levels on record, climate scientists reported Thursday. 
The new Arctic Report Card "tells a story of widespread, continued and even dramatic effects of a warming Arctic," said Jackie Richter-Menge of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facility. 

"This isn't just a climatological effect. It impacts the people that live there," she added. 

Atmospheric scientists concerned about global  warming focus on the Arctic because that is a region where the effects are expected to be felt first, and that has been the case in recent years. 

There was a slowdown in Arctic warming in 2009, but in the first half of 2010  warming has been near a record pace, with monthly readings over 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 Fahrenheit) above normal in northern Canada, according to the report card released Thursday. 

Sci-Tech Today | Sea Ice Melting as Arctic Temperature Rises


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 18, 2010)

I guess given the lack of rebuttal its settled, man has no effect on sea ice.


----------



## Chris (Nov 19, 2010)

An array of indicators, from record-high temperatures in Greenland to thinning sea ice and record decreases in snow cover, all suggest the Arctic is heating up, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's annual assessment. 

NOAA's Arctic Report Card, based on the work of 69 international researchers and 176 published scientific references, highlights Greenland's warmer temperatures, ice melt and glacier-area loss and the Arctic's thinnest snow cover since record-keeping began 44 years ago. 

Summer sea ice also continues to decline, the report said. The 2010 summer sea ice cover was the third-smallest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and this year's minimum for sea-ice thickness was the third-lowest recorded in three decades. 

Arctic seems to grow warmer, based on rising temperatures and thinning sea ice


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> On average
> 
> there is a 100 year weather event of every variety (hurricane, drought, record rainfall, hail, tornado, etc)
> 
> ...






he's a globalist asshole who hates his own country......a common theme amongst all the environmental k00ks. This guy Chris is particularly disconnected though.......a real OCD oddball.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2010)

These days have become particularly fun around here when *Antagon* comes in here for a cup of coffee and blows away these k00ks with raw astuteness.


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2010)

Hundreds of polar bears were spotted on the west coast of Hudson Bay earlier this week, waiting for ice that is almost a month late forming.

But a fierce storm in the region Thursday has temperatures dropping and ice forming, which could be good news for the bears. "It's just howling," Luc Desjardins, of the Canadian Ice Service, says of the storm that could change the fortunes of the hungry bears.

Until the storm hit, record-breaking conditions in the western Arctic this fall had kept the ice at bay. Temperatures up to 14 C above normal in one Arctic region in November prevented the formation of ice which was almost a month behind schedule as of Monday, says Desjardins.

Hungry polar bears loiter on Hudson Bay coast waiting for ice


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 21, 2010)

Once again your thread proves that the ice is increasing. From the supposed lowest level, the next was 2nd lowest. As in MORE ice then the previous year. And now we have 3rd lowest. Again an increase in ice from the second lowest.

Thanks for proving the ice is growing.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 21, 2010)

Chris said:


> Hundreds of polar bears were spotted on the west coast of Hudson Bay earlier this week, waiting for ice that is almost a month late forming.
> 
> But a fierce storm in the region Thursday has temperatures dropping and ice forming, which could be good news for the bears. "It's just howling," Luc Desjardins, of the Canadian Ice Service, says of the storm that could change the fortunes of the hungry bears.
> 
> ...



How do the bears get news, radio, televison, or the paper, must be radio, I think a TV or paper would be difficult to view with the glare off the snow.


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2010)

the penguins have been happy with all the extra ice in the Antartic over the last decade.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 21, 2010)

IanC said:


> the penguins have been happy with all the extra ice in the Antartic over the last decade.



That is not important.

How do the Penguins feel, being Polar Bear food and now the Polar Bear's get sympathy because the ice does what ice does, melt. (are there Penguins at the north pole)

Its kind of fucked up being a Penguin. Its unequal distribution of sympathy. I have yet to see one liberal say one good thing about Penguins.


----------



## IanC (Nov 21, 2010)

I think Polar Bears only get to eat Penguins in Pixar CGI studios. Mind you, those computer programs work a lot better than the climate model ones.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the penguins have been happy with all the extra ice in the Antartic over the last decade.
> ...



Egad, you are trully a dumb fuck. No polar bears in the southern hemisphere, no penguins in the northern hemisphere.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Hey brain dead? How do you like that your buddy keeps proving that the ice is getting thicker and more of it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2010)

IanC said:


> the penguins have been happy with all the extra ice in the Antartic over the last decade.



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

*Anomaly for Antarctic*

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

*Anomaly for Arctic. Note the differance in the steepness of the curve? And look at the curve for the total sea ice*

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 21, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



Another dumb fuck. No, the Arctic Sea Ice is not getting thicker. 

Melting Arctic Ice: What Satellite Images Don't See - TIME

Barber was aboard the Canadian research icebreaker Amundsen, checking on ice in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and Western Canada. The ship was well inside a region the satellites said should be choked with thick, multiyear-old ice. "That's pretty much a no-go zone for an icebreaker of the Amundsen's size," says Barber. But the ship kept going, at a brisk 13 knots  its top speed in open water is 13.7 knots  and even when it finally reached thick ice, he says, "we could still penetrate it easily."

In short, as Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber's words, "full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven't seen this sort of thing before." 



Read more: Melting Arctic Ice: What Satellite Images Don't See - TIME


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And yet this very thread proves it is getting thicker and more of it.

There was a year where you all pointed out according to satellite images and measures the sea ice was the LOWEST it had been in that 30 year window. The next year the sea ice was the SECOND lowest, as it it GAINED ice and was not a new low. Then we have this, the next year the sea ice was the third lowest in that window, as in thicker the the second lowest and thicker then the LOWEST.

Retard.


----------



## Chris (Nov 21, 2010)




----------



## Missourian (Nov 21, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Chris is an idiot,  Mmkay.
> 
> *And yet this very thread proves it is getting thicker and more of it.
> 
> ...




We need a neon flashing font for posts like this.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Maybe you did not notice brainiac, I stated that in my post.

Remember the time Old Crock thought only electricity was used to make steel, in the same post that Old Crock stated he worked in a steel foundry, then linked to a site that stated specifically that natural gas had to be used.

Old Crock link's to articles that are the opposite of Old Crock's assertions and claims. Like time discussing Geothermal and Old Crock stated my source, Bloomqueist did not know what he was talking about and I had to tell Old Crock that Old Crock 4 posts earlier used Bloomqueist as a source, even linked to a report by Bloomqueist.

Do the dumb know they are dumb, Old Crock answers that question perfectly.


----------



## westwall (Nov 21, 2010)

Yep olfraud and Chris are masters at not understanding what they see.  That's OK though, it gives us something to giggle at.  Oh BTW the Antarctic is WAY above "normal".  In fact it is at the second highest level since measurements began 30 years ago.  Proving yet again why none of this really matters anyway.  30 years is nothing in the life of the planet...absolutely nothing, it is equivalent to the time it takes us to blink an eye.


----------



## Chris (Nov 22, 2010)




----------



## Chris (Nov 23, 2010)

Above zero temperatures have dominated weather forecasts in Iqaluit this November, where on some days temperatures have risen almost 20 degrees above the average.

Normal temperatures for this time of year in Iqaluit fall between -11 C and -19 C, but the coldest day this month only dipped to about - 9 C.

The mercury crept to 3.5 C in Iqaluit on Nov. 19, a couple degrees shy of the 5.5 C record high registered on the same day in 1977.

And that trend is likely to continue across most of the Arctic this week, said Environment Canada meteorologist Rene Heroux, with more above zero temperatures in store for the Eastern Arctic, including Nunavik.

&#8220;Let&#8217;s just say it&#8217;s not as cold as it&#8217;s supposed to be,&#8221; Heroux said. &#8220;It could be a record-breaking November the way it&#8217;s going now.&#8221;

Southwesterly winds pushed warm air north this month, meaning higher than usual temperatures everywhere in the Arctic region, Heroux said. 

Temperatures have registered 10 C above normal in northern Foxe Basin, 6 C to 8 C above normal in Hudson Strait and 7 C to 9 C above normal in western Hudson Bay.

As a result, Heroux said the development of ice is about four weeks late in Foxe Basin, which remains largely open water.  

NunatsiaqOnline 2010-11-22: NEWS: Warm temperatures flood the eastern Arctic


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 23, 2010)

So much for global warming, fact after fact continue to dispel the propaganda that the earth is warming.

CA citrus growers protect crops amid frost warning - Forbes.com



> CA citrus growers protect crops amid frost warning
> By JASON DEAREN , 11.23.10, 03:40 PM EST
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO -- Citrus growers in California's San Joaquin Valley are preparing to fight off crop-damaging frost as a cold front moves into the region.
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 25, 2010)

BOULDER, CO (KUNC) - Scientists at the at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder say Arctic sea ice is disappearing and that greenhouse gasses are unequivocally to blame.

An area of the Arctic Ocean about the size of Alaska, which was covered in ice at this time of year in the late 1970's, is now ice-free. Jennifer Kay is a climate scientist at NCAR. She says greenhouse gasses, the byproducts of burning fossil fuels for energy, are the cause.

"What's significant from the climate perspective is just that we have these long term trends. We've seen sea ice extents decrease over three decades now. So what matters is the long term context; and really that's what climate is all about," says Kay.

KUNC: Boulder Scientists See Striking Decrease in Arctic Sea Ice Over Past 30 Years (2010-11-24)


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2010)

Chris said:


> BOULDER, CO (KUNC) - Scientists at the at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder say Arctic sea ice is disappearing and that greenhouse gasses are unequivocally to blame.
> 
> An area of the Arctic Ocean about the size of Alaska, which was covered in ice at this time of year in the late 1970's, is now ice-free. Jennifer Kay is a climate scientist at NCAR. She says greenhouse gasses, the byproducts of burning fossil fuels for energy, are the cause.
> 
> ...






The Danes (who have a real vested interest in the state of the sea ice, not about simply stealing money) seem to think otherwise.  The Arctic Sea Ice photo for today shows the ice expanding to its normal extent and will most certainly exceed the 20 year average with little effort.  Currently the equivalent of 19 Manhattans are being added to the ice every day.


----------



## Chris (Nov 25, 2010)

Melting sea ice has dramatically accelerated warming in the Arctic, where temperatures have risen faster in recent decades than the global average, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study, published in the journal Nature, also suggests that current forecasts underestimate the degree to which the polar region could heat up in the future.

"It was previously thought that loss of sea ice could cause further warming. Now we have confirmation this is already happening," said James Screen, a researcher at the University of Melbourne and co-author of the study.

While itself a consequence of climate change, the shrinking Arctic ice cap has contributed to a "positive feedback loop" in which global warming and loss of ice reinforce each other on a regional scale.

Sea ice loss major cause of Arctic warming: study


----------



## westwall (Nov 25, 2010)

And the UK will have almost 90% of its land mass covered by snow.  Six inches in London alone!

Snow Might Cover 90% of U.K. by End of November With Six Inches in London - Bloomberg


----------



## Chris (Nov 25, 2010)

THE recent slowdown in the rate of global warming may be an illusion caused by errors in the way the global temperature is measured, according to a Met Office study. 

The findings undermine the arguments of climate sceptics who use the reported reduction in the warming rate since 1998 to oppose cutting man-made emissions.

The Met Office, Britain's national weather service, said that this year, which has so far been the second warmest on record behind 1998 according to existing measurements, could turn out to be the warmest once errors have been removed.

The long-term rate of global warming was about 0.16C a decade in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s but it slowed in the past 10 years to between 0.05C and 0.13C, depending on which of three major temperature records is used. The Met Office said that changes in the way ocean temperatures were measured had resulted in an under-estimate of about 0.03C in recent years.

Global temperature rises may be underestimated due to errors, Met Office study says | The Australian


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > BOULDER, CO (KUNC) - Scientists at the at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder say Arctic sea ice is disappearing and that greenhouse gasses are unequivocally to blame.
> ...



Walleyes, you continue to be one dumb son of a bitch. When you run the cursor over the picuture, it states that the sea ice is the third lowest ever recorded. Lordy, lordy, don't you ever read before posting


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



THIRD lowest in 33 years. And more to the point THAT proves the ice is growing BACK. Since we had the LOWEST followed by the second lowest followed by the third lowest. Or does basic math escape you?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 26, 2010)

We'll let the crusader k00ks continue buiding thier backyard ark's in anticipation of the coming monster floods...............

I figure we can always fall back on Gigantor to save the day if need be...............kick ass on the rising tides and suck out all the terrible C02..............














By the way Rocks...........how's it going with that ark project of yours? We want an update!!!!!!!


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


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







Yes, considering what a simpleton he is the simple facts just don't seem to impress him.  He has faith you know, and faith trumps facts.


----------



## Chris (Nov 27, 2010)

A NASA analysis has for the first time measured the amount of multiyear ice that is lost from the Arctic each year as a result of melting.

Multiyear ice is ice which makes it through more than one summer, making it ever more resistant to melting as the year&#8217;s progress. Or that used to be the case. Now, however, with increasing temperatures in the Arctic region the old sea ice is not lasting as long as it used to.

Ron Kwok and Glenn Cunningham at NASA&#8217;s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California have analysed the amount of ice that melts compared to the amount of ice that is blown out of the Arctic by winds, known as export.

Between 1993 and 2009, 1,400 cubic kilometers (336 cubic miles) of ice was lost as a result of melt, rather than export.

Multiyear Sea Ice Melting and Moving &#8211; Planetsave.com: climate change and environmental news


----------



## Revere (Nov 27, 2010)

What did man do to melt the Wisconsin glacier 13,000 years ago?


----------



## Revere (Nov 27, 2010)

Big boys deal with climate changes in quantities of tens of thousands of years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2010)

Revere, are you ever going to bring something to the table other than stupid?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


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



No, it does not. Because the basic math says that we will see the ice even lower very soon. Of course, were you not so stuck on stupid, RGS, you would check to see what the real trends are;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






I hate to tell you olfraud but the basic math says the exact opposite.  Your alarmists are trying to tell you that the Arctic is in a death spiral but it has gained every year since numbnuts uttered that little missive....which has ever since been biting him in the ass.  He just hopes no one is paying attention.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Old Rocks is a fool. The trend is clear, since the supposed lowest the sea ice has ever been ( never mind the data is only 33 years old) it has grown more each year as evidenced by this very threads op and link. Lowest, second lowest and now 3rd lowest. even a 3rd grader could grasp the concept.


----------



## elvis (Nov 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Revere, are you ever going to bring something to the table other than stupid?



when did he bring you to the table?


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


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





Yes indeed.  My daughter who just turned 4.5 years old has a greater understanding of the physical world than olfraud or his clones.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2010)

So says a lying fraud that claims to be a scientist.


----------



## westwall (Nov 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> So says a lying fraud that claims to be a scientist.






So says a petulant fool who can't back up his claims.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2010)

LOL. Don't have to. The AGU and GSA says it all. Along with the rest of the scientific societies in the world.


----------



## Revere (Nov 30, 2010)

Real scientists are outing the liars in those organiztions every day.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2010)

Even were that to be the case, how the hell would you know, dumb ass? I doubt that you have ever read a scientific journal in your life. 

However, why don't you present a statement from a scientific society that state that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? Even from Outer Slobovia. Or just one major university?

Would you care for me to post the policy statements of the major scientific societies concerning global warming?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2010)

elvis said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Revere, are you ever going to bring something to the table other than stupid?
> ...



What have you ever brought to the table except stupidity, ignorance, and a penis fetish?


----------



## Revere (Nov 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



This is all you do, besides post links.

You're a dumb ass.

Can't the climate liars do better?


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Even were that to be the case, how the hell would you know, dumb ass? I doubt that you have ever read a scientific journal in your life.
> 
> However, why don't you present a statement from a scientific society that state that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? Even from Outer Slobovia. Or just one major university?
> 
> Would you care for me to post the policy statements of the major scientific societies concerning global warming?






Who cares what they say about it now?  The people with the money invested in it seem to be abandoning them in droves and the memberships are fighting back against the mindless leaders of the groups.  In two years your religion will be dead.  What bandwagon will you jump on then?


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2010)

Revere said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...







No,   They can't!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history

Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic History
ScienceDaily (June 3, 2010) &#8212; Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history
> 
> Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic History
> ScienceDaily (June 3, 2010)  Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.







Gee I wonder how they missed the peer reviewed paper that presents compelling evidence for a ice free or near ice free Arctic within the last 5,000 to 10,000 years?  It is talked about here and you can follow on from there.  Of course it's from Watt so olfraud will discount it, but the paper was done by a bunch of PhD's and they don't know anything anyway....do they.

New peer reviewed paper says &#8220;there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean&#8221; in the early Holocene, about 10-11,000 years ago | Watts Up With That?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history
> 
> Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic History
> ScienceDaily (June 3, 2010)  Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.



And yet it is historical fact that from the 20's to the late 40's the pole was warmer then it is now and for a much longer time. Go figure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history
> ...



Fact? Claimed by whom, and in what journal? RGS, that is nonsense that you just pulled out of your ass.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

*While Watt's conclusions are, as usual, completely off base, the article does not seem to contradict what is in this article in any way.*

Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history

Their conclusion: the current extent of Arctic ice is at its lowest point for at least the last few thousand years.

As scientists pull more sediment cores from the Arctic, Polyak and his collaborators want to understand more details of the past ice extent and to push this knowledge further back in time.

During the summer of 2011, they hope to draw cores from beneath the Chukchi Sea, just north of the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia. The currents emanating from the northern Pacific Ocean bring heat that may play an important role in melting the ice across the Arctic, so Polyak expects that the history of this location will prove very important. He hopes to drill cores that date back thousands of years at the Chukchi Sea margin, providing a detailed history of interaction between oceanic currents and ice.

"Later on in this cruise, when we venture into the more central Arctic Ocean, we will aim at harvesting cores that go back even farther," he said. "If we could go as far back as a million years, that would be perfect."

*And the people doing this study are top scientists from top of the line institutes and organizations.*

Polyak's coauthors on the report hailed from Penn State University, University of Colorado, University of Massachusetts, the U.S. Geological Survey, Old Dominion University, the Geological Survey of Canada, University of Copenhagen, the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Stockholm University, McGill University, James Madison University, and the British Antarctic Survey.

This research was funded by the US Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation.


----------



## elvis (Dec 1, 2010)

yawn.


----------



## JWBooth (Dec 1, 2010)

> Sea ice minimum the third lowest ever



Good, less of a hazard to commercial and private shipping.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

elvis said:


> yawn.



Well, if the reading required more than a double digit IQ, of course it put you to sleep.


----------



## elvis (Dec 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > yawn.
> ...



My IQ, since you're so obsessed with it, is 125.  Thanks for playing, though.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

And? Mensa member and qualified for Intertel. That, and some money, will get a cup of coffee anywhere. Money being the more important factor.


----------



## elvis (Dec 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And? Mensa member and qualified for Intertel. That, and some money, will get a cup of coffee anywhere. Money being the more important factor.



You're the one who puts stock in it, dipshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

My goodness, it's little feelings are hurt.


----------



## elvis (Dec 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, it's little feelings are hurt.



Not quite.  Keep trying, though.  It is amusing.  Oh and that's the wrong usage of "it's".


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF9qhQCGPMM[/ame]


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 2, 2010)

I am in Madrid Spain, checking the weather, its cold here, very cold, freezing, plenty of CO2 yet its cold, must be why CO2 is only used to keep things cold, CO2 likes to be cold.

Seriously though, here in Madrid its colder than average.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2010)

Text reads:

I was watching inconvenient truth the other day and theres the bit where it shows the sea level rising really high and flooding most of the world. Well i live near the sea, and don&#8217;t want to drown, so i got to thinking. Maybe if we lower the sea level a bit, when the water level rises then it won&#8217;t rise high enough to flood.

Anyway, heres the plan. Everyone who can should take a bucket of sea water and pour it down the sink. If lots of people put the effort in, we could lower the sea level substantially and create a better world for our children to live

Submitted by hahsnow

Incorrect source or offensive?
forum, G-rated, global warming, website


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2010)

What if we used butt plugs for cows for a few years??


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 2, 2010)

*Global Warming Is Too Big to Fail*Tuesday, December 08, 2009  
By Greg Gutfeld 

As the Copenhagen airport welcomes 140 extra private jets during the climate change summit, everyone else in the eye of the global warming storm is circling their solar-powered wagons.

Predictably, The New York Times says those Climate-gate e-mails reveal nothing more than academic pettiness. Meanwhile, the EPA claims that greenhouse gases are endangering people's health, making way for more regulation. And, no surprise, Robert Gibbs dismisses Climate-gate as a big nothing.

But sadly, what were seeing with Climate-gate is not an anomaly, but the opposite (a "pronomaly," if you will). Fact is, those e-mails were all about suppression and suppression has been part of global warming since day one.

Let's start with CO2. Activists tell us that man-caused CO2 is creating global warming. However, only 3 percent of CO2 comes from people. The rest comes from oceans, animals and Ryan Seacrest.

So how come you don't hear about that? Because, you can't say that man is destroying the planet, once you realize man's impact is nil.

Big Green also likes to talk up consensus. Well then, what about the Gallup poll of climate scientists, showing that nearly 50 percent had rejected man-caused global warming. Or, how about the first assessment report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They said recent temperature changes could be due to nature. However, according to "Scared to Death" authors Christopher Booker and Richard North, the summarizers ignored that and predicted warming instead. That's consensus through suppression.

And then there's Al Gore. When one of his beloved professors published a paper saying global warming was uncertain, Gore questioned his sanity. He also pressured newsman Ted Koppel into linking nefarious forces to anti-global warming factions.

And, of course, there's Gore's movie, a loon-fest beyond laughable. Like his poetry &#8212; here's some, from his new book, "Our Choice":

"One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears.
In midnight sun,
Vapors rise as Fever settles on an acid sea."

Vanity Fair calls it "equal parts beautiful, evocative and disturbing."

I call it equal parts "barf, barf and barf."

Now the EPA declares global warming a health issue. I guess if you can't guilt people with drowning polar bears then you scare them with disease.

But the biggest fraud: The marginalization of anyone who stands in the way of Big Globe. Question the hysteria and you're a quack. Never before has a defense of science been so ridiculed all in the name of science.

The fact is, for the media and our administration: Global warming is too big to fail, because if you kill global warming, you kill their power and if you do that then where in the world will they be?

Rediscovering global cooling, probably.


----------



## Chris (Dec 8, 2010)

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2010 was 9.89 million square kilometers (3.82 million square miles). This is the second-lowest November ice extent recorded over the period of satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) above the previous record low of 9.84 million square kilometers (3.80 million square miles) set in 2006.

Ice extent was unusually low in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Arctic and in Hudson Bay. Typically by the end of November, nearly half of Hudson Bay has iced over. But on November 30, only 17% of the bay was covered by sea ice. Compared to the 1979 to 2000 average, the ice extent was 12.4% below average for the Arctic as a whole.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

I concede, the Arctic has disappeared, how come the sea level has not destroyed the coastal cities.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

Most of the ice is underwater already, very little sits on the surface.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Most of the ice is underwater already, very little sits on the surface.






Oh come on, there you go quoting "facts" again!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2010)

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Conditions in context

As temperatures drop in autumn, open water areas on the Arctic coastal seas quickly refreeze. After this rapid increase in ice extent during October, ice growth slows in November. This November, ice extent over the entire Arctic grew at an average rate of 74,000 square kilometers per day (28,600 miles per day), which is slower than average. However, local weather conditions kept ice extent very low in some locations, contributing to the low extent for the month. 

Near-surface air temperatures over the Siberian and Alaskan side of the Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in November. Air temperatures over Baffin Bay were also unusually warm (8 degrees Celsius, or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average). The warm air came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere; and a circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> 
> Conditions in context
> 
> ...



Old Crock, put your tree cutting ax down, take a look out the window, can you still see your glacier melting.


----------



## Chris (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 10, 2010)

Chris said:


>



Wow, the six-figure-man shows us a coloring book he drew, is that microsoft paint?


----------



## Chris (Dec 28, 2010)




----------



## Chris (Dec 28, 2010)

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2010 was 9.89 million square kilometers (3.82 million square miles). This is the second-lowest November ice extent recorded over the period of satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) above the previous record low of 9.84 million square kilometers (3.80 million square miles) set in 2006.

Ice extent was unusually low in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Arctic and in Hudson Bay. Typically by the end of November, nearly half of Hudson Bay has iced over. But on November 30, only 17% of the bay was covered by sea ice. Compared to the 1979 to 2000 average, the ice extent was 12.4% below average for the Arctic as a whole.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

Yes and CNN reported yesterday that no matter what the weather (even this unusually cold December)it is caused by man made global warming...


----------



## JWBooth (Dec 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2010 was 9.89 million square kilometers (3.82 million square miles). This is the second-lowest November ice extent recorded over the period of satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) above the previous record low of 9.84 million square kilometers (3.80 million square miles) set in 2006.
> 
> Ice extent was unusually low in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Arctic and in Hudson Bay. Typically by the end of November, nearly half of Hudson Bay has iced over. But on November 30, only 17% of the bay was covered by sea ice. Compared to the 1979 to 2000 average, the ice extent was 12.4% below average for the Arctic as a whole.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!
No wait, that's snow, ice, and temperatures that are falling.


----------



## Chris (Jan 20, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. These low ice conditions are linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, similar to the situation that dominated the winter of 2009-2010.

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 12.27 million square kilometers (4.74 million square miles) set in 2006 and 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2011)

Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003&#8211;2008

Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003&#8211;2008
R. Kwok

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

G. F. Cunningham

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

M. Wensnahan

Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

I. Rigor

Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

H. J. Zwally

Cryospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

D. Yi

SGT, Inc., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

We present our best estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean ice cover from 10 Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) campaigns that span a 5-year period between 2003 and 2008. Derived ice drafts are consistently within 0.5 m of those from a submarine cruise in mid-November of 2005 and 4 years of ice draft profiles from moorings in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Along with a more than 42% decrease in multiyear (MY) ice coverage since 2005, there was a remarkable thinning of &#8764;0.6 m in MY ice thickness over 4 years. In contrast, the average thickness of the seasonal ice in midwinter (&#8764;2 m), which covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2007, exhibited a negligible trend. Average winter sea ice volume over the period, weighted by a loss of &#8764;3000 km3 between 2007 and 2008, was &#8764;14,000 km3. The total MY ice volume in the winter has experienced a net loss of 6300 km3 (>40%) in the 4 years since 2005, while the first-year ice cover gained volume owing to increased overall area coverage. The overall decline in volume and thickness are explained almost entirely by changes in the MY ice cover. Combined with a large decline in MY ice coverage over this short record, there is a reversal in the volumetric and areal contributions of the two ice types to the total volume and area of the Arctic Ocean ice cover. Seasonal ice, having surpassed that of MY ice in winter area coverage and volume, became the dominant ice type. It seems that the near-zero replenishment of the MY ice cover after the summers of 2005 and 2007, an imbalance in the cycle of replenishment and ice export, has played a significant role in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume over the ICESat record


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2011)

This is the end-of-winter sea ice extent in the Arctic Basin, broken down by age.  Stroeve explains:
Exclusive: Scientists track sharp drop in oldest, thickest Arctic sea ice.  Climate Progress

This figure would support thinning of the icepack over the last couple of decades since older ice tends to be thicker than younger ice.  You can see in this figure how little of the really old, and thick ice there is left in the Arctic Basin.

In fact, the figure shows ice 5 years or older dropping from 800,000 sq-km in 2008 to 400,000 in 2009 to only 320,000 sq-km. Spring 2010 also saw a record low in the amount of ice 4 years or older.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2011)

The volume is going down and the winter ice is even starting to decrease. When you think about it as the area of open water increases in length and size of the area it is kind of a tipping point of such that warms the area and feeds back in on its self. Since Mid Dec we have been below 2006-2007, which increases the chances for a new record minimum this September. In away I think the sea ice within the arctic have seen a tipping point as it feeds backs on its self with more energy into the system.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 20, 2011)

Could all that melting ice have to do with lowering ocean temps a bit?

It is all caused by global cooling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2011)

Feb 10, 2010

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Could all that melting ice have to do with lowering ocean temps a bit?
> 
> It is all caused by global cooling.



That is something that should not be occurring as the oceans should be compounding more and more energy within them. We know for sure that something is occurring, but we cant account for it within the oceans as of now.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 20, 2011)

So Phil Jones is THE expert?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Could all that melting ice have to do with lowering ocean temps a bit?
> ...



there is also billions of tons of plastic floating on the surface of the ocean.
It must reflect some light or diffuse it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So Phil Jones is THE expert?



So he's only an expert when he agrees with the settled science consensus?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Feb 10, 2010
> 
> BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
> 
> ...



.8-1.2c of warming over the arctic since 2000. Here is one of the stations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2011)

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

Advancements and Limitations in Understanding and Predicting Arctic Climate Change

Wieslaw Maslowski

Naval Postgraduate School
1.  The rate of decrease of sea ice thickness and volume appears to be much greater than that of sea ice extent

2.  Oceanic heat has contributed critical preconditioning to sea ice melt in the western Arctic since the mid-1990s

3.  Near ice-free summer Arctic might become a reality much sooner than GCMs predict

4.  A regional high-resolutionArctic Climate System Model can address GCM deficiencies and improve predictive skill of climate modelsat seasonal to decadal scales


----------



## Trajan (Jan 20, 2011)

Climate Change to Continue to Year 3000 : Discovery News


....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Feb 10, 2010
> ...



I have peer reviewed this chart and consider the science settled


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2011)

Mann: So as the above chart indicates,this Manmade Global Warning Climate Change Disruption is some serious shit!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 20, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So Phil Jones is THE expert?




He was THE MAN for the k00ks for years and years........until the hockey stick got blown to shit!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So Phil Jones is THE expert?
> ...



How did it get blown to shit?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...






I don't really understand that particular outcome either, however the hockey stick has been comprehensively discredited.  It seems the math he used was not up to snuff.


----------



## Chris (Jan 21, 2011)

The low ice conditions in December occurred in conjunction with above-average air temperatures in regions where ice would normally expand at this time of year. Air temperatures over eastern Siberia were 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in December. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Southern Baffin Island had the largest anomalies, with temperatures over 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal. By sharp contrast, temperatures were lower than average (4 to 7 degrees Celsius, 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) over the Alaska-Yukon border, north-central Eurasia, and Scandinavia. 

The warm temperatures in December came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere, and an unusual circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south. Although the air temperatures were still below freezing on average, the additional ocean and atmospheric heat slowed ice growth.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Pure bullshit. Dr. Mann's graph has been confirmed multiple times.

Is the hockey stick broken?

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock.  To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years


----------



## gunnyrogers55 (Jan 21, 2011)

mmm so in a few hundred years of man made pollution we really did this ...mmm i doubt that. the earth is natural always getting warmer and colder we know this for a fact so everyone who says buy hybrids and electric cars hahaha those lithium ion batteries are so bad for the environment. Also one your most famous meteorologist jim cantore says global warming is crap also..


----------



## konradv (Jan 21, 2011)

gunnyrogers55 said:


> mmm so in a few hundred years of man made pollution we really did this ...mmm i doubt that. the earth is natural always getting warmer and colder we know this for a fact so everyone who says buy hybrids and electric cars hahaha those lithium ion batteries are so bad for the environment. Also one your most famous meteorologist jim cantore says global warming is crap also..



Why would you doubt it?  Historical CO2 was 280-300 ppm during most of human evolution, now it's passing 380.  Sure the earth has been getting warmer and colder, but you're missing the point.  In the past those changes happened over millenia, while now we're talking only ~200+ years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  You can't point to the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






Yeah right, well I'll see your biased blog and raise you several more biased blogs.  I dare you to read them.  In fact I double dare you!

Terence Corcoran whopper: Mann&#8217;s hockey stick &#8220;eliminated some of the data from 1960 forward &#8230; and then spliced on actual temperature data&#8221; | Deep Climate

Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data &#171; JoNova

Richard Littlemore | A Review of Michael Mann&#039;s Exoneration

Bluegrass Pundit: Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Graph Without The 'Hide The Data' Trick

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

AccuWeather.com - Weather Video - Steve McIntyre on Mann's Hockey Stick


I can present you with at least another hundred sources for you if you wish.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> gunnyrogers55 said:
> 
> 
> > mmm so in a few hundred years of man made pollution we really did this ...mmm i doubt that. the earth is natural always getting warmer and colder we know this for a fact so everyone who says buy hybrids and electric cars hahaha those lithium ion batteries are so bad for the environment. Also one your most famous meteorologist jim cantore says global warming is crap also..
> ...






Totally and completely untrue as evidenced by the flash frozen plant life found as the South American glaciers are retreating and of course the famously flash frozen Mammoths found in Siberia and who were notably turned into steaks for the people who discovered them.  Imagine that 10,000 year old meat grilled up on teh 'barbie!  Yes they preserved most of the critters.


----------



## konradv (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > gunnyrogers55 said:
> ...




There's no such thing as a flash-frozen mammoth.  How would that occur anyway?  It's remarkable how you'll battle AGW to the death, but will accept any story you feel supports your side!!!  I consider your statement a complete non-sequitur.  It has NOTHING to do with what I said, except that it CONFIRMS that it was colder in the past.  Thanks, westy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2011)

Konradv is consistent, consistently wrong


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


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





the truely disappointing part of the hockey stick fiasco was how so many other scientists, especially the statisticians, refused to deal with the main issues and just dealt with peripheral points. I find it hard to believe that obvious lies were ignored and meaningless side issues were used to soak up the time.

For instance. Mann lied about the r2 (standard type of validation) by saying he didnt calculate them, even to the investigators. but when he had to release his code the r2 validation was right there with the CE (obscure type of validation). Nobody pressed him on his lie or the fact that the r2 figures were ridiculously low, in one case Mann actually went out to 5 decimal places just so he didnt have to put down zero (r2 of 0.688 for calibration period, 0.00003 for validation period, 1700-1729), all periods were low and most were  practically zero.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2011)

IanC said:


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





I will be the first to say I hate statistics.  I had to learn them because when involved in science you just have to know how to do them.  However, they are so easy to manipulate that you can pretty much have them say anything you wish.  But, Mann took the deception to new levels.  

The reluctance to ask hard questions is caused by two things, first off, most of the researchers are true believers and secondly the ones who are not don't like conflict.  It is very distasteful to confront a colleague and tell them "you are a prevaricating piece of dog shit" to their face.  I was forced to do it once and I was picked because I didn't have tenure so they figured if anything bad happened they couldn't get hurt by the prick.

Also, I wasn't afraid of him and that helps.  Most people are cowards when it gets right down to it.  They don't want to rock the boat and would much rather let the person silently creep out.  The problem is every now and then you get a bully like Mann in position and then it is very, very difficult to deal with them.  They understand how to abuse the system and they have no shame, so will continue their lies and try and reverse the attack onto their enemies.

It is a problem in all aspects of the human condition.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


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





I think another aspect of why so many fail to forcefully speak out is the part about McIntyre being just an amateur in the field. They have circled the wagons, so to speak.  I suppose in a field where so many observations are only glorified guesses to begin with, there is a great risk of just about everything tumbling down if showcased and important papers are shown to be fraudulent, or at least immaterial. MBH98 is both fraudulent and worthless.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2011)

IanC said:


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






There is an awful lot of truth to that.  Climatology for some reason has been elevated to the level of a cult religion where only the properly annointed ones are capable of understanding what they are talking about which is simply ludicrous.  In no other field of science has the paternal religious BS taken over so completely.

In my own field there is a terrible amount of prejudice against the lowly "rockhounder" even though they are in the field far more than the average geologist, and would smoke that same geologist in a mineral identification test.

What I love about the McIntyre case is he attacked them on the math and that is hard to argue.  It is either correct or it isn't...and in Manns case it clearly isn't.


----------



## IanC (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


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




As McIntyre points out, if a business tried to use figures in the same way as climate science they would go to jail.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 21, 2011)

IanC said:


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





I don't think the hockey stick is right. I have away strongly believed in the little ice age and med evil warm period. Hansen(2011) believes that we are now as warm as the Holocene maximum right now, but the arctic was 3-4c in areas above todays temperature, but he states that was because of the tilt of the planet during that time being more inclined/pointing towards sun, which warmed the poles more.. This is also shown with the inner-glacial 120 thousand years ago to...he then goes on in says we are about -1c below the Pliocene of 2-5 million years ago. Which had way higher ocean levels then today. Would have to see more before Id believe word for word for this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > gunnyrogers55 said:
> ...





*More BS*.

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.co...mmoths-and-what-did-frozen-mammoth-taste-like


Everyone has heard the rumor, but probably only dogs, or passing wolves, ever enjoyed a modern feast of preserved mammoth meat.

Mammoth meat looks like horse meat but quickly rots when it thaws.

Several mammoths were found in permafrost, preserved since the last glacial period.

The most famous was found in 1901 near the banks of the Berezovka River in Siberia. An Academy of Science expedition with dogsleds was quickly sent.

The expedition found a nearly complete carcass, but wolves and dogs had left the skull almost bare.

The meat was dark red, suggesting horse meat, and marbled with fat.

The dogs ate it avidly; the men could not quite steel themselves to try it too. Members of the expedition said the stench was like that of a badly kept stable blended with that of offal.

Members of later trips said scientists never banqueted on or even sampled the meat.

Books that describe a banquet usually lack a place and date.

The rumor seems to have arisen from Siberian natives superstitions warning against eating the meat, though the Yakut fed it to their dogs in time of famine.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 21, 2011)

Isn't this fantasy done yet?


----------



## code1211 (Jan 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...





Showing that we are warmer than the period called The Little Ice Age and that our climate is recovering from that unusual, sudden and dramatic drop in the global climate.


----------



## code1211 (Jan 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> gunnyrogers55 said:
> 
> 
> > mmm so in a few hundred years of man made pollution we really did this ...mmm i doubt that. the earth is natural always getting warmer and colder we know this for a fact so everyone who says buy hybrids and electric cars hahaha those lithium ion batteries are so bad for the environment. Also one your most famous meteorologist jim cantore says global warming is crap also..
> ...




That is simply not true.  We know for sure that The Little Ice Age had climate changes that set in very quickly and lingered for centuries.

We also know that the Ice Man died on dry ground and was buried by snow and stayed that way uninterupted by any melting of that snow for about 5000 years.  That is a sudden change that lingered until about 30 years ago.  Sudden changes seem to be evidenced by past occurrances.

Prior to the Renaissance, our knowledge of climate is pretty well limited to proxy evidence that doesn't really track the changes on a minute by minute or even a decade by decade basis.

For all we know, temperature dives like the Little Ice Age and the mountain glaciation trapping the ice Man could be fairly commonplace.  Temperature dives like the one that ended in the late 70's could be commonplace and temperature rises like the one that we currently sit on the plateau of may be commonplace.

We simply don't know and no amount of crowing about things that are not related to one another will not create knowledge where there is only mystery.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




s0n..........let me tip you off on something. Anybody who takes a gandor in here to check the score comes away with one clear determination: That Old Rocks is a miserable old prick, consumed and obsessed with the agenda of the radical environmentalists. Agenda guys always post up the same exact links, week after week,month after month, year after year. Just like you. Agenda guys always respond to posts with anger and total closemindedness. Just like you. Agenda guys can be found making posts every single day at all hours of the day and night. Just like you Agenda guys rachet up epic posts counts in the same singlular forum ( as if they own it). Just like you Agenda guys invariably display their true intentions within their threads/posts ( destruction of capitalism ). Just like you. Agenda guys are oddballs who find a sliver of the universe where they are only relatively odd but project themselves as a hero to many. Just like you Agenda guys have zero understanding of the political acceptance of their ideology. Just like you.



This forum is my playground s0n............just as it is for West and Ian. This is fun for us...........for you..........a fcukking oddball amongst a small handfull of like oddballs........... this is life and death stuff.................


My suggestion s0n? Get the fcukk out of that backwards ass state of Oregon. Nobody wants to live there except the forgotten ones.......the ones who can go hide in the middle of nowhere.


Rocks........you're  fcukking loser and you know it. Personally...........I hope you stick around this forum forever. Id be bummed to shit if you left.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Po' Kooky.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Ohhh you make this too easy.  Here's a little ditty from The Straight Dope.  I chose it because it is factual and funny at the same time!

The Straight Dope: Prehistoric, it's what's for dinner: Have explorers had feasts of woolly mammoth?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 21, 2011)

International Falls, MN -46 WITHOUT considering wind chill today.  Enough said.

MIAMI (AP) &#8212; Record low temperatures chilled Florida from top to bottom Monday, endangering fruit and vegetable crops and taxing the power grid of a state unaccustomed to the cold.
The National Weather Service reported 36 degrees at the Miami airport, beating an 82-year-old record of 37 degrees. It dipped to 42 degrees in Key West, one degree off the record and the second-coldest reading since 1873.

"I even had ice on my car this morning, which was an unbelievable sight for Miami," said Dan Gregoria, meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

It was 14 degrees Monday morning in Tallahassee, breaking the record of 15 set in 1982. Record-tying lows of 29 were observed in Orlando, and Tampa's 25-degree weather beat its old record of 27.

Frosty Florida sets record low temperatures - USATODAY.com

I imagine there is a contract out on poor Mr. Gregoria.  Blastphemor!

Definition of irony:  As the United Nations opened its latest conference on global warming, Mother Nature sent snowstorms and freezing temperatures that disrupted travel all across Europe and much of the Northern Hemisphere. Even Cancun, Mexico's sunny resort city that hosted the confab, was not spared the chill. The UN summit, known as COP16 (the 16th Conference of Parties on global warming), concluded Saturday morning after an all-night marathon session. Cancun may not have experienced blizzards and ice, but it did, nevertheless, get hammered with record low temps for the month of December.

Record Cold at Cancun Climate Confab

Oh, but that is just here in the US, you have to consider the world:

Record low temperatures, heavy snowfall observed across Japan
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- A cold air mass caused heavy snowfall across Japan on Sunday, with temperatures dropping to record lows in some parts of the country, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

Record low temperatures, heavy snowfall observed across Japan - The Mainichi Daily News


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 21, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> International Falls, MN -46 WITHOUT considering wind chill today.  Enough said.
> 
> MIAMI (AP) &#8212; Record low temperatures chilled Florida from top to bottom Monday, endangering fruit and vegetable crops and taxing the power grid of a state unaccustomed to the cold.
> The National Weather Service reported 36 degrees at the Miami airport, beating an 82-year-old record of 37 degrees. It dipped to 42 degrees in Key West, one degree off the record and the second-coldest reading since 1873.
> ...


Yeah... fucking cold.  I was standing at a bus stop at 5:10am this morning in it.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 21, 2011)

Is spitting ice cubes on the sidewalk a crime in Minnesota?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 21, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Is spitting ice cubes on the sidewalk a crime in Minnesota?


It's decorative.  Neighborhood beautification in the ghetto.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Looking now to the Arctic, heres a 2010 update (courtesy of Marika Holland) showing the ongoing decrease in September sea ice extent compared to a selection of the AR4 models, again using the A1B scenario (following Stroeve et al, 2007):


----------



## Chris (Jan 28, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 12.27 million square kilometers (4.74 million square miles) set in 2006 and 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000average. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2011)

I wonder if the angle of incidence is taken into effect when calculating the albedo of ice free water at high latitudes. ever been in a boat at dusk or dawn?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 29, 2011)

Lowest ever? Is the pop culture educated left so ignorant that they think 1978 is pre-history? The possibly biased and skewed Arctic Sea and Ice news statistics only goes back to 1979.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2011)

Well, we pretty well know what the extent of the Arctic Ice was when the people were trying to find the Northwest Passage. It was not until the last few years that the Northwest Passage was freely traveled.


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Lowest ever? Is the pop culture educated left so ignorant that they think 1978 is pre-history? The possibly biased and skewed Arctic Sea and Ice news statistics only goes back to 1979.



The only thing biased and skewed here is your post.


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 2, 2011)

do we have any idea of what the max extent in 1000, 1650, 1850 ad? i think some research needs to be done within this area if not. If they found that this is a anomaly within the last thousand years then maybe people would be more able to agree that it might be a anomaly that is outside the norm.


----------



## Tank (Feb 2, 2011)

As long as there is always ice in my freezer, I'm cool.


----------



## Chris (Feb 19, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Chris (Feb 22, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Feb 24, 2011)

Air temperatures over much of the Arctic were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in January. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Labrador Sea, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Temperatures were near average over the western Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Scandinavia.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2011)

anyone care to guess from which year this newspaper article comes from?


----------



## Chris (Feb 24, 2011)

Trust me, no one cares.

And changing the subject won't work.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2011)

arctic temps much higher than today from less than 100 years ago is changing the subject? or just not in line with your thinking?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2011)

Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far. 

The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far.
> 
> The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.





Silliness? I can understand that you want to judge the editing skills by today's standards but it is a little more difficult to wave your hand at first person accounts of bare land and warm water in the Arctic only 90 years ago, which was not caused by CO2.


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2011)

very cool article from 1873 discussing the arctic and finding Mastadon remains.

Papers Past &mdash; Southland Times &mdash; 28 March 1873 &mdash; ARCTIC DISCOVERT.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far.
> 
> The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.



1979 to present. lets see that is 41 years worth of recorded data, YA that is telling on a  planet BILLIONS of years old. As for the news article that proves your 41 years of recorded data is worthless when claiming shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2011)

*What the scientists say about the extent of the Arctic ice in the past few hundred years.*

Arctic sea ice before satellites « Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

Jan 31, 2011Katherine LeitzellArctic sea ice before satellites

Last week, a reader of Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis asked what we know about Arctic sea ice extent before the satellite records began in 1979. Those records show that Arctic sea ice has been declining at an increasing pace since 1979&#8212;enough data to see a strong signal of climate change. But scientists also want to know what sea ice was like before satellites were there to observe it. Mark Serreze, NSIDC director and research scientist, said, &#8220;The better we understand how the climate system behaved in the past, the better we can understand and place into context what is happening today.&#8221;  

What do we know about sea ice conditions before 1979, and how do we know that?

Historical data on sea ice
Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages.

To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s.  Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean.  However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2011)

Boy, are the arguements of those in denial getting silly.

First, "It ain't Happening, no matter what them thar librul scientists say"

Second, "If it is happening, we don't have anything to do with it"

Third, "And if we are causing it, it is too expensive to change course now, no matter what it costs later"

And fourth, and most ridiculous of all, "It will be good for us anyway, no matter how catastrophic the results"


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Boy, are the arguements of those in denial getting silly.
> 
> *First, "It ain't Happening, no matter what them thar librul scientists say"*
> Second, "If it is happening, we don't have anything to do with it"
> ...



I bolded the part that matters. The rest you for the most part made up, no one argues the rest of your points realisticly.

Here is one for you...

Liberals: It's Global cooling!

Liberals: It's Global warming!

Liberals: It's Clemet change!


"Global warming has brought in a new ice age!"


----------



## Grace (Feb 24, 2011)

Ostrich, Head, Sand.


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 24, 2011)

IMEURU said:


> Ostrich, Head, Sand.



Let me know when something serious happens then...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



So.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

Great old thread


----------



## mal (Feb 24, 2011)

That it is... 



peace...


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

> Reference
> Chylek, P., Folland, C.K., Lesins, G., Dubey, M.K. and Wang, M. 2009. Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038777. Chylek et al. write that "one of the robust features of the AOGCMs [Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models] is the finding that the temperature increase in the Arctic is larger than the global average, which is attributed in part to the ice/snow-albedo temperature feedback." More specifically, they say "the surface air temperature change in the Arctic is predicted to be about two to three times the global mean," citing the IPCC (2007). In conducting their own study of this feature, the authors utilized Arctic surface air temperature data from 37 meteorological stations north of 64°N, Chylek et al. explored the latitudinal variability in Arctic temperatures within two belts -- the low Arctic (64°N-70°N) and the high Arctic (70°N-90°N) -- comparing them with mean global air temperatures over three sequential periods: 1910-1940 (warming), 1940-1970 (cooling) and 1970-2008 (warming).
> In harmony with state-of-the-art AOGCM simulations, the five researchers report that "the Arctic has indeed warmed during the 1970-2008 period by a factor of two to three faster than the global mean." More precisely, the Arctic amplification factor was 2.0 for the low Arctic and 2.9 for the high Arctic. But that is the end of the real world's climate-change agreement with theory. During the 1910-1940 warming, for example, the low Arctic warmed 5.4 times faster than the global mean, while the high Arctic warmed 6.9 times faster. Even more out of line with climate model simulations were the real-world Arctic amplification factors for the 1940-1970 cooling: 9.0 for the low Arctic and 12.5 for the high Arctic.
> 
> These findings constitute another important example of the principle described (and proven to be correct) by Reifen and Toumi (2009), i.e., that a model that performs well in one time period will not necessarily perform well in another time period. And this now-incontrovertible fact further suggests that since AOGCMs suffer from this shortcoming, they ought not be considered adequate justification for imposing dramatic cuts in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as their simulations of future temperature trends may well be far different from what will actually transpire.




oh dear! GRL is publishing this sort of thing? paradigm shift in progress.

I wonder how many of the models are functioning over the known range rather than just run for accurate predictions today? always in the first year of a 100 year prediction, hahahaha


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2011)

Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet


----------



## westwall (Feb 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet






Oh boy, a article from 2010 reporting on work that was done in 2009 and before....a little dated there olfraud a little dated but thanks for playing.


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet



just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922? are we to ignore first hand accounts for models and proxies again? like Mann's Hockey Stick and the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. no sense believing people who actually saw it when you can do a study with proxies, right?


----------



## Trakar (Feb 28, 2011)

IanC said:


> ...just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922?...



Looking at the data from the Arctic Climate Research Department at the University of Illinois, the ice coverage at minima in 1922 was about 10 and a half million kilometers, about twice what the coverage was last summer.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


You can see them for yourself.


----------



## IanC (Feb 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ...just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922?...
> ...



the problem with your graphs and data tables is that they dont match up with eyewitness accounts. how were they measuring the ice fields in the pre-aeroplane era?


----------



## Trakar (Mar 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Don't you mean that the data from the Arctic Climate Research Department at the University of Illinois, doesn't agree with something you've read from somewhere else that purportedly represented eyewitness accounts to an "ice-free" arctic? Regardless, reference your eyewitness accounts and perhaps we can figure out the wheres and why-fors behind the discrepancy.

As discussed at the Arctic Climate site, the early data for these datasets come from ship logs (naval, merchant and research vessels) and outpost weather stations compiled and stored primarily by the Danish Meteorlogical Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, and the US Naval Oceanographic Office. These records and the data they represent are documented and authenticated eyewitness accounts of the conditions witnessed and recorded in ships' logs and weather station reports.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






No, what we're saying is that alarmism is based almost exclusivly on computer models that are incapable of recreating the weather we KNOW  occured 5 days ago.  On the other hand the sources Ian provided actually were there, on the ground and in many instances took photographs.  So which should we believe?   Horribly bad computer models or the accounts of those who were actually there?

I know which source thinking people will choose.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

Now Walleyes, I do believe that we are discussing Artic Ice, not computer models or yesterdays weather.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Walleyes, I do believe that we are discussing Artic Ice, not computer models or yesterdays weather.






Yes we are and the people who were actually there say things were different than what UIUC says was happening.  As Ian asked "how did they get their data without airplanes?"


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now Walleyes, I do believe that we are discussing Artic Ice, not computer models or yesterdays weather.
> ...



*You mean these people?*

Trakar;

Don't you mean that the data from the Arctic Climate Research Department at the University of Illinois, doesn't agree with something you've read from somewhere else that purportedly represented eyewitness accounts to an "ice-free" arctic? Regardless, reference your eyewitness accounts and perhaps we can figure out the wheres and why-fors behind the discrepancy.

As discussed at the Arctic Climate site, the early data for these datasets come from ship logs (naval, merchant and research vessels) and outpost weather stations compiled and stored primarily by the Danish Meteorlogical Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, and the US Naval Oceanographic Office. These records and the data they represent are documented and authenticated eyewitness accounts of the conditions witnessed and recorded in ships' logs and weather station reports.


----------



## westwall (Mar 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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






Interesting how when you are posting trakar isn't and when trakar is posting you aren't.  Hmmm????


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ...just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922?...
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 1, 2011)

Hmmm......  yourself, silly ass. You will soon find out the differance, much to your chagrin.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet




this link is a good example of the AGW alarmist spin. they declare _significant warming_ of the oceans over the last two decades! and why that is badddddd. then they totally gloss over the inconvenient findings that sea temps have been flat for most of the 2000's and are probably decreasing. there is even a picture of the old small sensor and the new colourful hi-tech sensor. they certainly didnt point out that the warming was found in the much adjusted old readings and that new sensors have found no warming even though there has been no lack of trying to get the researchers to 'adjust' those readings as well.

the famous Trenberth climategate email (...and its a travesty...) was about this lack of  ocean warming because it means that the energy that was supposed to warm the atmosphere can't be said to be hiding in the oceans.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

why arent these first hand accounts of arctic conditions reflected in your version? it is very confusing, not unlike how climate science and the IPCC tried to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear despite historical records of warm weather. the pdf quotes a long time mariner (over 50 years) describing how the warming from 1918-1922 made the region unrecognizable.


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







I believe the term is "cherry picking".


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 2, 2011)

How many ships traveled the NorthEast Passage in 1922? How many sailboats did both the Northwest and Northeast Passage in 1922? 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Beginning to look like a very interesting year this year.


----------



## westwall (Mar 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> How many ships traveled the NorthEast Passage in 1922? How many sailboats did both the Northwest and Northeast Passage in 1922?
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> 
> Beginning to look like a very interesting year this year.






What was that trakar?  What makes you think it is going to be such an interesting year?  I see the ice thickening ever more and that leads me to conclude that over the nex few years Arctic ice is going to increase quite a bit.  What's your prediction?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 2, 2011)

Another very low year, maybe lower than 2007. And the ice volume will significantly decrease.

From the University of Washington;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

IanC said:


> ...why arent these first hand accounts of arctic conditions reflected in your version? it is very confusing, not unlike how climate science and the IPCC tried to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear despite historical records of warm weather. the pdf quotes a long time mariner (over 50 years) describing how the warming from 1918-1922 made the region unrecognizable.



I should have realized that the study of Geography would also prove important in rounding out your education (please tell me that you aren't American, I mean I know our public school education standards are abyssmal but this is just sad).

81ºN is is pretty far north, but it is still several hundred miles from the North pole and the Summer ice tends not be centered on the pole especially up from the N. Atlantic. As the data listed above indicates, the arctic ice in the summer was almost as low as it was in 2007/2008, but there is nothing in the eyewitness accounts that you've linked that indicates that the Arctic sea was ice-free.

The MWP is an acknowledged, mild, regional (mostly european but with some more general northern hemisphere involvement) climate episode, I'm not aware of any effort to "make the Medieval Warm Period disappear," but if you care to present evidence to support your assertions, I'd be happy to examine it.

As for the captain's perceptions, the mild regional cooling of the northern hemisphere popularly known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) believed to be predominantly the result of an episodic increase in high latitude volcanic activity, is generally acknowledged to have ended in the mid-late 1800s. Temperatures rebounded as the sulfur particulates were slowly filtered out of the atmosphere.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> I believe the term is "cherry picking".



As usual, your beliefs are incorrect and irrelevent.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ...why arent these first hand accounts of arctic conditions reflected in your version? it is very confusing, not unlike how climate science and the IPCC tried to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear despite historical records of warm weather. the pdf quotes a long time mariner (over 50 years) describing how the warming from 1918-1922 made the region unrecognizable.
> ...



from your link-


> 1910    13.52820  15.39442  15.41934  11.16402  12.14704
> 1911    13.61825  15.69520  15.33318  11.30033  12.15617
> 1912    13.60468  15.50671  15.34149  11.33000  12.25226
> 1913    13.62153  15.44919  15.05566  11.74843  12.24514
> ...


....


> 1988    12.55684  15.13654  13.93870   9.19005  11.97357
> 1989    12.44663  15.23958  13.54229   9.15674  11.85911
> 1990    12.11015  15.26338  13.51850   8.07264  11.59689
> 1991    12.20011  14.84334  13.87693   8.65789  11.43393
> ...



where is the dip around 1922. and how do you figure 2007/2008 is similar to 1922? and who said that the arctic was ice free in 1922? your comprehension seems a little shaky.

your description of the MWP seems a tad absurd when you consider the Vikings in Greenland. but dont let me stop you from drinking the kool-aid


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

IanC said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I colored the summer minimums for you, if you don't understand the numbers (or any evidence/reference provided, please do not hesitate to ask. You are quite right about the comparison to 2007/2008, I misspoke and should have stuck with my earlier statement ("the ice coverage at minima in 1922 was about 10 and a half million kilometers, about twice what the coverage was last summer" and in 2007). I apologize for the misstatement. 1922 was low for its time, but nowhere near the current summer lows. Mea Culpa





> your description of the MWP seems a tad absurd when you consider the Vikings in Greenland.



How so? Throughout the last 3 centuries Greenland has had towns, farms and year-round resident populations. Many of the southern coastal valleys are forested and quite verdant.

Greenland beauty | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Ancient Tides: Greenland's Vikings Mostly Celtic, Not Norse

Getting Around Southern Greenland: On Land - Greenland Travel Guide - iGuide

Explore Greenland - Denmark - VisitDenmark: Official guide to Denmark from VisitDenmark with hotel links, map, visa, pictures, flag, Copenhagen info etc.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2011)

Dude! I am starting to really believe that you are Old Rocks, hahahaha

again, from your link-

1922 13.33561 15.48477 15.10286 10.61479 12.15213
2007 10.32810 14.23611 12.56108 5.56487 8.96007
2008 0.00000 14.50902 12.60711 6.20727 0.00000

are you the one who can't read data set? another interesting thing I noticed is that the ice levels in the past don't seem to follow the global temp pattern given by GISS, and that the standard deviation is much smaller for the far past than post 1960 or 1970.


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ...why arent these first hand accounts of arctic conditions reflected in your version? it is very confusing, not unlike how climate science and the IPCC tried to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear despite historical records of warm weather. the pdf quotes a long time mariner (over 50 years) describing how the warming from 1918-1922 made the region unrecognizable.
> ...






The average temperature of the MWP was 5 degrees warmer then today.  It has been found wherever it has been looked for in the world.  Both southern and northern hemispheres.  Here in the Siearra Nevada the average temperature was 2.6 degrees warmer then the current day.  You clearly need to get more current on the state of research as regards the MWP as it stands today.
  Furthermore, exactly what mechanism could trap a huge temperature rise that lasted for hundreds of years in one local?  And really, you're so ignorant of Mann et all and their infamous hockey stick that eliminated both the MWP and the LIA that you would make such a boneheaded statement?  Really.  You owe IanC a apology, you are about as informed as a freshman.
The MWP was global, not localised but nice try olfraud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

No, the MWP has not been found round the world. Real scientist from the 2010 AGU conferance;

A42D


----------



## mal (Mar 3, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif.  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> 
> ...











peace...


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the MWP has not been found round the world. Real scientist from the 2010 AGU conferance;
> 
> A42D






MWP in China, BTW all of these are peer reviewed articles, actually the last one is not but he uses peer reviewed source material..  I know you won't read them but others will.

CO2 Science

CO2 Science

The Sierra Nevada Mountains,

CO2 Science

The characteristics and likely causes of the Medieval megadroughts in North America

West Antarctica,

The Medieval Warm Period hit west Antarctica « JoNova

A global overview from a German article translated into English at Watts Up With That

The Medieval Warm Period &#8211; a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation? | Watts Up With That?

How about the Yucatan?

Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: The Mayan Terminal Period

These are a _FEW_ of the references for the MWP worldwide, in other words you alarmists are wrong yet again...or maybe there was suddenly a breakout of localised warming events that affected the globe all at the same time but were only localised like the alarmists say?

Riiight.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......  yourself, silly ass. You will soon find out the differance, much to your chagrin.



No really I just dont care.
Ice melt it thaws, shit warms up and it cools down.


----------



## mal (Mar 3, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm......  yourself, silly ass. You will soon find out the differance, much to your chagrin.
> ...



And we ain't gonna change an ounce of it by Crippling our Economy Further to Please the Irrational Earth Loving, Human Hating, Commie Sympathizing Douchers on the Left. 



peace...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

*Interesting graph included in the abstract.*

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 yr BP, based on &#x3b4;13C of speleothems

Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 yr BP, based on &#948;13C of speleothems 


Javier Martín-Chiveleta, b, , , M. Belén Muñoz-Garcíaa, b, , R. Lawrence Edwardsc, , María J. Turrerod,  and Ana I. Ortegae, 

a Dpt. Estratigrafía, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

b Instituto de Geociencias (CSIC-UCM), Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, c/ José Antonio Nováis 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain

c University of Minnesota, Department of Geology and Geophysics, 310 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

d Ciemat, Dpt. Medioambiente, Avda. Complutense 22, 28040 Madrid, Spain

e Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana CENIEH. Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca s/n, 09002 Burgos, Spain

Received 9 June 2010;  accepted 14 February 2011.  Available online 22 February 2011. 

Abstract
The surface temperature changes for the last 4000 years in northern inland Iberia (an area particularly sensitive to climate change) are determined by a high resolution study of carbon stable isotope records of stalagmites from three caves (Kaite, Cueva del Cobre, and Cueva Mayor) separated several 10 s km away in N Spain. Despite the local conditions of each cave, the isotopic series show a good overall coherence, and resulted to be strongly sensitive to surface temperature changes.

The record reflects alternating warmer and colder intervals, always within a temperature range of 1.6 °C. The timing and duration of the intervals were provided by 43 230Th&#8211;234U (ICP-MS) ages. Main climatic recognized periods are: (1) 3950&#8211;3000 yr BP: warm period punctuated by cool events around ~ 3950, 3550 and 3250 yr BP; (2) 2850&#8211;2500 yr BP cold interval (Iron Age Cold Period); (3) 2500&#8211;1650 yr BP moderate warm period (Roman Warm Period), with maximum temperatures between 2150 and 1750 yr BP; (4) 1650&#8211;1350 yr BP cold interval (Dark Ages Cold Period), with a thermal minimum at ~ 1500 yr BP; (5) 1350&#8211;750 yr BP warm period (Medieval Warm Period) punctuated by two cooler events at ~ 1250 and ~ 850 yr BP; (6) 750&#8211;100 yr BP cold period (Little Ice Age) with extremes occurring at 600&#8211;500 yr BP, 350&#8211;300 yr BP, and 150&#8211;100 yr BP; and (7) the last 150 years, characterized by rapid but no linear warming (Modern Warming). Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th Century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.Spectral analysis of the time series shows consistent climatic cycles of ~ 400, ~ 900 and ~ 1300 yr, comparable with those recognized in the North Atlantic marine record, the Greenland ice cores, and other terrestrial records for the middle &#8211; late Holocene, suggesting common climate forcing mechanisms related to changes in solar irradiance and North Atlantic circulation patterns


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 3, 2011)

mal said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


True enough.
They are as gone as truthers.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> The average temperature of the MWP was 5 degrees warmer then today.  It has been found wherever it has been looked for in the world...



Cite and reference the peer-reviewed studies that confirm these assertions

WAS THERE A 'MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD', AND IF SO, WHERE AND WHEN? - http://www.geofaculty.org:16080/fig.../Hughes_Medieval_Warm_ClimaticChange_1994.pdf


> ...Taken together, the available evidence does not support a global Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records...



*Historical climatology, Climatic Change, and implications for climate science in the twenty-first century - SpringerLink - Climatic Change, Volume 100, Number 1*

Recent Glacier Retreat Exceeds Internal Variability - An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Many more available upon request.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> MWP in China, BTW all of these are peer reviewed articles, actually the last one is not but he uses peer reviewed source material..  I know you won't read them but others will.
> 
> CO2 Science



Interesting paper, if you read the actual paper instead of the (political rhetoric spin of the paper), but I see nothing in it that supports the contention that the MWP (AD 9501250) was global in nature.
Flood/drought change of last millennium in the Yangtze Delta and its possible connections with Tibetan climatic changes - http://www.lehman.edu/academics/eggs/documents/GAPC-2007-Zhang-et-al.pdf
(plus it helps to understand when the MWP actually was instead of when the "CO2 Science" blog asserts it was in this instance. - NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
And they are asserting that the Little Ice Age lasted all the way until the 1920s, isn't that when you were trying to reference an "ice-free" arctic earlier?)



westwall said:


> The Sierra Nevada Mountains,
> 
> The characteristics and likely causes of the Medieval megadroughts in North America



At least it is in the right time frame, do the authors claim regional or global conditions?



westwall said:


> West Antarctica,
> 
> The Medieval Warm Period hit west Antarctica « JoNova


This isn't a peer reviewed paper, nor is it produced by a climate scientist, it is merely mish-mash of pseudoscience produced by a political hack and published on a partisan political blog. 



westwall said:


> A global overview from a German article translated into English at Watts Up With That
> 
> The Medieval Warm Period  a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation? | Watts Up With That?



A pseudoscience german blog post translated and copied onto an American political pundit's blog site is supposed to be deemed credible or compelling why? 



westwall said:


> How about the Yucatan?
> 
> Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: The Mayan Terminal Period



another political site blogpost, speaking about issues outside the author's expertise and absent any sort of climate peer review is hardly is hardly compelling. 

The papers listed as support:

_Isotope measurements of single ostracod valves and gastropod shells for climate reconstruction: Evaluation of within-sample variability and determination of optimum sample size _- Isotope measurements of single ostracod valves and gastropod shells for climate reconstruction: evaluation of within-sample variability and determination of optimum sample size

Says absolutely nothing about temperature and only covers a 80-year period near the very beginning ot the European MWP.

_ Climate variability on the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) during the past 3,500 years, and implications for Maya cultural evolution._ - Again, no discussion of temperature, just of various drought condition periods and the various natural and human causatives of such.

_Climate and cultural history of the Northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico _ - Yadda yadda, drought, cultural influences, no mention of discussion of temperature factors at all.

_Possible role of climate in the collapse of classic Maya civilization_ - Perhaps the most interesting of the lot, especially in their discussion about how the Mayan civ. activities mimiced and confused natural climate signals, but again, no mention of temperatures, just drought.

Drought does not automatically equal or indicate temperature increases, in fact, in most cases we expect drought from cooler conditions that reduce the atmosphere's capacity to hold and transport moisture. Most often, however, drought is simply an indication that there has been a sustained shifting of pervailing wind patterns which carries moisture laden air to different areas than it normally does. 



westwall said:


> These are a _FEW_ of the references for the MWP worldwide, in other words you alarmists are wrong yet again...or maybe there was suddenly a breakout of localised warming events that affected the globe all at the same time but were only localised like the alarmists say?
> 
> Riiight.



Every legitimate paper presented compellingly indicating a significant  temperature rise in the appropriate time period, was in the Northern Hemisphere. Which is consistent with the predominant professional climatology perspective of the MWP. In order for a climate event to be considered global, it needs to be happening globally, and it needs to be occurring during the same time range. There simply isn't compelling evidenciary support for either of these precepts in the mild, regional warming Climatology recognizes as the MWP.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 3, 2011)

mal said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Done properly (which includes beginning soon enough to maximize effectiveness and minimize ithe long-term nvestment), adaptations and adjustments would actually boost and strengthen the economy rather than drag upon it. In fact, one of the goals of adaptation and adjustment would be to avoid the accumulating economic depressions that the changing environment continues to pile onto businesses and individuals.


----------



## westwall (Mar 3, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The average temperature of the MWP was 5 degrees warmer then today.  It has been found wherever it has been looked for in the world...
> ...






Really?  Are they all 17 years old?    You really need to get some more current information there dude.  Amazingly enough there are CD's now and DVD's, imagine that!


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2011)

The lecture given at this years AGU Conferance by E. S. Mosley-Thompson stated the same thing, and was current science. 

A42D


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The lecture given at this years AGU Conferance by E. S. Mosley-Thompson stated the same thing, and was current science.
> 
> A42D






And ignored the peer reviewed papers (as well as many others) that I presented.  Go figure.  I believe the term is "cherry picking".


----------



## Trakar (Mar 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Recent Glacier Retreat Exceeds Internal Variability - An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> ...



Evidently not.

I hear good things about Sylvan Learning Clenters with regards to learning basic reading comprehension, perhaps you should consider looking into it.


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






Here's a more recent study from Woods Hole.  It dates from 2009 so is still a little old but the basics are still good and far superior to that which you posted.  But feel free to argue with one of the pre-eminent organisations on the planet.  I am sure there is a windmill you can tilt at.

News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The lecture given at this years AGU Conferance by E. S. Mosley-Thompson stated the same thing, and was current science.
> ...



Really, you presented a lecture at the AGU conferance? And what number was it, so that I may review it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties. 

*Why, thank you, Walleyes. So the MW was about 0.5 C cooler than the late 20th Century. Not 5 C warmer, but 0.5 C cooler. 

So where did you get the ridiculous figure of 5 C warmer? Perhaps you were smoking some of North California's best?

And what was the graphic result of this study? 

My, my, look at the lumpy hockey stick*

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## westwall (Mar 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






In that area, what else did theysay?  Hmmm?  C'mon tough guy post the really relevent thing they said about the northern hemisphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2011)

Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century


----------



## westwall (Mar 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century






How about we add the little section you left off, 

." However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties."

Kind of important now wouldn't you say?  Makes the comment you posted a little less conclusive eh?  What is that called?  Oh yes, lying by omission. 


And then of course there is this statement which is of course the most important as it negates your entire argument so I can see why you would excise it, once again lying by omission.

Oppo comments, Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need to be looked at more closely. 


I am surprised that someone as unethical as you are has a job.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2011)

." However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties."

*As in most of the "data is from high latitude or high altitude proxy records, tree rings and ice cores". Now that would have to be north Asian or North European, wouldn't it? So these proxy records indicate that the temperature for the high nothern hemisphere was about 0.5 degrees below that of the late 20th century. 

Now that is a long ways from being warmer by 5 degrees than today.

It is the article that you posted, Walleyes. So now you are backing away from it as fast as you can. Perhaps you should read the articles before you post them. *


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century




*BOGUS*



Temperatures were significantly warmer during the MWP............depending where the temperatures were read..........


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2011)

Walleyes posted the article.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 12, 2011)

westwall said:


> Here's a more recent study from Woods Hole.  It dates from 2009 so is still a little old but the basics are still good and far superior to that which you posted.  But feel free to argue with one of the pre-eminent organisations on the planet.  I am sure there is a windmill you can tilt at.
> 
> News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution



And exactly how do you feel this compellingly supports either of your claims? 

Even if all elements of this press release are taken at the most simple, face value, and we allow for the breathless spin-meistering implied, we are talking about the results from two core samples less than 50miles apart within 5 degrees of the equator. 

While the coupling (particularly the proposed inverse relationship interactions as suggested in this topic paper's detailed assessment of the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) activity and its inverse association with the much weaker Indonesian monsoon (IM), and the suggested similar nature of the various Northern Hemisphere (NH) pacific cycle oscillations and the central Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) hydrologic variabilities are extremely interesting, and with better understanding will undoubtably help us to more accurately confirm and predict how such intricate interactions play out as the planet's climate continues to warm over the coming centuries,...I just don't see how these support your contentions of global warming greater than currently experienced extremes during the specifically defined dates of the MWP and the LIA. Did you look at the graph from the paper?(it is reproduced at your press release link):

Image : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## Chris (Mar 12, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2011)

Looky here, as predicted the Arctic Sea Ice extent is increasing and has surpassed the levels seen in 2005, 2006, and 2007.  If it continues apace it will exceed the extent for 2004 as well fairly quickly.  Time will tell.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> time will tell.



Indeed it will


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > time will tell.
> ...






It's allready well above what you all said it would be.  How do you explain that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 18, 2011)

Where did we say that it would be significantly lower than that of 2007? For it is tracking the 2007 track pretty well. In spite of the end of summer and fall being in a very strong La Nina pattern. 

In fact, given the strenght of the La Nina, the curve of temperatures is very strange. When you look at the graph on Dr. Spencer's site, you see a large drop both after 1998, and 2007. Yet, after a moderate 
El Nino, 2010 nearly matched 1998, and, with a very strong La Nina, only has dropped to -0.01 for January, and -0.02 for February. If it does not drop substancially, or even goes into the plus territory, the running mean may fall no further than the running mean from 2002 to 2007. And start the next rise from that point.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## Trakar (Mar 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"you all"?

IJIS Web Site


----------



## Chris (Mar 23, 2011)

The ice sheets covering both ends of Earth are losing mass at an accelerating pace, and are on a faster-than-projected path to surpass other sources of rising sea levels, according to a new study. 

"The magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades," the team of researchers concluded after surveying 18 years of satellite and modeling data from Antarctica and Greenland.

"That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising  they hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers," lead author Eric Rignot, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in a statement. 

"What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening," he added. "If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007."

The IPCC's estimate is actually a range  between seven inches and two feet by 2100, with little attributed to ice sheets because the science was less certain when the report was written.

Rignot's team noted that, if current trends hold, the ice sheet melt will raise sea levels by nearly six inches by 2050. Total sea level rise could top 12 inches once melting glaciers and thermal expansion are factored in, they noted.

Earth's ice sheets melting faster, study finds - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com


----------



## Chris (Mar 28, 2011)

On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2011)

blah.............blah.............blah..............


and Antarctic sea ice is expanding............

The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice | Ecoworld


----------



## k2skier (Mar 28, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> blah.............blah.............blah..............
> 
> 
> and Antarctic sea ice is expanding............
> ...



2 years old!! LMFAO!!! Try to keep current you fucking troll

10 December 2010
Media Advisory: NSIDC Antarctic Scientist at Press Briefing 
Unstable Antarctica: What's Driving Ice Loss? 

New results based on data from airborne and satellite missions show a clear picture of mechanisms driving ice loss in West Antarctica. Scientists have previously shown that West Antarctica is losing ice, but how that ice is lost remained unclear. Now, using data from a range of NASA's Earth observing satellites and from the ongoing Operation IceBridge airborne mission, scientists have pinpointed ice loss culprits above and below the ice. Continued monitoring of Antarctica's rapidly changing areas is expected to improve predictions of sea level rise.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2011)

Chris said:


> On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis







Yes, minimum ice that was the same as 2006.  So better than 2007 when the record low was recorded.  And wow, the icebreakers had one of their busiest years because the ice that was there was thicker and harder to punch through.  Multi year ice is also increasing as is the thickness.  So the next few years will se even more buildup.  As usual, you guys focus on one aspect of the issue and ignore all others.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2011)

k2skier said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > blah.............blah.............blah..............
> ...




epic fAiL bozo........that area is insignificant in terms of size........as MY link makes perfectly clear!!!









fcukking skiers..............crash too many tree's.............


----------



## k2skier (Mar 28, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> k2skier said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



a clueless troll is still a fucking moronic troll, you post about antarctic and the original post was about the arctic, fucking moron, 2 year old link, blah, blah, blah

btw, 32 years skiing and i've never hit a tree, epic fail troll


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2011)

k2skier said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > k2skier said:
> ...












Well.........skiing in the east, we have a phrase for skiiers who wreck on the slopes and end up with a hat here, a glove there and a ski shooting down the hill. We call it a "garage sale"........obviously too many garage sales for you s0n!!!


Too.......evidently, you either failed to read my link OR the reading skills are a tick off. Id check the eye perscription s0n........those wrecks can cause retinal displacement................totally fcukk up your eyesight.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2011)

Chris said:


> The ice sheets covering both ends of Earth are losing mass at an accelerating pace, and are on a faster-than-projected path to surpass other sources of rising sea levels, according to a new study.
> 
> "The magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades," the team of researchers concluded after surveying 18 years of satellite and *modeling* data from Antarctica and Greenland.
> 
> ...



Let`s not even go into this bullshit that antarctic ice is "melting", because people as dumb as You will never comprehend what ice sheet and glacier calving is..
There seems to be no limit to the stupidity of people like You, "OldRocks" and these "scientists" that spread the most ridiculous bullshit ever published 



> Total sea level rise could top 12 inches once melting glaciers and thermal expansion are factored in, they noted.[/b]



So not even something as simple as Archimedes has been factored into these moronic computer models this moron "science" is based on.
So on the one hand they do say this "study" is based on ice that floats in the ocean, not on the ice that is on a land mass...and they say, once "Thermal expansion is factored in" the sea level will rise by 12 inches...
And You believe that!
Fuck, did`nt You ever notice that ice floats on water?
Why do You think it floats?
When water freezes to ice it EXPANDS, it does not shrink!
*The volume SHRINKS when the ice melts You idiot!*
Or did You think the ice floats because it might be hollow or something?

When ice floats in the ocean, by definition it`s not submerged then..*.can Your pee brain still follow, or are You lost already ?*
So, when something floats, meaning some ice, say from an iceberg is sticking out of the water it can only float because it displaces and equal weight of water.
Have You ever heard of the Archimedes law..? it`s even in grade 8 physics books.
Obviously the assholes and their "computer models" You are quoting here never heard of him.
I`ll make it real simple for You. Take a shot glass and put some water in it and mark the line. Then drop an ice cube in it..note the water line went up...?
Mark it, then let it sit till the ice cube melted and keep watching the water line...!





Only a total moron would expect "a rise in the the (shotglass) sea level"
*And every grade 8 kid could have told You or Your dope head "scientist" that the level would not go up*





But hey, thanks for posting Your "source information"...and the "computer model data" this entire crap is based on.
*Fuck, it`s unbelievable how stupid people can be!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2011)

computer models are BS.........cant even call the weather 24 hours out..........



real science not winning............


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2011)

*Well, BiPolar and Kookybill have had their rant. So what do real scientists say?*

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay update | The Way Things Break

Rignot, et al. conclude:

This study reconciles two totally independent methods for estimating ice sheet mass balance, in Greenland and Antarctica, for the first time: the MBM method comparing influx and outflux of ice, and the GRACE method based on time-variable gravity data. The two records agree in terms of mass, M(t), mass change, dM(t)/dt, and acceleration in mass change, d2M/dt2. The results illustrate the major impact of monthly-to-annual variations in SMB on ice sheet mass balance. Using the two-decade long MBM observation record, we determine that ice sheet loss is accelerating by 36.3 2 Gt/yr2, or 3 times larger than from mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC). The magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> computer models are BS.........cant even call the weather 24 hours out..........
> 
> 
> 
> real science not winning............


Here is my ice sheet, today @ ~13:00.
I retired, so this aint CFS Alert Ellesmere Island or Thule Greenland...it`s my backyard in Manitoba.
Noon Temperature today finally came up to minus 4 Celsius, was -25 to -30 C last week.
Night temp. last night was -15 C. So at least I can go for a walk now. The top snow is solid ice and You don`t sink in all the way up to belt level.






So is this just a short term weather or is it "climate" it sure as fuck did not get any warmer in Manitoba, neither where I live now, nor up at Churchill, Hudson Bay Manitoba.
Official Polar-bear Capitol of the world. 
Where everyone wants to know how a polar bear could "drown" like Ass Gore says they do...but he does`nt answer his phone

Churchill Manitoba today:


> Current Churchill Weather Conditions 	Updated Mar 28, 2011 8:00 PM
> A Few Clouds
> Temperature:	-7°C



Iqaluit today:


> Weather for Iqaluit, NU, Canada
> -15°C



And last week my backyard looked like this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk[/ame]


But some assholes in some cities where they have been playing Golf for over a month claim it`s gotten "on average" warmer were I live.
And New York will flood soon because our ice here is melting


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2011)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101211_TemperatureAndEurope.pdf

The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November. The contrast of temperatures at coastal stations in years with and without sea ice cover on the neighboring water body is useful for illustrating the dramatic effect of sea ice on surface air temperature. Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2011)

Heading Toward a Record Setting Year for Hudson Bay : Wildlife Promise

Heading Toward a Record Year

Ice went out earlier and is lower in cover overall this year in Hudson Bay. 
As we reported yesterday, Hudson Bay polar bears are eagerly awaiting the sea ice to freeze up so they can break their fast, return to the ice and start hunting for seals, their primary food source. Historically, Hudson Bay should have ice by now and the bears should be long gone. However, climate change is causing dramatic declines in sea ice. As a result, these bears are stuck on land, living off their fat reserves, and waiting. For some, the longer wait could mean starvation and death.

When my plane departed Churchill yesterday, there was still no ice to be seen on the Bay. We could see a new record set this year if things do not improve soon. According to a bulletin issued by Environment Canada today, &#8220;the progression of freeze-up is 2 weeks late in western Hudson Bay and only a very narrow fringe of new ice is evident along the western and southern shores at this time.&#8221; Check out the above graph to see how low sea ice cover has been in Hudson Bay this year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2011)

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps


----------



## polarbear (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Heading Toward a Record Setting Year for Hudson Bay : Wildlife Promise
> 
> Heading Toward a Record Year
> 
> ...



Unbelievable!...This is exactly what I`ve been saying about assholes like You and the even bigger assholes You keep quoting.
I can count on You to do it EVERY TIME....Quoting a blog from an wide eyed Tourist who`s never been in Churchill MB in his life, just like You and writing an idiotic global warming blog like that. Meanwhile half my relatives from my wife`s side live in Churchill and we drive up there almost every other Month.
Lets start with "the "starving Polar bears"..Typical New York "experts on arctic wildlife"...what the f....do You and others think these bears do..as if they live all their lives on the ice.
Matter of fact some of them never even venture out on the ice but stay on the tundra!
Then the "abnormal high temperature" Your experts writes abut...he quoted an environment Canada FORECAST...:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN15CWIS/20101116000000_FECN15CWIS_0005295169.txt


> FECN15 CWIS 161800
> THIRTY DAY ICE FORECASTS FOR HUDSON AND FOXE FOR MID-NOVEMBER TO MID-
> DECEMBER ISSUED BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA ON 16 NOVEMBER 2010.
> THIS IS THE LAST 30 DAY ICE FORECAST FOR THE SEASON.


*And did EXACTLY the same as You always do...did not even bother to read what he quoted on his retard blog...*
Just as soon as he spotted "above normal" he ran with it, after looking high and low for something usable for "GW"...and on the same page...:


> New and grey ice will gradually fill the
> northern half of Foxe Basin and grow along the coasts of its southern
> half as well as in Frozen Strait and Repulse Bay. Small amounts of
> multi-year and second-year ice may be present in Fury and Hecla. In
> ...


 
First of all, a LT OF ICE NEVER EVEN MELTS...as you would see if You actually ever been to Hudson Bay...and by the way this forecast that your expert quoted was way off the mark, as most forecasts are.
By the end of November the ice extended way more than 250 kms out the bay.

Of course You have no way of knowing this, because all You have is what You get with Your slanted sense of reality...You Google for something about Churchill Manitoba +global warming and the first thing You would find is this blog...and after that every New York "arctic expert" on Churchill Manitoba found that blog...quoted it and blew it up even more...and the proof is in the pudding..!
churchill temperature november 2010 - Google Search

*Not a single one, ever even bothered to check an actual Churchill MB  weather report for Churchill for November 2010*
Because November turned out to be brutally cold...and everybody would have preferred the forecast, but as usual reality never cared what people believe..

Google is like a fortune teller, it will tell You what You want to hear...and simply bases it on how You ask the question.
Had You not been so eager to try tell me what it`s like where I live You could have avoided your latest and by far most retarded fuckup!
You could have just Googled the Manitoba News paper Archives for November 2010 ..
But of course You went Googling for "Churchill Manitoba"..."EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING" and found a Tourist blog...
You know, it`s not as people who live in Churchill Manitoba don`t write blogs...only You`l never find these with they way you look for "information"...You need "information" that suits Your stupidity...

So lets see what people who actually live here have to say and compare that with Your "Global Warming Expert" You found after looking all day for it..:


Tom Nelson: Stupid polar bears: Off the ice since July 15 and still fat, they refuse to cooperate with the warmists


> Stupid polar bears: Off the ice since July 15 and still fat, they refuse to cooperate with the warmists
> [November 18, 2010]: Late Hudson Bay ice imperils polar bears -  News - MSN CA
> 
> While a recent aerial survey of 333 polar bears along the bay's western coast showed the bears to be in good condition, conservationists worry the animals' good health will deteriorate quickly if ice does not form in the next few weeks.
> ...



*Fuck off You asshole*

* Churchill Manitoba is my back Yard* and I do know what`s going on in my own back Yard..*.what the fuck are You trying to pull here?*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 29, 2011)

I guess in Churchill we`ld have an opportunity like no  where else to get rid of assholes that write nonsense like that, 
All it takes is  a few high power rifles, ..and provide something for the bears to snack on while they are waiting to eat seal.
This is even more ridiculous what the Siearra Club writes about Iqaluit...and after that it`s on CNN.. and none of them ever even been there...
"Eskimos are forced to eat at McDonalds instead of raw seal meat, because the ice is too thin"
Any hoaxter can write anything he wants about "Global Warming" + the Hudson Bay, Iqaluit or Greenland without ever even having to bother going there and countless Media Channels crown him instantly as an "arctic expert"  and publish crap like that, so that assholes like "OldRocks" have something to quote. .
All they need is one single weather forecast with the words "above normal" and that is then all the "proof" they need  for "global warming"

People who actually live there can supply Temperature readings every day all Year long how cold it really is or has been for their entire life, but then it`s called "the (local) weather" and we don`t understand the concept of "climate change".

What`s there to understand about this concept?
*It`s exactly the same concept telephone fraudsters have used decades long  before this scam showed up on RADAR
*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 29, 2011)

Rocks thinks everything pro-alarmist is genuine............never gives it a second thought that it MIGHT be a cherry picked comment.

He criticizes folks for not living out in the wilderness, but let me tell you something, people who live in the middle of nowhere just arent exposed to being bamboozled, thus, they trust whatever the fcukk comes along. Its called being naive..........typical when you hail from places like Scratchthegroinville USA and spend half your life talking to the trees in the woods from 9-5. You dont pick up on the social dynamic like people in the real world............c'mon...........doesnt take a real scientist to figure that out.


Polar Bear is out there SEEING the shit in real time. Rocks is taking the word of some shitforbrains doing a fcukking flyover. I'll take the guy's word whos there.........not to mention, Polar's passion comes out of the absurdity of the whole engineered snow job. Rocks just despises anybody who's had success in life..........hates the capitalist. THATS his passion.........its clearly evident in his posts. When you're a miserable fcukk, the only place you can hold a job is in the middle of the fcukking forest.........not exactly a premium on social skills uness you are an ent.


LOL........Rocks proably thinks the Sierra Club is about saving nature!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 29, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Heading Toward a Record Setting Year for Hudson Bay : Wildlife Promise
> ...


Are you going to believe your own lying eyes or him?  I mean really.  Your own eyes?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 29, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Of course You have no way of knowing this, because all You have is what You get with Your slanted sense of reality...You Google for something about Churchill Manitoba +global warming and the first thing You would find is this blog...and after that every New York "arctic expert" on Churchill Manitoba found that blog...quoted it and blew it up even more...and the proof is in the pudding..!
> churchill temperature november 2010 - Google Search
> 
> *Not a single one, ever even bothered to check an actual Churchill MB  weather report for Churchill for November 2010*
> ...



It's even worse than that.

Poeople with political agendas, like environmentalist/gullible warming moonbats, pay Google to rank their sites higher than the hits they naturally draw.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

My, my, BiPolar, what a bunch of ditto heads you have developed. Better get your own radio show.

However, this site tells the tale. You poor mentally challeged fool.

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps


----------



## Oddball (Mar 29, 2011)

Arctic Basin Full Of Thick Ice In 2011 | Real Science


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 29, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Arctic Basin Full Of Thick Ice In 2011 | Real Science






Rocks..............listen up s0n............

For anybody looking in on this thead, you're getting pwned in epic fashion. Perhaps you just like being a cheerleader for the k00ks, but to the standard curious blogger, your shit doesnt resonate anymore. Its not 2006 when you had the wind in your sails...........

If people were so convinced of your "science" vs the stuff posted by Polar Bear, Cap and Trade woud be the law of the land. Its the hard facts s0n............when all is said and done............

*YOU LOSE*


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks- I wonder what the world would have thought back in 1921 when the ice pulled back so far that the landmarks were unrecognizable? of course we didnt have 30 minute news cycles or even TV much less a frame of mind that sees catastrophe in every weather event and fevered imaginations that portray exaggerated climate models as 'data'.

its odd that the 'legitimate' ice records dont match up with the newspaper accounts of the time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Care to link to studies of that by scientists, not the Limpbaughs of that day?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, BiPolar, what a bunch of ditto heads you have developed. Better get your own radio show.
> 
> However, this site tells the tale. You poor mentally challeged fool.
> 
> Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps











[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyBwI-YHPA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyBwI-YHPA[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Arctic Basin Full Of Thick Ice In 2011 | Real Science



Lordy, lordy, the dumb fucks are always with us

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Can't handle the truth at all, can you, BiPolar.


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Can't handle the truth at all, can you, BiPolar.







Polarbear lives the truth, you're the one who can't handle it.  Lets look a little further into the report shall we?  We find this.....

"As of March 22, ice extent has declined for five straight days. However there is still a chance that the ice extent could expand again. Sea ice extent in February and March tends to be quite variable, because ice near the edge is thin and often quite dispersed. The thin ice is highly sensitive to weather, moving or melting quickly in response to changing winds and temperatures, and it often oscillates near the maximum extent for several days or weeks, as it has done this year. 

Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, the maximum Arctic sea ice extent has occurred as early as February 18 and as late as March 31, with an average date of March 6."

So here we are almost out of March.......sure beats the hell out of February doesn't it?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Can't handle the truth at all, can you, BiPolar.



How did You get so screwed up? 
You don`t even live in the real world any more and have become totally socially dysfunctional...You are not retired and claim in Your profile You are a millwright in Seattle...or did You change that recently..
and yet You sit all day long in front of Your PC and Google garbage for Your posts here.
I`m retired, yet I don`t just sit all day long in front of a PC and try find out about the  WORLD from Google.
Sometimes though I don`t have anything better to do, like today for example...
Outside everything is still snow and ice...so my friends in Germany and I, e-mail each other little videos...
My plan for this afternoon was to "spring clean" the house...but then as it turned out my wife and Melvin`s wife (the cook from CFS Alert) had all that arranged already behind my back...
Now if You`ld "research" Canadian Indians on Google You get all sorts of crap...none of it matches up with REAL WORLD Indians, no more than what You Google regurgitate about Canada`s arctic...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEyoKBgNVKc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEyoKBgNVKc[/ame]

*Fuck get off Your armchair and taste the real world, it`s not nearly as ugly as the Google picture You use as a substitute!
It`s the exact opposite
*

*I`m not an expert and never have qualified as a judge in a beauty contest, but that`s what I believe*
Come visit me some day, I won`t bite and neither would Cheyenne....My "all guests are welcome" picture below is for climate change "experts",...not the fools who believe them...but don`t forget to bring long johns, woolen socks and a parka

You probably "Google earthed" my back yard and will tell me I`m a liar, because it showed no snow and ice...
Well today was March 29...I don`t know what Google has You seeing in my yard, but the facts on the ground looked like this, "the truth I can`t handle" as You put it
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbXxYzjuLY4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbXxYzjuLY4[/ame] 
Maybe You should get a "Google Earth account" with the CIA, they can zoom in a lot better in  "real time mode"so You can keep a better eye on me and what *REALLY goes on in my back yard*
I`m trying all sorts of things to melt this shit in my yard...maybe they weren`t hot enough?
Could You handle my real world?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2011)

Polar bro......environmental k00ks like Old Rocks are literally romanced by living in the realm of idealist speculation. Think about any far left  guy you know.........they reject ANY and ALL information if it confronts their ideology. It is the liberal mind. For nutballs like Chris and Old Rocks, your information is daunting to the point of seriously shaking the mental status..........such is their obsession. Tell me you cant see these people coming in the door after work, ripping off their coats and passing up a visit to the john to fire up their PC to get on here and defend their k00k position!!!! Its a mental disorder............but I must admit, I do gain much satisfaction in coming in here for a cup of coffee and decimating their shit. Torturing k00ks is definately a hobby for me.............publically humiliating those who navigate life with horse blinders on their face every day.......

Would love to see how long limpwristers like Chris and Old Rocks last in the environment you live in!!


----------



## CoolBreeze (Mar 30, 2011)

And it is all because of the cows putting all of that green house gas into the air.  No more ice ice fishing, What will I do in the winter?


----------



## Chris (Mar 30, 2011)

At its peak this winter, Arctic Ocean ice covered the smallest area since satellites started measuring it in 1979, researchers report.

Arctic sea ice probably reached its maximum extent for the year on March 7, at 5.65 million square miles, according to the University of Colorado-Boulder&#8217;s National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That figure was 463,000 square miles (about the size of South Africa) less than the 1979-2000 average of 6.12 million square miles, and was about the same as in the winter of 2006, the center reported.

At its end-of-summer minimum in September, Arctic sea ice extent was the third-lowest since 1979.

Sea ice extent is the primary measure for assessing the condition of the ice cover, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The NOAA website has a time-lapse video showing how sea ice fluctuates and moves during winter.

&#8220;I&#8217;m not surprised by the new data because we&#8217;ve seen a downward trend in winter sea ice extent for some time now,&#8221; National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Walt Meier told Science Daily.

The seven lowest measurements of end-of-winter sea ice have been recorded in the last seven years, he told Science Daily.

Arctic ice at winter peak is least ever measured by satellite &#8211; This Just In - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2011)

Chris said:


> At its peak this winter, Arctic Ocean ice covered the smallest area since satellites started measuring it in 1979, researchers report.
> 
> Arctic sea ice probably reached its maximum extent for the year on March 7, at 5.65 million square miles, according to the University of Colorado-Boulders National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> 
> ...






Extent may be less but thickness is dramatically increasing.  Also they claim lowest extent since 1979 but that seems to be untrue.  Lowest extent I can find was 2007.  This year was greater then that year.  But the thickness is really amazing.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 30, 2011)

I'd love some of that fucking global warming right now in the Twin Cities, MN.  I'm sick of the snow and ice we have down here and would like the women to stop wearing parkas for the first time since SEPTEMBER!!!

7th snowiest all time recorded, and although not the coldest, it won't fucking go away!


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

Arctic Ice March 2011

The image below, taken from the March 02 2011 NASA MODIS Arctic Mosaic, shows the state of the ice in Baffin Bay and nearby regions.  From my historical researches, I would say that this is the sort of ice distribution that explorers in the 19th century might have considered fairly unremarkable - but at the end of July, not the beginning of March.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

Thickness increasing? Really?

PIOMAS | Hot Topic

Somebody is full of shit.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Would love to see how long limpwristers like Chris and Old Rocks last in the environment you live in!!



About 2 New York seconds.



Big Fitz said:


> I'd love some of that fucking global warming right now in the Twin Cities, MN.  I'm sick of the snow and ice we have down here and would like the women to stop wearing parkas for the first time since SEPTEMBER!!!
> 
> 7th snowiest all time recorded, and although not the coldest, it won't fucking go away!



Hey I sympathize, we go shopping there for some of the stuff they don`t stock in Manitoba. Where You live it`s not much "warmer" than where I live.
Were You hoping just like us, that You could trade in Your hockey stick for Golf clubs in the Spring ever since the "Hockey Stick Temp Graph" was published..Boy oh boy did they let us down. I bet You`ll be playing ice hockey almost as long as us guys in Manitoba.



Chris said:


> At its peak this winter, Arctic Ocean ice covered the smallest area since satellites started measuring it in 1979, researchers report.
> 
> Arctic sea ice probably reached its maximum extent for the year on March 7, at 5.65 million square miles, according to the University of Colorado-Boulder&#8217;s National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> ...National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Walt Meier told Science Daily.
> ...



See, that`s exactly what I was talking about. An "expert" who who is watching satellite pictures, which focus on the Nares Strait, because that`s where the "Global Warming" fodder is...!!! But all the other NASA data which shows how the ice has been building up in other areas of Greenland does not interest him, nor CNN, nor the bloggers You quote..
*Chris, don`t take their word as the gospel truth*

Chris, there are several reasons why they focus on that area of Greenland, if You were to go there Yourself You would see right away why..It has the steepest slopes and therefore the highest calving action. Atmospheric temperature has nothing to do with it.
The water temperature all around this area has been constant also and always has been warmer than anywhere else in the arctic. I have to admit I have not been up there in 2011 but I doubt any of that has changed since I`ve been there
Taking water temperatures and salinity readings is part of our job up there, but I doubt that the Navy will publish this data, because it was meant for "sub-drivers" that  navigate through there on the way to the Dock in Thule and then hide under the polar ice.
But this should help to calm You down...Your house will not get flooded by our "melting ice"..:


> The surface waters of the North Atlantic have a higher salinity than those of any other ocean, reaching values exceeding 37 parts per thousand in latitudes
> Near the Equator, precipitation dominates and surface salinities of about 35 parts per thousand are encountered


In all fairness I won`t leave this out, but like "OldRocks" I should have, because it does not fit "my oil lobby agenda"...:


> At increasingly higher latitudes, precipitation again becomes greater than evaporation, and, correspondingly, the surface salinity decreases in large areas to values less than 34 parts per thousand.


*That is only half true* when You go as far North as where Greenland is. Because ..
1.) there hardly ever is any precipitation and if there is it comes down as snow and BUILDS up the Glaciers..it sure as hell does not rain very often there.
And...
 2.) The SURFACE salinity* at the SOUTHERN (Greenland)  TIP ONLY is lower* because of the glacier calving in that area...not because "it rains"
Take a look at the Atlantic ocean currents, they have not changed, but I think it might help you understand why that area of Greenland and Ellesmere Island is "warm"..:




What is missing in this picture is how the southern Greenland tip gouges into this current and the "eddie action" goes up half way the Nares Strait between Ellesmere and Greenland. After all there were reasons why the earliest arctic explorer vessels which were`nt "ice breakers" by any stretch of imagination navigated up the Nares as far as they could ride this warm water current..and got as far as Fort Conger way back in 1876. They were in striking distance to reach the North Pole, but that`s as far as they got, after that the climate on both sides of the Nares gets brutally cold and they all died right there








The line where You get blocked by ice is today also exactly where it was back then in 1876. *That`s all stuff You cant` see by satellite..like the huts where the crew of the HMS Discovery died, and the tree stumps of the forests that grew there who knows how many 1000`s of years ago.*

Even if hell freezes over  Michael Mann won`t  write a blog about it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







I have yet to see a CNN report on Fort Conger, Tree Stumps near the pole etc etc..But they do "reports" on Iqaluit natives "having to eat @ McDonalds, instead of raw seal meat...because the ice is too thin"...
My God, has aside from us up there never seen seal on the shores?...Polarbears know,that seals don`t just hang out, way out the ice sheets...
they hang out where the fish they want to eat are!
And any starving Iqaluit native could shoot seal without getting off his couch, if he`d quit playing video games or watch TV...all You have to do is look out the window...We stop in Iqaluit almost every time on our way back from Ellesmere and Thule to AFB Trenton, when we get to go on 6 months leave.
*I know what is going on in Iqaluit! * You can trip over seal on solid land

California golden seal don`t need any ice...:




and neither do arctic seal, but they have it...
 all along the shore there in Iqualuit...the seals hang out like that too, ice or no ice...and no matter if it`s a polar bear or an Eskimo, they could bag one any tme they wanted to
there are a lot  polar bears which refuse to leave Churchill and go out on the ice...because they find it easier to eat in the Churchill dump...instead of hunting for food...Wild Life officers have to "dart" them and transport them by helicopter out on the ice sheet...
*As You know that is problem with wildlife and especially with bears, they  behave like that EVERYWHERE else too,...!*
Coyotes, same thing. I had to be in L.A. for a while and then there was a problem with Coyotes in the back-lanes raiding garbage cans..
*Nobody in LA *said the Coyotes  are doing this because "they are starving" 
once they found a dump, You can`t get them away from it any more...same as trying to get Iqaluit Eskimos to stay away from McGreaseburgers, once they are in town
You don`t have to live in the arctic to know that...! 
Nevertheless, the GW`ers * got lots of  mileage *out of the "starving polar bears" and the "starving Inuit"
*Use Your head Chris...I know You have one...**Mathew used it*
But it`s up to You which version You prefer about the Greenland glaciers and the Lincoln sea ice sheet


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

*What is missing in your thermohaline belt cartoon is that it simply does not exist in that form. *

OS13H


----------



## polarbear (Mar 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Thickness increasing? Really?
> 
> PIOMAS | Hot Topic
> 
> Somebody is full of shit.



CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

Canadians know a little bit more about *their own climate, and their ice, than You or Your "experts" ever will*
i know, I know, the CBC and the BBC does not count because we sell 60% of the oil the U.S. imports and the British have BP petroleum drilling off shore rigs along both U.S. coasts..that makes us CO2 conspirators in You weird world


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Thickness increasing? Really?
> 
> PIOMAS | Hot Topic
> 
> Somebody is full of shit.






Yes, that would be you doofus.  Your article is from Oct 18 and references data collected up to two years before.  Great timliness there!


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2011)

Chris said:


> At its peak this winter, Arctic Ocean ice covered the smallest area since satellites started measuring it in 1979, researchers report.
> 
> Arctic sea ice probably reached its maximum extent for the year on March 7, at 5.65 million square miles, according to the University of Colorado-Boulder&#8217;s National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> 
> ...





This knucklehead sending me PMs "Your crap is growing tiresome". What a fcukking weenie..........

Meanwhile, how many times does somebody post up the same lame crap as this nutball?


*Its the same shit all the time.* 


But my crap is growing tiresome!!!


s0n.....you are one boring mofu. You need to join a glee club or something.......take the mind off of this mindless science crap nobody cares abut..........


----------



## polarbear (Mar 30, 2011)

Chris, I am not a pompous ass trying to impress You with how rigorous background
checks are before You get sec.clear. to serve at SAC Thule and at Milstar downlink
sites on Ellesmere, but they don`t hand these out to bullshitters!
So, trust me, I am not trying to bullshit You, I`m only trying to tell You what the real
facts on the ground are...You can`t find these with Google or cherry picked Satellite pictures.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZiYkhw_7hU]YouTube - Global warming trees.wmv[/ame]
*Anyhow, if You think I`m lying in this video here about the largest growth rings were
~ the time of Attila The Hun and then got smaller further out in these
trees which I showed to my friends from Germany ....I`ll ask them first if it`s Okay with
them...and `ll give You all 6 e-mail addresses,....*
Everyone from Germany who`s been here *and REALLY looked* knows what kind of crap this M.Mann tree growth ring computer model temperature curve is...
I`d like to see Al Gore shit his pants if every time he unpacks a sandwich to have a
bite, bears come out of the woods and want Your sandwich...
as if a jerk who rides in bullet proof limos would ever venture out to see for himself.
A lot of other Americans would love too, but they are stuck at their place of employment
to feed the N.R.S.  and they don`t have 6 Month vacation stretches like I did...
So I  ventured out and I am happy to share this stuff with them...
So, when they do get some time off they know where to have the good times they
well deserved. You don`t have to hug trees to be one with nature You know..?
I know  Westwall  has been over a lot of the same country I have been and on one occasion both of us are pretty sure, I bumped into his college up at Muncho Lake/ Yukon Territories.
*Fuck Disneyland...and "Google Earth" go out there into the REAL WORLD  and
ENJOY IT...!!!
*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

*From the Geological Survey of Canada.*

Permafrost - Permafrost and Climate Change

The Western NWT has experienced over the last century the greatest increase in air temperatures in all of Canada (1.7°C). Much of permafrost is at temperatures very close to the melting point of ice, and processes triggered by thawing ground ice are sensitive to warming, particularly where ice contents are high and the potential for soil instability upon thaw exists. The interaction between climate above and below the ground is complex, and dependent on several factors, many of which may also be affected by global change.

Much of the area of discontinuous permafrost is already in disequilibrium with the current climate and is still responding to changes of the last century. Permafrost is dynamic and will respond if climate continues to change as anticipated in the years and decades to come. The GSC has established a network of study sites in the Mackenzie Valley for monitoring the impact of climate change on ground temperatures and the active layer. This research will improve our understanding of permafrost-climate interaction and our capability to predict permafrost response to future climate change. However, it must be completed by a clearer understanding of how processes such as sediment transport in rivers, slope failure, and ground subsidence will also be affected by climate change. This understanding is necessary for the proper development and design of infrastructures in the North. 

In response to concerns about the effects of global climate warming, the Mackenzie Valley is one of three regions selected for the GSC's "Integrated Research and Monitoring Area" (IRMA) program. The objective of this program is to identify regions of Canada with geologic conditions or processes especially sensitive to climate warming and to determine the response of these conditions and processes to this change. Specifically, the purpose of the Mackenzie IRMA is to reconstruct the climate since the end of the Laurentide Ice Age (~ 13,000 yrs. BP) based on the relationship between climate and vegetation, to produce maps of permafrost and ground ice distribution, and to determine the sensitivity of landscape-altering processes to climate warming. The Mackenzie Valley IRMA report is a synthesis of information about permafrost in the Mackenzie Valley.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

*Well now, it certainly looks like some Canadian Scientists are a bit worried about the warming of the Arctic.*

Permafrost - Communities and Climate Change

1. Outlining infrastructure, surficial geology, and permafrost for two northern case study communities 

This project compiled a summary of infrastructure and existing geotechnical and permafrost data for the selected northern communities, Norman Wells and Tuktoyaktuk. Infrastructure data includes foundation and construction type, maintenance history and performance. Surficial geology, geotechnical and permafrost conditions in each community are assessed through a survey of surficial deposits, borehole stratigraphy, geotechnical studies, ground ice and ground temperatures, primarily from existing data. A generic review of foundation problems related to permafrost was initiated in order to help identify and implement the most appropriate response strategies related to climate change impacts. This has resulted in the compilation of a summary report for each community outlining present infrastructure, surficial geology, and permafrost conditions. 

The entire digital database and borehole viewers are published as GSC Open File 3912. 

2. Assessment of the sensitivity of northern infrastructure to climate change impacts 

This phase of the project attempted in a rational way to assess the sensitivity of permafrost-affected infrastructure to current climate trends and to future climate change scenarios. This utilized thermal modeling in combination with an evaluation of geotechnical data to assess the potential impact of thawing in both the continuous and discontinuous permafrost zones. The combination of permafrost modelling and geotechnical evaluation provided a methodological framework for assessing foundation performance and the potential for problematic ground conditions at the community level. This framework, building upon the screening process of Bush et al, (1998), provided the opportunity to expand research on infrastructure, permafrost and climate change scenarios to other northern communities.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

*More news from Canada.*

Melting permafrost threatens Arctic housing projects - CTV News

Date: Sunday Jun. 20, 2010 12:52 PM ET

MONTREAL &#8212; An Arctic community that has seen its fire hall sink and roads buckle in the melting permafrost is now shifting future building projects away from town. 

The effect of vanishing permafrost -- soil normally frozen year round -- is now being felt across Canada's North, and the Quebec village of Salluit is just one of many Arctic towns trying to adapt to an increasingly warmer climate. 

Rising temperatures are being blamed for natural disturbances in the North, such as the rapidly eroding coastline of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., and unprecedented floods that knocked out two bridges in Pangnirtung, Nunavut. 

Salluit even considered relocating the whole town. One of Quebec's northernmost communities, Salluit saw its local fire station sink into the softening ground a year after it opened. 

Across town, paved roads have crumpled, foundations of buildings have cracked and now even summertime grave-digging isn't what it used to be.

.................................................................................................................

He says the region has seen extreme weather patterns in the last decade -- including warmer summers and shorter winters that barely see temperatures dip below -30 C when they've been known in the past to hit -60 C with the windchill. 

The brief winter last year shortened the window of opportunity for local hunters to reach caribou herds, impacting the local way of life. 

"Salluit has had to order out for food from other communities that have (meat) because of the early thaw and late freeze-up," Okituk said of game shipments that arrived through a hunter-support program between northern communities. 

"We enjoyed the good weather. (But) it was too long, because bad weather also brings in good stuff, too."


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *From the Geological Survey of Canada.*
> 
> Permafrost - Permafrost and Climate Change
> 
> ...







Oh looky here another example of oltrakrfrauds wonderful sense of timliness!  A 2007 update of a *1996* study Wow, oltrakarfraud is right on top of the current research there!


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well now, it certainly looks like some Canadian Scientists are a bit worried about the warming of the Arctic.*
> 
> Permafrost - Communities and Climate Change
> 
> ...





Oh looky here another example of oltrakrfrauds wonderful sense of timliness! A 2007 update of a *2000 *study Wow, oltrakarfraud is right on top of the current research there!


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *More news from Canada.*
> 
> Melting permafrost threatens Arctic housing projects - CTV News
> 
> ...






Finally a more current story, however they jump to a conclusion without bothering to check if maybe the fact the building they built on the permafrost was warm might have had an effect on the ice below....nah, that's too logical, we have to blame GW.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *More news from Canada.*
> 
> Melting permafrost threatens Arctic housing projects - CTV News






The very page he`s trying to stick into my face because it`s of Canadian origin concludes..:
Permafrost - Permafrost and Climate Change


> *General circulation models* predict that, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic sources, mean annual air temperatures *may rise* up to several degrees over much of the Arctic
> *An assessment of the impact of climate change on permafrost is necessary in order to determine ......*



And as usual he serves it up as if it was a done deal...
*And all it really was..., this is a preliminary application*  for  yet another  Global warming "research" Government grant ...
That`s the procedure in Canada, first You have to outline Your project and then You apply for the buck$$$$

Fuck, how can You lie like that...posting that stuff here as some sort of "proof" for the crap You preach here

And now he is the "expert" on the NWT...
Yesterday it was the Hudson Bay...and the "experts" he quoted on that one, I showed his post (a copy & paste) to some folks in Churchill, .... It might even make the Newspapers in a few days, something about how unbelievably ignorant people from down south  can be.....
like having some dingbat from a U.S. wildlife club "informing" the world about ice conditions in the Hudson Bay, while standing right next to inlet where the Nelson River empties into Hudson Bay, draining all that..:





[/quote]
And the ice or the absence of depends more on how much power the US demands from all the huge H.E. dam-chain along the Nelson, which in turn determines how much warm water floods  into the Bay...while even in July...like the shot from my video shows there is still ice out in the Bay and on land at the *height of Summer 2010, same as my friends noticed 20 years earlier when they flew over it also in July*







> Earth Snapshot &#8226; Nelson River Emptying Sediments into Hudson Bay, Canada &#8211; July 22nd, 2010*-hudson-bay-canada-july-22nd-2010*/



And today the same  Fuckhead starts yapping as if car exhaust is melting the permafrost in the NWT, because a few  left thread wing-nuts want a federal Government grant to "study" the permafrost in the NWT presumably with a dip stick and a 7 digit budget...

Just as with the Hudson Bay these areas marked in red by these dip sticks get flooded with a *river draining an even larger area that the Nelson*:




Has nothing to do with "global warming"* but the exact OPPOSITE.*..the more snow & ice there was during the winter the more flooding there will be in the summer.
this fraudster picks a few words he needs and left all the other "minor details" off his quote..:


> *This research will improve our understanding of permafrost-climate interaction *and our capability to predict permafrost response to future climate change. However, it must be completed by a clearer understanding of how processes such as sediment transport in rivers,



Ignorance & stupidity is one thing, but this bastard hiding behind this user-name OldRocks is a despicable liar and fraudster to boot...
*altering  applications* for research grants to "a study by Canadian scientists concluded"

You`ll find a lot more of these applications in the near future, because this kind of "research" and "science" has been getting the axe and has become a political liability..
the gravy train for this easy money is over and Government research grants are going back into real science...at least in Canada
Here AGAIN is what was CONCLUDED BY OFFICIAL STUDIES  ABOUT THE PERMAFROST...it`s in the same video, You don`t want to see:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

This video is from the* CBC Canada,* I know You don`t know, because You know fuck all about Canada...CBC stands for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation...


*It is a Crown Corporation, that means it`s run by THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT...You Bozo !*

As if the Canadian Government would go public, stating on National Television that Global Warming is a fraud and then as You claim "confirm what OldRocks" found on the Internet *with a Government study...which they will certainly not fund..!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *
*You are not only a fraud, a liar but also a total psychopath*
and* retarded Psychos *ought not even be on the loose


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

Hmmm.......

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

*Seems not everybody in Canada is thrilled about the tar sands.*

http://www.rsc.ca/documents/expert/RSC report complete secured 9Mb.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

*In situ study of the effects of the warming in the Arctic.*

http://people.trentu.ca/chrisfurgal...avik and Labrador_The Earth is Faster Now.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND INUIT HEALTH: PERSPECTIVES ON DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM NAIN AND KUUJJUAQ
As seen from the many direct statements of residents of Nain, Labrador and Kuujjuaq, Nunavik, Inuit in these regions are observing various changes in the climate, weather, environment, flora and fauna, and the effects of such changes on their health, way of life, and relationship with the land. According to the World Health Organization (1967), health includes aspects of physical, mental and social well-being and is not simply the absence of disease. In the holistic Inuit vision of health, the well-being of individuals and communities is tied to the land and sea. Thus, changes in the land, weather, and sea reported here affect individual and community health and well-being in a variety of ways.

A number of direct impacts of climate related changes on health were reported by residents of the two communities surveyed in this project. In this sense we refer to &#8220;direct impacts&#8221; as those health consequences resulting from direct interactions with aspects of the environment that have / are changing with changes in local climate (i.e. resulting from direct interactions with physical characteristics of the environment: air, water, ice, land; e.g. exposure to thermal extremes). They included such things as: difficulties in dealing with heat and cold stress; alleviation of cold stress due to warmer winters; the dangers associated with travel and time on the land considering unpredictable
27
weather patterns and ice conditions; and, reports of increased incidences of sun burns and rashes as a result of increased sun intensity. Accounts of direct impacts varied within and between communities in the two regions involved in this study. The larger study we conducted utilized these reports, in concert with projected potential impacts gleaned from the scientific literature and discussion with environmental health experts, to develop a list of potential direct health impacts from climate change in the two regions (Table 5).


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2011)

Rocks........you're so fcukking stupid its beyond real.

For people coming into this forum and trying to size things up, you look like a total fcukking imposter...........posting up your canned internet shit like an EPA agent. In the "Who looks like they know what they are talking about?" game, YOU LOSE!!! ( oh.....except of course, for the already committed religious environmental numbs)


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2011)

Polar............dude, if it makes you feel a bit better, this asshole Old Rocks is a miserable fcukk who is a loser in life and has spent the last 20 years looking for somebody to blame. Like most k00k lefties, he ends up blaming capitalism, thus, he loaths anybody who has been successful due to our capitalistic system. Rocks made loser personal decisions in his life and now lives in the middle of nowhere, using this forum as an escape from his lot in life. If you go over to the POLITICS forum and see his posts, they are steeped in jealousy and rage. What makes him more happy than anything else? Seeing successful people get fcukked over.


Bottom line Polar? Old Rocks is a fringe asshole..........maybe 5% of Americans think like he does. Knowing that is why I can come in here and have so much fun as my way of thinking represents at least 40% of Americans. He'll go in his box a miserable mofu still angry at the world for having fcukked him..............which is exactly why I love coming in here and publically humiliating his ass and practically crying with laughter each time I click the POST REPLY button. Posting up my gay MSPaint Photobucket Classics is a fcukking hoot!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

Poor Kookybill, he has only idiocy to contribute.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 31, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Polar............dude, if it makes you feel a bit better, this asshole Old Rocks is a miserable fcukk who is a loser in life and has spent the last 20 years looking for somebody to blame. Like most k00k lefties, he ends up blaming capitalism, thus, he loaths anybody who has been successful due to our capitalistic system. Rocks made loser personal decisions in his life and now lives in the middle of nowhere, using this forum as an escape from his lot in life. If you go over to the POLITICS forum and see his posts, they are steeped in jealousy and rage. What makes him more happy than anything else? Seeing successful people get fcukked over.
> 
> 
> Bottom line Polar? Old Rocks is a fringe asshole..........maybe 5% of Americans think like he does. Knowing that is why I can come in here and have so much fun as my way of thinking represents at least 40% of Americans. He'll go in his box a miserable mofu still angry at the world for having fcukked him..............which is exactly why I love coming in here and publically humiliating his ass and practically crying with laughter each time I click the POST REPLY button. Posting up my gay MSPaint Photobucket Classics is a fcukking hoot!!!



Thanks,...I think it was You that told me a few days ago that this guy would not last long where I am...and so right you are. Where I live everything is based on mutual trust in each other`s honesty and we don`t dial 911 very often, but rather deal with the problem ourselves. I`m not all for it, but sometimes that means that choice assholes get a potato sack pulled over their head and a well deserved licking.
A few guys handle the potato sack and we leave the rest up to our women to teach assholes what they deserved...it`s an old Indian custom.
Too bad "OldRocks" did not take me up on the invite...
Maybe now, that he knows the procedure he will, he strikes me as one of these pervs that enjoy getting a whooping from a bunch of girls.
It`s not so much what he writes here that bugs me so much. What bugs me is that these 5% or less damage the reputation of Americans all too often.
In my off duty time...after I got older I drove heavy long haul all over the U.S. , always preferred the back roads because You eat a lot better if You stop for food there...and I made a lot of friends in a lot of little towns, in other words I know many "Jo the Plumbers" and people of all walks of life...
Same thing where I served we worked side by side with the U.S. Military and the cameraderie is very tight.
Unfortunately some European news papers have nothing better to do than scavenge the Internet for "php" garbage just like what this dumb ass keeps writing, and cheap shit leftist tabloid papers in Europe exploit it to the fullest..!!!!!!!!!
And in political discussion forums these papers also have,  the U.S.A. and main stream Americans are portrayed....I don`t even want to tell You any examples..., because if I were You, I`d write my Congressman to send B-52`s to Andrea Merkel`s neo-communist Germany...*anyway stuff like this garbage is used over there for maximum political mileage*
This Merkel **** just spent a piss-pot full of money on a "computer model" how the contrails of scheduled domestic flights contribute to "Global Warming"...the "results" were released last week..The plan is to shut down all intra European commuter flights and force people on these I.C.E. trains that were foisted on Europeans nearly bankrupting all of Europe, same as this Windmill Grid, which as it turns out now can`t be used as a power grid at all.

Mark my word now...once this bitch Merkel is sunk, the end of this IPCC crap will follow soon. She lost 2 recent key elections big time..and even lost the last federal election...then stayed in power by forming a coalition...and now she is preparing to form another coalition with the "green party" who are openly communist ...well that`s where her roots are anyway...Top graduate of the Soviet Propaganda and Agitation Academy
and began her political career in Communist East Germany...then usurped her way to the B.R.D. Chancellors Office after the collapse of the DDR and the U.S.S.R. 

And the horse she kept flogging was this "Global Warming"  fraud...
Aside from outright Communists (the Green Party"  everyone else in Germany wants to get rid of her...any way they can...unfortunately Germans lost the right to possess firearms a long time ago, else I`m pretty sure she`d be dead and planted for some time already 

Merkel`s jaw dropped when the CBC aired that video and again more so as more and more Americans are discovering how fraudulent this crap is...she has actually created a department for the sole purpose to collect this kind of garbage in php`s especially those written by "a majority of Americans and the opinions they express" like the 5% or so  of assholes we are talking about just now...
Of course "OldRocks" will follow this up immediately and "prove" he represents 95% of Americans.






Pretty soon You`ll see posters like that on Lufthansa Jets as well..
Translation...: Billions for bank bail outs and Billions to facilitate the death of our Transport industry
Most European Truckers have this paint job on their trailers today, and bumper sticker versions for cars sell like hot-cakes

Here is that communist whore`s I.C.E. project...and how she rammed it down the throats in Europe..:













The only difference is that during the Soviet era they used tanks, and today she is using high pressure water cannons aimed right into the faces of anyone opposing her

*And that`s why I am so angry about assholes like this guy *behind that handle "OldRocks"...he seems to take delight in making Americans look as stupid as possible *and can`t wait for a United States of America ... Merkel style.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor Kookybill, he has only idiocy to contribute.




Perhaps s0n......but enough idiocy to leave the impression amongst the curious ( non-evnvironmental wingnuts) that at the end of the day on this stuff ( with major contributions from Ian, West and Polar Bear, of course) the epilogue on each thread.............

*Is this...................*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2011)

I love this forum......................


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2011)

Hey......by the way Rocks...........heres another reason your crap is crap..............even if your nutty ass thoery were TRUE!!!


Made in China: Our Toxic, Imported Air Pollution | Pollution | DISCOVER Magazine


Makes your rants on temperatures beyond laughable!!! We're all real sure the rants of the fcukking k00ks like Rocks are going to stop the Chinese in their tracks!!!

If you cant figure it out, you're more of a dumbass than I thought!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2011)

Polar Bear;

Thanks,...I think it was You that told me a few days ago that this guy would not last long where I am...and so right you are. Where I live everything is based on mutual trust in each other`s honesty and we don`t dial 911 very often, but rather deal with the problem ourselves. I`m not all for it, but sometimes that means that choice assholes get a potato sack pulled over their head and a well deserved licking.
A few guys handle the potato sack and we leave the rest up to our women to teach assholes what they deserved...it`s an old Indian custom.
Too bad "OldRocks" did not take me up on the invite...
Maybe now, that he knows the procedure he will, he strikes me as one of these pervs that enjoy getting a whooping from a bunch of girls.
.......................................................................................

So this is your fun and games idiocy, old boy? Can't handle someone on your own, get a few of the boys and make a party of it? Sounds just like the old KKK here. Same kind of cowardice.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Poor Kookybill, he has only idiocy to contribute.
> ...



*OOOOOPS...
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1pEkvUEnVE]YouTube - ooops.wmv[/ame]



skookerasbil said:


> *I love this forum......................:*fu:



Me too..!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 1, 2011)

Polar bro....that was CLASSIC!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 1, 2011)

Hey Polar.....hope you can do up some more of those gems!!! I need some new gay MSPAINT Photobucket classics to post up, illustrating the utter absurdity of the BS threads posted up by Rocks and Chris.

No intention of changing the minds of mental cases, mind you, but simply more fodder to humiliate these k00ks.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Polar.....hope you can do up some more of those gems!!! I need some new gay MSPAINT Photobucket classics to post up, illustrating the utter absurdity of the BS threads posted up by Rocks and Chris.
> 
> No intention of changing the minds of mental cases, mind you, but simply more fodder to humiliate these k00ks.



Are You doing the MSPAINTS..? If You gottem we`ll use`'m ...would be happy to linee`m up as a video.
"OldRocks: is so predictable..I`ve been comparing what he posts with the e-mailers
of the foes of the earth, ....but they say the f-o-e- stand for friends of...something starting with "e"....and in Canada we think the "e" stands for energy...not earth
Against All Energy Anywhere


> *Environmentalists, Greens, Energy and Prosperity
> Against All Energy Anywhere*
> 
> One of the great afflictions of the environmentalists&#8212;Greens&#8212;everywhere is a profound lack of understanding of the role that energy plays in whether a nation prospers or just limps along, barely keeping the lights on.
> ...



Any way we reply all the time to theses "foe"`s  
And I noticed if You plat "sock puppet" with them ans subscribe to their newsletters then "OldRocks" posts are topic by date pretty much the same as the shit  this crackpot site flings.

Global Warming | Friends of the Earth


> Wikileaks: Our suspicions confirmed
> Cables reveal U.S. bullying in climate talks and underplay of tar sands&#8217; environmental impacts
> Just climate treaty held hostage
> 
> ...



I`ll show You what I mean:



> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Seems not everybody in Canada is thrilled about the tar sands.*
> ...




*Coincidence,,,?
*

Global Warming | Friends of the Earth


> Opposition to Keystone XL Pipeline and* Tar Sands Oil* Getting Under Big Oil's Skin
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*We Canadians will send You TOXIC OIL, so watch out guys*
Our plan to flood New York with our polar ice melt is not working, so we thought we`ll try *TO KILL YOU ALL* with some *TOXIC OIL...*
So far almost every lame duck he posted coincides...or with their FAG , sorry I meant FAQ  section...geezus these typos


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2011)

Lovely, two brainless trolls on this board.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 1, 2011)

The arctic ice is thinning? 

Cool. Now I can sail 24/7 in Alaska this year in June.

Which moron was dissing global warming anyway?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 1, 2011)

Polar........the main reason I can have such a fcukking hoot on here is that every post I make...............no matter what............I win!!!

These naive dolts could post up a million links of their BS............the bottom line is, a clear plurality exists that sticks a fork in any legislation that would address the epic fraud ( google RGGI + New Hampshire). Nobody wants to spend a red dime on fighting global warming............EVERY single poll confirms that, thus, with these temperature debates, every time I chime in I envision a dumbass like Old Rocks sitting in a wheelchair ten years from now. contemplating his navel, looking out his window and still seeing guys like me doing long burnouts down the street in gasoline powered late model muscle cars!!! Most times when I click POST REPLY, Im laughing my balls off.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Lovely, two brainless trolls on this board.



Hey.....heres to the brainless who win. 

Think bout it........the left said George Bush was brainless and he served two terms. Then along comes some genius to run the country and he ends up serving just one term.

The brainless are WINNING everywhere you look s0n. Even the real smart "real" scientists arent winning!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely, two brainless trolls on this board.
> ...




Hey skookerasbil, You`re good with MSPAINT...do some cutouts and stuff with these and
then we can make a short video where *all this shit "green energy" and "global warming" fairy tales are really coming from...... *








Obama Flips While Germany Flops on Solar Panels - By Chris Horner - Planet Gore - National Review Online


> Planet Gore
> Obama Flips While Germany Flops on Solar Panels
> 
> Consider Obamas thesis, as stated by the German government to open its effort:
> ...




*And that`s why Merkel needs Obama to do the same thing...
so that she does`nt stand out like a sore thumb*
Climate Change Paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


> Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals
> 
> By Anselm Waldermann
> 
> ...



Americans already got a small tatse how fucked up Merkel`s power grid is..:
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency | Reuters


> *Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency*
> 
> ERCOT said the grid's frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.



Yeah shit happens in the* REAL WORLD.*..but not in their`s..:
Check out their "Bio-fool article..*.holy fuck..*
*First the same Global warming fuckheads DEMANDED Bio-Ethanol, now everybody who humored them is a "Bio-fool"
*....now that it flopped, like almost every engineer said it would..
Like why make "fuel" which takes 3.5 times the energy to make it than it yields...
*But just 8 years ago they gouged out everybodies eyes who said 
*
Energy | Friends of the Earth



> Read the latest news and updates from our energy campaigns below:
> .2011 Biofools Nominees
> 
> Another Biofools Day is swiftly approaching and we need your help to pick out the biggest Fool of the lot!
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

"Under new management", but only in name, because all this crap is indeed post U.S.S.R. soviet propaganda warfare to bring the United States down and every country that embraces the free enterprise system.
After the former communist Germany the "DDR" and the USSR were defeated and bankrupted by an arms race they had no hope in hell to win, they simply changed names and the former East Germany became part of West Germany.
What happened then was the same thing if another communist country almost the same size and number of States as the U.S. suddenly became part or the U.S. and took over most of the seats in the Congress and suddenly someone who was just yesterday a prominent Communist sits in the White House.
And that`s what happened in Europe. It`s not as if the KGB and the Stasi had to go on some sorts of Nurenberg NAZI Trials and were hung...they kept their jobs and still do the same old thing.
And they are pretty good at it...having finished subverting almost all of Europe, now they are starting with the U.S....and that *"Greenhouse Gasses/Global Warming" fucking propaganda lie is the same Trojan horse that brought Europe to it`s knees.
*
This is a very well oiled dis-information machine with well trained people.
There were actually Universities for Dis-information, Propaganda and Agitation and nobody should forget that Andrea Merkel was a top graduate...and long before she usurped herself to the top in today`s Germany she was while East Germany still existed, *a personal friend on a first Name basis with Putin, who was at that time KGB Chief..*. (he speaks fluent German by the way and Merkel also speaks fluent Russian)

And I don`t know how many Americans,* but Obama is one of them * who believe everything *the same batch of graduates of these Propaganda and Agitation Academies  has put out to date, while Merkel now has an even more powerful job that Putin had in the USSR..*.lately they just publish in English, because Europe`s done for.
*Frog soup!
*
Won`t be long and the "friends of" who knows what or who, and every moron environ -mentally ill organization will start quoting the latest brainstorm of* this ex Soviet Propaganda & Agitation machinery:*
Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group



> *Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus*
> 
> * Ulrike Burkhardt
> 
> ...



And a whole lot more buzz word blah blah...
designed to impress morons like "OldRocks"...
But if You take the trouble to read the entire publication and examine what has NOT been built into yet another idiotic global warming "computer model" are the 2 most important principles if You were to make an HONEST assessment just how much Infrared Energy a contrail can prevent from leaving the surface and going back out into space...:
This law does not even exist in this fuckhead computer model..:






and this one doesn`t either...:






*They have Infrared Light Radiation coming and going as if it was coherent LASER light with zero divergence...*

I always thought that the "holocaust physics/math/chemistry" held the world record for defying conventional science...and all that came out of the VERY SAME Propaganda mill as this crap...back then a Soviet Jew Ilya Ehrenburg was Chief Apparatchik of Stalin`s war Propaganda...





*Merkel has made a sacred cow out of him,  "StGB #130"...*
*doubt ANYTHING Stalin and Ilya have said regarding the "holocaust" and in "her Germany" You get a ~ 10 Year prison sentence*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6263103.stm


> Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc.
> 
> Berlin is also set to outline plans to ban Nazi symbols like the swastika,



...something a jewish  fuck like "OldRocks" would also like to see in the U.S. for "GW deniers"...(well he did point it out to me that he is jewish, after I came clean and said I`m a NAZI)
but the next batch of graduates is ambitious and they are about to break the old record with how far You can drive dis-information

*They are not just after Your Car keys, they also want You to scrap all Your jet planes as well and You are supposed to defend the United States with Helium Balloon and  Zeppelin Blimps*
*And last not least freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, as Merkel is hoping to push not just Europe wide*
Did You know, that since she is in power Germany is second only to communist China in censorship...
at least this is what Google has been saying....Germany demands Google to block search results like  no other "free country"

...
don`t believe it...try a few Google searches with the censored Google.de version...Porno, no problemo,* but don`t expect to find any serious web pages that don`t toe the line regarding the 'holocaust" or "gloabal warming:...!!* *they don`t exist in Merkel`s Orwellian world*...*.that fuckers like OldRocks want to import to North America*
http://www.google.de/

*per 10 Google hits per page You get ~ 2 of those EVERY TIME..:*


> Aus Rechtsgründen hat Google 2 Ergebnis(se) von dieser Seite entfernt. Weitere Informationen über diese Rechtsgründe finden Sie unter ChillingEffects.org.
> 
> Aus Rechtsgründen hat Google 1 Ergebnis(se) von dieser Seite entfernt. Weitere Informationen über diese Rechtsgründe finden Sie unter ChillingEffects.org.


Translation...for legal reasons Google had to remove this result from this page
and Google itself posts the link to "ChillingEffectts.org"

http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=850


> German Complaint of Criminal Code Violation



All I did is put in a Name like "Ernst Zudel"...a "holocaust denier" or "Arch Bishop Williamson" a british Bishop who said he doesn`t believe any gas chambers existed...Merkel had the German federal Police issue an arrest warrant for him..if a plane with him on bord ever lands for a stop over in a German airport he is in handcuffs...A BRITISH CITIZEN..!!!!!
Just like it would have been in Communist East Germany or the USSR...and Americans are led to believe this bunch of bastards don`t exist any more...
They are alive and well and have simply changed their costume

*Now why would anybody in their right mind believe this communist whore, that censors information like nobody else?*
Compare that now with M.Mann`s "organziation"...same fucking thing...same censorship, same persecution of dissenters...NO DIFFERENCE, because the threads that move these puppets all lead to the same fucking place
*The M.O. alone should tip everyone off*
I swore an Oath of Loyalty to the U.S. , to the Queen and Canada and I intend to stay true to both.
When I was a kid, every day a "deuce" with American G.I.`s came to my school and seen to it that us kids were fed properly...
and* I will NEVER FORGET THAT AS LONG AS I LIVE! *
*So bastaerd like You "OldRocks" I will fight tooth and nail!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)

Hey Polar.......a year ago, somehow, somebody got a shot of Old Rocks on the maiden voyage of his home made ark..........he takes this GW stuff very seriously!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

Polar Bear;

something a jewish fuck like "OldRocks" would also like to see in the U.S. for "GW deniers"...(well he did point it out to me that he is jewish, after I came clean and said I`m a NAZI)
but the next batch of graduates is ambitious and they are about to break the old record with how far You can drive dis-information
......................................................................................................

*This is the real American back country. Had this group tried to continue with their plans, they would have found just how tough a bunch of cowboys and loggers can be with confronted with the feces that are Nazis. And that area is as close to home for me as any I have lived in.

Care to point out where I said that I was Jewish? Seems that you are pretty much a liar in every detail.*


John Day (Oregon): Neo-Nazis, Go Home - Democratic Underground

In an odd twist of events, the Aryan Nations claims its being discriminated against as their public pronouncement of wanting to move the group from Athol, Idaho to John Day, Oregon has been met with an overwhelmingly negative response. So many people in fact turned out to a public meeting to protest the Aryan Nations looking into buying land in the John Day area that hundreds of people had to be turned away.Paul Mullet, the 36-year-old self-proclaimed leader of the Aryan Nations, says his group has gotten angry e-mails, phone calls and negative publicity from a planned moved to eastern Oregon and he says he doesn&#8217;t understand why.&#8220;I do have this one question to John Day itself. What did we do to anyone in that community?&#8221;




something a jewish fuck like "OldRocks" would also like to see in the U.S. for "GW deniers"...(well he did point it out to me that he is jewish, after I came clean and said I`m a NAZI)
but the next batch of graduates is ambitious and they are about to break the old record with how far You can drive dis-information


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

Hey Kooky, are you a Nazi, also? Or are you just normally insane?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)

Hey Polar.......nutty ass talks of "deniers" like they are some kind of fringe group!!!!

But lets see........if they were, then Cap and Trade would be a slam dunk...........


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)

The k00ks talk about temperatures/glaciers and CO2 on here like they are not at all compatible with politics!!!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey Kooky, are you a Nazi, also? Or are you just normally insane?


You are not up on your own Orwellian "Newspeek" terminology..everyone who is not far enough out in left field is by that definition a "Nazi", Reagan...especially him because he laid a wreath on SS graves in Germany, Bush sr. & jr, Limbaugh, Glen Beck and so on and on..
You not being jewish.?.You posted that Your family fled Germany even before the dawn of the 3rd Reich and it was forbidden to have any German literature in Your home or to speak German. Who else other than jews would do that? Israel`s jews really do what we "Nazis" were accused of and go the extra mile.
Anyway now we are in Your element....discussing personalities, because when it comes to arctic ice, glacier calving, Infrared Absorption, facts on the ground in Greenland and Canada`s arctic  you are way out of your depth.

Don`t matter to me if You want to stray off the subject matter of this thread.
I just had enough of this "bi-polar" crap coming from a lunatick like You, so I let You have a load of the same...pitch you can, but catch.??? clearly not.

How retarded You come off telling someone who has spent most of his working life in the arctic what you think is there is beyond description...
and at the same time You kept posting and re-posting over and over again Your idiotic link
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
John Tyndall ....an expert on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence &#8212;

So this asshole once took a walk up the Weisshorn and that made him an expert on glaciers, and because he was sweating going uphill, your dope head "science" credits him for the discovery of thermodynamics "heat and motion"...
We should go through all Your posts and count how many times You quoted this link.

Everything You do post here is straight from the FAQ section how to bury realists with "GW evidence" smut, including how to switch over to avoid having to acknowledge real evidence to the contrary..everything from being a "oil lobby, liar" to a "red neck" is advised....and posters like You do it, over and over again...:
"Kookbil", "Walleyes" "Bipolar" and countless other name calling...
But the other way around  once someone had enough and reciprocates giving you a taste of Your own medicine You can`t swallow it, so Skookerasbil administered it rectally...

May we can now come back to the main subject here again?
And if a few spinny dopeheads in Canada want to shut down the Tar sands Project exist, what exactly does that have anything to do with what really goes on in the arctic?

That was your typical "FOE / FAQ" response tactic to "prove" that You "know" more about Canada than anyone who actually lives there...

It`s not that anyone could expect from You to stay on course with a scientific debate over glacier calving, Infrared absorption and so on...
In true  FOE  style, you change  any such debate into a mud flinging contest


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

While all You FOE assholes are getting off on personal attacks on retired Presidents who did not do what You wanted them to do and even issued "citizen arrest warrants" , the very science and industry You attack keeps leading us further away from the stone age "OldRocks" wants to return to.
Materialprüfungsamt: Auto-Superakku besteht Leistungstest - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Auto 


> *Auto-Superakku besteht Leistungstest
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They just set a world Record with a 600 kilometer range.
And the emblem on the car, in case You did not notice is the evil Audi emblem, one of FOE`s nightmare  enemies





And the battery was developed in* the same evil Canada which will pipeline TOXIC Tar Sands Oil to Texas refineries* (according to FOE),...actually it`s not really a battery in the conventional sense, but more of an electrolysis chamber and it uses a tank full of charged electrolyte that flows through like a fuel, discharging and the discharged electrolyte is later again re-charged..
That all happened while all You fuckhead tree-hugger assholes were issuing citizens arrest warrants and conducted Your e-mail attacks on Congressmen, car makers, etc etc..
*Show me one shred of evidence what FOE has contributed to Science and Technology, for the benefit of mankind......!!!!! *

This will be so funny to watch You jerks squirm yet again. After having to admit, that the global temps actually went down instead of up, "GW scientists" countered that with Chinese aerosols "reflecting sunlight", to bury all heads in the sand about the low solar activity cycle we just been through..
Now the solar cycle is really picking up steam again, and yes we will get on average warmer..
http://www.spaceweather.com/ 


> X-ray Solar Flares
> 6-hr max: B4 1438 UT Apr02
> 24-hr: B4 0018 UT Apr02
> explanation | more data
> ...


How funny it would be if these electro Audi`s went into mass production, not just with Audi but also world wide...but the new solar cycle keeps raising gloabal temperatures and REALLY starts melting some arctic ice...while CO2 emissions went down
Maybe, just maybe it`s all heading this way....I`m looking forward to it...It`ll be good for another real belly laugh to watch You assholes squirm in Your pissy lie puddles yet again

*Anyway, that`s what we do in Canada  with the money we axed from idiotic "GW research" funding...!* we put it where tax $s earmarked for R&D does some good
And amongst Audi/Porsche/BMW etc engineers You will not find a single one who subscribes to this moron "GW science" either
It would be interesting to tally up the costs like Japan did how much You usless bastards have cost us so far in North America..
http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.com/2011/02/japan-wasted-78-billion-on-global.html


> *Japan Wasted $78 Billion on Global Warming Research *



It`s not just "blog opinion" either check it out...:
http://www.google.com/search?q=japan+%2Bhas+wasted+on+global+warming&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

While assholes like "OldRocks" quote week end visitors to Churchill Manitoba, reporting that he could not see any ice...and  Manitoba Hydro could not hold back any more water from the stupendous  Nelson River flow and simply has to discharge it into the Hudson Bay, lest they flood Manitoba, North Dakota and Minnesota. Manitoba hydro was not aware that some Sierra club fag was there when they dumped out the reservoirs into the Hudson bay...
So what...? 2 day later the bears had their ice and left...so did the fag from the Sierra club reporting on the starving polar bears in Churchill because
of man made GW...
But "OldRocks" quoted him repeatedly "proving" he knows mor abaout Manitoba, Churchill, (where I have family) +the arctic & Greenland and last not least power engineering, while* I have been doing just that *with the Military engineers

While fuckheads like "OldRocks" and FOE keep ranting and spewing email spam, Canada`s power industry sector has been busy to store power in different ways, not just a potential mechanical energy in huge water reservoirs

Without being able to do that, all windmills and solar grids are also totally useless in a REAL WORLD power demand grid.
In the FOE and "GW science" dream world this is supposed to be done by generating stupendous amounts of highly explosive Hydrogen gas and pipeline it throughout America...
The same assholes argue that Nuclear power plants are not save, because they can`t withstand R9 earth quakes...but in their pipe dream world a hydrogen gas pipeline is ayokay.

Merkel actually forced the German Power industry to build a huge Hydrogen Generating Station...when they turned around after having done so, and confronted her with the Hydrogen  pipe line system no one including her wants to take responsibility for it left these facilities they were forced to build useless...so now they use it to make Chlorine Gas instead in never before seen quantities and ship it to China, where it`s used to make CFC`s...! Had Merkel and these Green FOE fuckheads not meddled into Science & Technology + Industrial affairs this fiasco would have never happened.

The U.S. branch of FOE goes on pushing that very same thing in their total ignorance with e-mail campaigns to Congress and the White House...as if Germany had actually built a Hydrogen Gas Pipeline System...as if anybody in their right mind would ever do such a thing, especially in the aftermath of Japan and Chernobyl...the explosions in all cases were Hydrogen Gas explosions

Anyway while the GW and FOE bastards have been lobbying against the evil energy sector, Canada has axed almost all GW "research" and funded some real research to be conducted by the evil energy industry...
now we have a VRB Energy Storage System (VRB-ESS) which can store Mega Watt Hours at a cost of $0.001/kWh ....
*And the R&D was done with a fraction of the money the GW bastards had as semi annual budget*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

@ Skookerasbil, if You think the "Mr.Kidd" video was funny, You ain`t seen nothing yet...
*Get a load of this...this is what "OldRocks" and FOE technology "envisions"...:*
A Clean Energy Future: Available Now | Friends of the Earth


> *A Clean Energy Future: Available Now*
> Sara Schedler, Friends of the Earth&#8217;s Clean Car Program Associate, heads a regional initiative in California to build and promote solar fueling stations for plug-in electric vehicles. This technology is tried and true and available immediately. Electric vehicles are in production and will be on the market by next year. By installing and using solar fueling stations we can wean ourselves off of dirty liquid fuels like oil and biofuels and create near-zero emissions driving



So we are supposed to camp overnight and wait for the sun to come out to "re-fuel" our cars ...someone should actually make a video for Yutube about all their hairbrained ideas.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2011)

Sarah Schedler has a plate in her head.............


----------



## polarbear (Apr 2, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Sarah Schedler has a plate in her head.............



Progress report from Skookerasbil video productions studios...
A joint American Canadian venture to combat stupidity and ignorance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRd6q0YwswQ]YouTube - Green Technology.wmv[/ame]

Do You approve?


----------



## Chris (Apr 2, 2011)

On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2011)

Chris said:


> On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis






You forgot this part...

As of March 22, ice extent has declined for five straight days. However there is still a chance that the ice extent could expand again. Sea ice extent in February and March tends to be quite variable, because ice near the edge is thin and often quite dispersed. The thin ice is highly sensitive to weather, moving or melting quickly in response to changing winds and temperatures, and it often oscillates near the maximum extent for several days or weeks, as it has done this year. 

Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, the maximum Arctic sea ice extent has occurred as early as February 18 and as late as March 31, with an average date of March 6.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

BiPolar;

You not being jewish.?.You posted that Your family fled Germany even before the dawn of the 3rd Reich and it was forbidden to have any German literature in Your home or to speak German. Who else other than jews would do that? Israel`s jews really do what we "Nazis" were accused of and go the extra mile

*LOL. Damned right before the dawn of the Third Reich. Try 1848. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record.
> ...



OK. So we will see what the max ice extant was for this year in a very short while. Looks like it will be far below the norm, once again.


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> BiPolar;
> 
> You not being jewish.?.You posted that Your family fled Germany even before the dawn of the 3rd Reich and it was forbidden to have any German literature in Your home or to speak German. Who else other than jews would do that? Israel`s jews really do what we "Nazis" were accused of and go the extra mile
> 
> *LOL. Damned right before the dawn of the Third Reich. Try 1848. *



history reached its turning point and failed to turn.


----------



## FactFinder (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Methinks you repeatedly leave out the part that humankind just don't know. That we are basically ignorant and nowhere near as smart as we often pretend to be. Another take. Perhaps all that ocsillation left the Arctic not knowing whether it was coming or going this year.

Blame the Arctic Oscillation!


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Actually, it looks like we'll be having one of the shorter melt seasons on record.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2011)

whaaaaaa????? global warming in the '20s?

http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf






oh my goodness! glaciers melting *faster* in the twenties than the nineties? burn the witch


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

westwall said:


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



OK, Walleyes, I'll save that prediction.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Walleyes, I'll save that prediction.



Me too.  So I can ask why you conveniently forgot it when the prediction bears out.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Walleyes, I'll save that prediction.
> ...






wire..........good to have you on here bro.............check back in. It's a hoot being able to go to a place on the internet and publically humiliate some fools!!!


By the way.......you missed it a few months back when the IPCC was having their annual fraudulent pep rally in Cancun that nobody went to. About 36 people attended. It was held during a week of epic cold in Mexico. The thread was pretty damn funny.


My contribution..................








I thought the polar bear was appropriate since the IPCC kicked out the scientist who had definitive proof of the growing polar bear population. He came with his research and they said........

*Get the fcukk out asshole!!!!"*


As usual, the environmental k00ks with no interest in information that might expose the scam even more.......


----------



## wirebender (Apr 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> wire..........good to have you on here bro.............check back in. It's a hoot being able to go to a place on the internet and publically humiliate some fools!!!
> 
> 
> By the way.......you missed it a few months back when the IPCC was having their annual fraudulent pep rally in Cancun that nobody went to. About 36 people attended. It was held during a week of epic cold in Mexico. The thread was pretty damn funny.



Thanks.  Me and some other skeptics were kicking the crap out of a different bunch of kooks when that pathetic little party was happening.  Imagine, a string of record low temps in Cancun just for the wackos.  

I said from then on I would make sure to never take a vacation where a global warming anything was going on because you could be sure that the weather would suck.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > wire..........good to have you on here bro.............check back in. It's a hoot being able to go to a place on the internet and publically humiliate some fools!!!
> ...




It`s also pretty funny to compare the claims to the facts on the ground in Canada, the arctic as well as the southern regions...:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXxz3VFkrK0]YouTube - Global Warming April 3rd.wmv[/ame]



And here is the full length video,= a collection of real measurements & findings by internationally acclaimed scientists each a well known specialist in his field.

Its a 35 min long video, so "OldRocks" who lives in Bedrock, right next door to Fred Flintstone can`t watch it with his 1byte per hour internet connection...





That`s probably the same reason why the "info" he keeps quoting is about 20 years behind...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYKmjA_z5t4]YouTube - Science versus Global Warming.wmv[/ame]

And that`s the way it works...If we get "warm air" it dumps snow on us.
Most of the time our prevailing winds are from the northwest and we are cold, +clear skies and no precipitation.
Up in Greenland and further North from AFB Thule @ CFS Alert Ellesmere Island same thing. It hardly ever snows there and if we get "warm air" it starts dumping and the glaciers + the ice sheet build up.
We don`t report temperatures and no one ever even asked us, least of all Michael Mann and his dopy crowd of followers.
If You want to find out the current conditions on the Internet or any Meteorological Service good luck...:
http://www.google.com/search?q=manitoba+current+weather&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=ellesmere+island+current+weather&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c4f9bf7f64efb33f

*Nothing there from the northern part of Ellesmere Island, the closest You get are current conditions in Thule AFB Greenland where it is ALWAYS WARMER than on Ellesmere!*
http://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/PayerHarbour-CapeSabine-EllesmereIsland-Nunav/metars/latest


> *Thule AB
> (Greenland) 	2011-04-03
> 12:55 local*
> (2011-04-03
> ...



But today`s current temperature @ CFS Alert = minus 29 C...because all I have to do is e-mail the "Met-tech" at the runway or the guy who now has my job there, the BGenO at CFS Alert.forces.ca and know exactly what`s going on 400 miles south of the North Pole, although I`m retired now.

At Thule they get the first sun-up of the new year, long before we see the sun for the first time again @ CFS Alert Ellesmere Island.
While the sun shines in Thule our "Globally Warmed" day on Ellesmere Island still looks like that...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOwvR-Zuev4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOwvR-Zuev4[/ame]

But morons like "OldRocks" quoting dumb ass "Friends Of the Earth information" claims he is better informed than anyone who actually is in the arctic.

It`s not easy to land a Herc on Ellesmere during the winter, but land & take-off they must...but for these reasons no civilians are on board during the winter...and consequently no climate researchers either, just us guys...and the Military calls us the "chosen frozen".










*There is no alternate airport, once You are here it`s do or die!*
Once in February the ground crew had us hooked to ropes to lead us to the ground transports...could not see the hand before Your eyes, winds were @ > 150 kmh and blowing snow...it took 4 attempts to land

By the way here is Churchill Manitoba & the Hudson Bay today...where he always has "better FOE information"...:
http://text.www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?mb-42&unit=m


> Churchill
> [ Manitoba ]
> Current Conditions
> 
> ...



And here is "Globally warmed" southern Manitoba today:
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/canada/summary_e.html?MB


> Brandon Airport  3 Apr 2011 12:46 CDT
> -7
> Carman  3 Apr 2011 12:00 CDT
> -6
> ...



*These are all perfectly normal temperatures for us...NOTHING UNUSUAL HERE*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

Meltfactor.org » Blog Archive » Record setting 2010 Greenland temperatures and long term trends

Record setting 2010 Greenland temperatures and long term trends
Year 2010 surface air temperature observations around west and south Greenland are unprecedented in the instrumental record. Year 2010 and year 2003 temperatures dwarf high yearly averages occurring in the 1920s and 1930s


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

Various estimates of Greenland ice loss

Various estimates of Greenland ice loss
Posted on 28 February 2011 by John Cook
Over the last few weeks, three different papers have been published that all examine ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet. What's interesting is all three papers use entirely different methods to measure the rate of ice loss. Even more interesting is that these three different methods paint a consistent picture of what's happening to Greenland.

Schrama et al 2011 uses gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites to determine any change in mass of the Greenland ice sheet (there's a great article The Riddle of the ice about Ernst Schrama's work). They find from March 2003 to February 2010, Greenland lost ice mass at a rate of 252 gigatonnes per year. A key result from their paper was to confirm that ice loss had spread to the north west of Greenland.

Another paper Zwally et al 2011 uses satellite altimetry to determine the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet. They calculate that over 2003 to 2007, the ice sheet was losing ice at a rate of 171 gigatonnes per year. They then compare this to radar and airborne altimetry data from the 1990s. From 1992 to 2002, Greenland was only losing 7 gigatonnes per year.

Lastly, Rignot 2011 uses the Mass Balance Method to construct a 19 year record of ice loss from Greenland. This involves calculating the amount of snowfall on the surface, the amount of ice mass lost to wind and melt and the amount of ice lost calculated from glacier velocity and ice thickness. Putting all these pieces together gives the total amount of ice lost or gained over the ice sheet.

Over this nearly two decade period, Rignot finds a clear signal of accelerating ice loss. He then compares his results from the Mass Balance Method to results from GRACE data. Both show consistent rates of mass loss. Just as significantly, both are accelerating at similar rates.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

Greenland ice melt sets a record &#8212; and could set the stage for sea level rise | Environment Forum | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Greenland&#8217;s ice sheet melted at a record rate in 2010, and this could be a major contributor to sea level rise in coming decades.

The ice in Greenland melted so much last year that it formed rivers and lakes on top of the vast series of glaciers that covers much of the big Arctic island, with waterfalls flowing through cracks and holes toward the bottom of the ice sheet. Take a look at  video from Marco Tedesco of City College of New York, who is leading a project to study what factors affect ice sheet melting. The photo at left shows a camp by the side of a stream flowing from a lake &#8212; all of it on top of the ice sheet.

&#8220;This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average,&#8221; Tedesco said in a statement.  &#8220;Melting in 2010 started exceptionally early at the end of April and ended quite late in mid- September.&#8221;

Summer 2010 temperatures in Greenland were up to 5.4 degrees F (3 degrees C) above average, and there was reduced snowfall, Tedesco and his co-authors noted in an article in the current edition of Environmental Research Letters. Nuuk, Greenland&#8217;s capital, had the warmest spring and summer since records began there in 1873. Average summer temperatures vary widely, but in coastal areas hover around freezing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

*And this year, Hudson's Bay did not finish freezing up until the end of January, continueing the trend observed in this paper.*

Atmospheric forcing of sea ice in Hudson Bay during the fall period, 1980&#8211;2005

Atmospheric forcing of sea ice in Hudson Bay during the fall period, 1980&#8211;2005

Atmospheric forcing of sea ice in Hudson Bay during the fall period, 1980&#8211;2005
K. P. Hochheim

Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
D. G. Barber

Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

The principal objective of this study is to describe the autumn sea ice regime of Hudson Bay in the context of atmospheric forcing from 1980 to 2005. Both gridded Canadian Ice Service (CIS) data and Passive Microwave (PMW) data are used to examine the freezeup period for weeks of year (WOY) 43&#8211;52. Sea ice concentration (SIC) anomalies reveal statistically significant trends, ranging from &#8722;23.3% to &#8722;26.9% per decade, during WOY 43&#8211;48 using the CIS data and trends ranging from &#8722;12.7% to &#8722;16.8% per decade during WOY 45&#8211;50 using the PMW data. Surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies are highly correlated with SIC anomalies (r2 = 0.52&#8211;0.72) and with sea ice extents (r2 = 0.53&#8211;0.72). CIS data show that mean sea ice extents based on SICs &#8805;80% (consolidated ice) have decreased by 1.05 × 105 to 1.17 × 105 km2 for every 1°C increase in temperature in late November; PMW data show similar results. Regression analysis between SAT and standardized climate indices over the 1951&#8211;2005 period show that the East Pacific/North Pacific index is highly predictive of interannual SATs followed by the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation indices. The data show that the Hudson Bay area has recently undergone a climate regime shift, in the mid 1990s, which has resulted in a significant reduction in sea ice during the freezeup period and that these changes appear to be related to atmospheric indices.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

Hudson Bay a month late in freezing up
02. Feb, 2011 

Hudson Bay a month late in freezing up | ClimateSignals

Hudson Bay did not completely freeze up until mid-January, about a month later than normal according to Canadian Ice Service analyses. The Labrador Sea region is still largely free of ice, except in protected bays along the coast. Normally at this time of year, ice extends several hundred kilometers from the coast all the way to northern Nova Scotia.


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2011)

I hate to tell you olfraud but all of those posts are invalid...they all originate from alarmist blogs so based on your rules they are invalid.  Please remove them!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


----------



## wirebender (Apr 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada



Is it really so difficult for you to understand that proof of an event does not even begin to approach proof of the cause of the event?  Can you or can you not provide some proof that man is responsible?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2011)

This farging icehole "OldRocks" just won`t shut up...
I checked in here after I came back home from a little ice fishing trip  and find a whole heap of rubbish this moron plastered in here
OldRocks You are a farging icehole...the same as this fuckhead blogger you keep quoting.
a few months ago in another thread we` ve all been around this bend and I did the math for you, that your pee brain is not able to comprehend...
this moron web site you are quoting (yet again) *claims that in 1 year an extra 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) "melted away"...because of CO2...!*
First I`ll do the math again, not for you, because you and your FOE fuck-heads are way too stupid, but I`ll do it for the other readers here that will understand it and know how full of shit you are..:
Most of the arctic ice sheet *(the floes that break up) * are ~ 30 meters thick, but the ice that slides off the steep slopes of southern Greenland, *by force of gravity..NOT BECAUSE IT`S MELTING* is 100 or more meters thick...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGHlEBvKYw&feature=related]YouTube - Iceberg Calving - Rare video[/ame]


I`m not a climatologist...they would pick maximum values now, but I`m going to be modest now and use only 100 meters.
The "extra ice" that they claim melted per year would amount to *120 000 cubic kilometers of ice *that melted because of our exhaust pipes ...

If all that ice had been  MELTING because of heat from the top that would have took * 40 080  exa joules of heat energy *

*Are you out of your fucking mind..?*
*The entire solar output absorbed by the ENTIRE EARTH per year, never mind just Greenland is only 3 850 000 EXA JOULES*

*If that ice had been melted by solar radiation heat from the top down, as you and these morons claim  you could have fried eggs on "OldRocks" in Greenland*
Over and over again it`s been explained 
*This ice is not "MELTED" but i`ts DISSOLVED from underneath by the salt water...*

If as you and your dope-head web pages you keep quoting the ice is "melted by warm air" from above THEN WHY DO THESE FUCKING ICEBERGS ROLL...?????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqY9fcYNX4]YouTube - Ilulissat, Greenland - Giant rolling Iceberg creates a tsunami like wave[/ame]


*and by the way, here is what you left out again, this "extra melted ice" again was not REAL ICE, BUT AS USUAL VIRTUAL ICE FROM ONE OF THESE FUCKING COMPUTER MODELS..!!!!
*

I dug into these "sources " You quoted and here is the source they did use...:






*and here is the actual data as observed by satellites*








*NO DOWNWARD TREND WHATSOEVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*


*You are one psychotic bastard, even more so than the bastards who post falsified data on the internet...they do it to maintain their gainful employment courtesy of us tax paying citizens,....so at least their motives are explicable, bu it takes a psychiatrist to figure out what motivates you*

And this idiotic Greenland "average surface temp.data graph" yo posted here, You never noticed that these liars claim the data came from Nuuk airport on Greenland ..*.at a time when there was not even an airport in Nuuuk*

Also, none of the GW experts have a clue what kind of currents a difference in salinity can generate.
Have You ever seen how powerful osmotic pressure can be...?...I`m sure You dont even have a clue what that is...but its the same pressure that is a powerful motive force in the ocean. The difference in salinity under calving ice masses does the same thing...

and "OldRocks" if you don`t believe it, try it out and drink ~ 1.5 gallons of distilled water...(zero salinity).*.you`ld do us all a favor...because in short order every cell in your miserable body would burst (because of osmotic pressure)*


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 4, 2011)

Polar should debate Gore..........it would be the end of the whole scam!!! Gore would look like the fraud he is.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> The melting arctic ice won't raise the sea level.
> 
> The ice in Greenland and Antarctica will.



You can't have anymore of our virgins. The Volcano god is not going to destroy the village. Your fraud has been exposed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

*The city of Nuuk was founded in 1728, had it's first newspaper in 1861. So the weather station probably preceded the airport by a good many years. *

Nuuk Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuuk Airport (Kalaallisut: Mittarfik Nuuk; Danish: Nuuk Lufthavn; (IATA: GOH, ICAO: BGGH)) is an airport in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. The airport is a technical base and focus city for Air Greenland, the flag-carrier airline of Greenland, linking the capital with several towns in western and south-western part of the country, including the airline hub at Kangerlussuaq Airport. With connections to Iceland, Nuuk Airport is also one of 6 international airports in Greenland.

In the early 1960s, water planes of the newly established Air Greenland landed in Nuuk Port. In 1965, the airline invested in developing a more robust fleet based on the large Sikorsky S-61 helicopter, which continued to serve the town for the next four decades, even after the construction of an airport in Nuuk capable of serving the short takeoff and landing de Havilland Canada Dash-7 aircraft, which dominated at the airport since the 1970s.

The airport was constructed to serve the largest town in Greenland, yet due to space constraints at the location in a mountainous area and problems with the weather, it is unable to service large airliners. An expansion of the airport is not an acceptable option also due to the approach over the urbanized area of the outlying districts of Nuuk, although the issue continues to be a subject of internal debate in Greenland


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Holy smokes, ol' BiPolar is have another meltdown. Kind of like the Greenland Ice in these pictures from NASA. Now, Bi, old boy, where is the ocean that is melting this glacier from the bottom? Kind of looks like bare ground to me.

The Melting Ice of Greenland : Image of the Day


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

*That does not look like the bottom of the glacier to me.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F9FbdqGRsg&feature=related]YouTube - Must see video of Greenland melting (2009.02.20)[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Beautiful video with this article.

Greenland Ice Melt Sets New Record - Environment - GOOD

So, in fact, our headline understates the facts. Greenland is losing a France-sized area of ice more than it was losing 30 years ago. (That seemed a little cumbersome for a headline.) It's worth noting here that an incredible amount of water is stored in Greenland's ice sheet. The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are the biggest sea level threats, as they're land-based, so when they melt, it adds water volume to the ocean. (As opposed to ice caps, which are already floating on the sea and don't really have any impact on sea levels when they melt. Though there are other troubling impacts.)

Three miles thick in some parts, there's enough ice on Greenland that, if it were all to melt, sea levels would rise about 20 feet. Current models don't anticipate that happening anytime soon&#8212;not this century, at least&#8212;but then again, the melt is fast exceeding pretty much all models have predicted thus far.

All the doom and gloom aside for a moment, there is something just plainly beautiful about the patterns of the rivers and superglacial lakes and waterfalls cutting through Greenland's ice sheet. Tedesco has some video from his latest research trip:


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbuFphwJn4c]YouTube - greenland_melting.m4v[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

*Some German input on the effects of global warming.*

08.06.2009 Global Warming: Oxygen and Aquatic Habitats in a Changing World

Global Warming: Oxygen and Aquatic Habitats in a Changing World

All higher aquatic life depends on oxygen. It is, thus, an alarming finding that hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions in aquatic ecosystems increase in number, duration and extent due to global warming and eutrophication. 
On the 1st of April the EU-funded project HYPOX started with the goal to understand causes, temporal dynamics, future trends and consequences of hypoxia (i.e., low oxygen conditions) in aquatic systems.
The alarming observation of propagating &#8220;dead zones&#8221; where ecosystems collapse due to oxygen depletion as well as the potential worsening effect of climate change call for stronger scientific efforts in this field. Global warming will lead to degassing of oxygen, increased stratification, reduced deep-water circulation and changes in wind patterns affecting transport and mixing. Observed and projected increases in hypoxia are accompanied by enhanced emission of greenhouse gases and losses in biodiversity as well as ecosystem functions and services such as fisheries, aquaculture and tourism. A better understanding of global changes in oxygen depletion requires a global observation system continuously monitoring oxygen and associated parameters at high resolution, including the assessment of physical mixing and of the role of the seafloor in controlling the sensitivity of aquatic systems to oxygen depletion and their recovery after periods of hypoxia.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

More from Germany;

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/Climate_Scenarios/Jungclaus_IPCC_2005.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

WBGU: Home

Klimapolitik nach Kopenhagen: Auf drei Ebenen zum Erfolg
Politikpapier 6 

WBGU, Berlin, 2010


Die internationale Klimapolitik befindet sich nach der Klimakonferenz von Kopenhagen in einer Krise: Das erhoffte umfassende und verpflichtende UN-Klimaabkommen ist derzeit nicht absehbar. Damit eine Erhöhung der globalen Mitteltemperatur um mehr als 2 °C bis zum Ende des Jahrhunderts noch verhindert werden kann, müssen in der internationalen Klimadiplomatie innerhalb weniger Jahre entscheidende Weichen gestellt werden. mehr...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

BiPolar;

NO DOWNWARD TREND WHATSOEVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.......................................................................................................................

Now here is a more accurate graph;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Note the low points 1979 to 1989, about 5 to 5 1/2 million. Now the last four years have been running about 3 million. Then you have the high points, 1979 to 1989, 14 to 15 million. High points for the last four years, 13 to 14 million. 

But you state that is not a downward trend? You and Ian seem to be incapable of reading even the simplist of graphs. Even on your graph, you can see the downward trend on both the high and the low end. What are you drinking, Bi, old boy? Torpedo juice?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
> ...



http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-21.pdf

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

&#56256;&#56451; Between 10,000 and 150 years ago, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O were relatively stable. In the last 150 years, concentrations of CH4 and N2O increased 148% and 18%, respectively. Pre-Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 remained around 280 parts per million by volume (ppm). The seasonal-corrected measurement of CO2 in the summer of 2007 was 383 ppm.4 With other greenhouse gases, the total effect was 460 ppm CO2.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Anthropogenic CO2 is emitted primarily from fossil fuel combustion. Cement production and changes in land use  e.g., deforestation are other significant sources of CO2 emissions. CH4 and N2O are emitted from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Agriculture (domestic livestock), landfills, and natural gas
systems are the primary anthropogenic sources of CH4. Agricultural soil management (fertilizers) contributes 67% of anthropogenic N2O, while mobile and stationary combustion, and livestock are other significant sources. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are used as replacement gases for ozone depleting substances (CFCs) that were once utilized in refrigeration, cooling, and as solvents. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are used primarily for manufacturing semiconductors, and SF6 is used in electricity distribution equipment, as
well as the magnesium and aluminum production industries.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *That does not look like the bottom of the glacier to me.*
> 
> YouTube - Must see video of Greenland melting (2009.02.20)



Man oh man, there is no end to your stupidity and you fall for every "global warming" stage prop there is.
First of all, do you know the operating radius of a jet ranger helicopter?...that alone should have tipped you off where these "save the glaciers" movie actors were.!!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F9FbdqGRsg&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F9FbdqGRsg&feature=related[/ame]
As if they were there for more than just posing for a "global warming proof" video for Youtube.
We supply* REAL expeditions that REALLY EXPLORE glaciers on Greenland & Ellesmere and it takes several Sikorsky loads for 3 or 4 guys...*
*Aside from their video camera and a rucksack they had nothing else with them...*
that went right by you and all the morons like you as well..

I can tell you EXACTLY where that was...they filmed it at this spot...:






I made 2 composites, hoping someone even as stupid as you gets the drift

Left top is the bottom of the ice field where each July TV camera crews film "the melting Greenland" for Al Gore, and after about 2 or 3 hours they fuck off and go back to New York or where ever they came from
Churchill Manitoba, same thing. "Geraldo`s" from all over the world appear within hours after Manitoba Hydro has to dump from the Conowapa, Kettle Rapids, Longs Spruce, Limestone rapids and all the other Nelson River reservoirs into the Hudson bay, just to get "Starving Polar Bear" footage..
*and we can`t even get a hotel-room when we visit family in Churchill, because of all these urban fuck heads with TV cameras are hogging all of Churchill`s accommodations... next Morning there is ice as far as the eye can see and thank God all these bastards pack up and fuck off...*
It`s as if the Hotel Operators have a hot-line to TV stations and or GW "researchers"...
Why not...aside from assholes taking pictures an video footage of "starving Polarbears waiting for the ice" there is* no tourism in Churchill..NEVER EVER...!!! *.and all it takes is one phone call, after that they are booked out solid at triple the going rate for a flee bag bed in Churchill

This video and this very location on Greenland...SAME THING !!!!
In the composite picture looking at this glacier, just above there are lots of places where it`s real easy to set down a chopper, we go there all the time to sunbathe and thaw out our bones. Top right is the view from the bottom of the ice field where they filmed this video...
*This river has been flowing for ...well how many 10`s of 1000`s of years* does it take to form sandbanks and sediments..? *Ask a Geologist like Westwall*, he knows better than I would...!
Lower left is the mouth of this river, where these clowns were filming for their dramatic _"Greenland is melting...a must see video"_

And You know what`s on the other side where they were?...
*FORT CONGER where ships have sailed since  1876, ships that were definitely not ice breakers ...!!!*
see lower right...
You fucking dumb numb-skull, I already showed you how many times now, what`s there..
I`ll show You again..:







Why the fuck don`t you ask the "Greenland is melting" assholes to make a video of all the tree stumps on the other side of the Straits where they keep shooting their dramatic CO2 is melting Greenland videos, ever since this global warming fraud started...!

This is the view of Greenland from where the tree stumps are, and up top we see Jet Ranger Helicopters bringing in TV crews and National Geographic Photographers to document for stupid people like You that *Greenland has started to melt, right after we had cars...*

But I really had a laugh when these Youtube actors started their dramatic dare-devil descent, which for some reason they did not film...because they probably faked that as well...

If somebody really  wanted to know where these holes go, they could have just any of asked us who are stationed up there!
Because we go in there for a walk from below where the water that feeds that age old river comes out from the *"Melting Greenland" Disneyland ice field for tourists* ..see lower right

Looking at what you do..:
"OldRocks"...join date : Join Date: Oct 2008, # of posts...: *14,664 *
*that`s on average 27 per day EVERY DAY for 3 years just in this forum..*
God knows how much more of the same garbage you post elsewhere...
 Aside from your Google scavenging for every piece of "global warming" crap, you don`t seem to have much more of a life, not much more than other low life creatures...

I spent about 40 Years in total in the arctic, 15 of these 40 in Greenland & on Ellesmere Island...*summer AND WINTER*...not like these "Global Warming" con-artists, that fly in for 1 or 2 days in July produce fucking crap like that, for gullible people

*I know every nook and cranny of Greenland and the Canadian side of the arctic,...*
*what the fuck makes you think you can con me with a piece of video crap like that...
*

On the other hand it might be worth it to make a few videos that really rip the shit out of this fucking "Melting Greenland" fraud...:






There are lots more of similar offers from many different countries lately
I should just give 'Skookerasbil" a couple of CD`s full of the pictures I have from up there, he might enjoy it to blow your and Al Gore`s head clean  off with it...!
As far as I`m concerned *I might even throw in some more prize money myself...!*

And by the way "OldRocks" I don`t believe one word coming from You...:


> About Old Rocks
> 
> Biography
> I am an active, pretty much physically average man.
> ...



Anybody can be anything on the internet, somewhere else on facebook you are probably 21, single, blond and Swedish..
Show me a picture, that shows some stuff a Millwhright in a Steelmill ought to have..
like your hardhat with a Union sticker...
I got no trouble showing some of mine, I got a closet full:






On the back of the cap is  my call name.."B" stands for Base, the Gen, CME uses the abbreviated word for engineer, and the "O" stands for Officer.
That`s what I did @ Alert and Thule Airbase...

*How hard could it be to show us some millwright stuff...I bet You don`t even have a lunch pail to show, because dope dealers who sell indoor grown pot don`t need any...except growing lamps and solar panels on the roof there`s not much else they do need*

*I advise you to quit smoking your own merchandise, it sure as hell isn`t making you smarter*


----------



## Bernard (Apr 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Polar should debate Gore..........it would be the end of the whole scam!!! Gore would look like the fraud he is.




Al's busy these days getting his rooster whacked off by a massage therapist. Tipper said no more!


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *That does not look like the bottom of the glacier to me.*
> ...






That was pretty funny!  You should ask to see his rock hammer too!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> That was pretty funny!  You should ask to see his rock hammer too!



He can`t show us that one either, he had an accident with it and wacked his head trying to get at the rocks in there...it`s still stuck in his skull...
I`m still up doing the graveyard shift babysitting one of our kids that came down with the flu..
So I thought I`ld look at the 50 or so reply posts from "OldRocks-the millwright/would be Geologist"

This video he linked, one guy calls himself a physist, and says that "ice melt on a scale of 1 to 10 is an 11, it could flood Germany under 1 meter of water in one year" and the other one claims to be a glaciologist" and neither realized that on that ice field where they filmed that was just the top snow cover that melts there every summer, not the glacier itself...
"Germany would be flooded under one meter of water"..from the run off from the top snow melting...
Fuck imagine what Greenland would look like today if the top snow layer did not melt in the summer.
You could mountaineer to the moon, with the pile of snow that would be on top of this southern Greenland ice-field where they filmed...
And the rest of Greenland where the snow top layer does not melt even in the summer would be the same, were it not that cold...way to cold for snowfall...
I thought this jerk "OldRocks" would comprehend by now...
*Up North where I am it ONLY SNOWS WHEN WARM AIR MOVES IN...!!!*

That it hardly ever snows in the colder parts of Greenland and Ellesmere is even all over the internet...and the little bit of snow we do get is blown away by the furious wind storms we have....
On my first day in this forum I said so and even posted pictures...actually some guy did it from my photobucket, because I was not allowed to post direct links till I had 10 posts...

Anyway on these pictures it was clearly visible, that the snow that is further away from this Greenland warm spot stays all summer, does not melt and is drift snow, like sand dune drifts in the Sahara...
My God, according to these climatologists Sahara desert sand snowed from sand clouds in the sky then too...
The amount of precipitation on Greenland is as little as in the Sahara desert...even wikipedia has that one right...
That warm spot where these "melting Greenland videos" are filmed all the time,for the same reasons as the "starving polar bears" in Churchill ALWAYS was that "warm", because the water temperature in the Nares Strait up to this spot ALWAYS IS AND ALWAYS WAS 2-3 deg Celsius. Go just ~50 miles further and You need an ice breaker...and that`s why the crew of the HMS Discovery died right there, after that it was all ice...this stretch we also nickname the banana belt, because it ALWAYS was unusually warm right there on both sides of the Nares Strait.
Shit, You can find spots like that all over Northern BC and the Yukon. Nor far from Whitehorse going towards Skagway you can wear shorts while just 1 hour drive in the other direction You`l freeze to death unless You wear a parka over a snowmobile suit.

All it takes is some warm water and a mountain valley with prevailing winds going through from that direction...You know it, most people know it, Michael Mann lies about it and Al Gore + his following are just too fucking stupid to understand it


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

Bernard said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Polar should debate Gore..........it would be the end of the whole scam!!! Gore would look like the fraud he is.
> ...



Hi Bernard from Bernhard..! I was playing with the thought to use my first name here in this forum, but decided to use our Northern Manitoba city pets instead...
Anyway there is not much difference between the2, because in Germanic "Bernhard" means "The Heart of the Bear"...don`t matter if You spell it with the "h" or without...*so stay true to Your given name and rip these bastards to shreds and eat`em up alive...!!!!*

Oh yeah, and another thing about spelling...:


> Al's busy these days getting his rooster whacked off by a massage* therapist*. Tipper said no more!



I liked the way Benny Hill spelled "therapist" he split it into "The rapist".....especially if Al Gore is mentioned in the same breath


----------



## wirebender (Apr 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Beautiful video with this article.
> 
> Greenland Ice Melt Sets New Record - Environment - GOOD
> 
> So, in fact, our headline understates the facts. Greenland is losing a France-sized area of ice more than it was losing 30 years ago. (That seemed a little cumbersome for a headline.) It's worth noting here that an incredible amount of water is stored in Greenland's ice sheet. The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are the biggest sea level threats, as they're land-based, so when they melt, it adds water volume to the ocean. (As opposed to ice caps, which are already floating on the sea and don't really have any impact on sea levels when they melt. Though there are other troubling impacts.)



How many times does a prediction have to fail before you guys stop believing?  Here are some headlines from 1947.






Here is a recently published peer reviewed paper that states quite clearly that Greenland was warming considerably faster in the period from 1919 - 1932 than in the period from 1994 - 2007.  The warming is nothing new and in no way unprecedented.

http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf

Here is an interesting story.  Scientists drill through 2 miles of ice in greenland and find perhaps some of the oldest pure samples of DNA ever found.  Seems that greenland was crawling with butterflies and insects and the site of lush forests prior to decending into the ice age that the earth is still in the process of exiting.

Scientists drill through 2 kilometers of Greenland ice, find butterflies & lush forests | Climate Depot

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Study after study shows that your claims are, in reality, nothing more than the hand wringing hysterics of a doom and gloom kook; and the really big question remains.  Can you provide any hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

The answer to that question remains no.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are you under the impression that history started 10,000 years ago?  Why don't you go further back into history and point out atmospheric CO2 levels in the thousands of parts per million, even during ice ages?  Why don't you note that the earth has been warmer with less atmospheric CO2 than the present?  Why don't you note the string of evidence going back millions upon millions upon millions of years that prove that CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas in the atmosphere that can not drive the climate?


----------



## Bernard (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Bernard said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Hi Bernhard! The left always needs a "cause" to drum into the minds of the masses and they use their media outlets to do their bidding.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...






No, according to them history (well the only history that matters to them) began about 30 years ago.  What happened before then is immaterial.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, according to them history (well the only history that matters to them) began about 30 years ago.  What happened before then is immaterial.



The sheer volume of mental masturbation required to believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere can drive the global climate staggers the mind.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Polar should debate Gore..........it would be the end of the whole scam!!! Gore would look like the fraud he is.



*He already looks like the fraud he is.*

{The former Vice President on Monday responded to Fox News Channel host Bill OReillys on-air question last week: Why has southern New York turned into the tundra? OReilly then said he needed to call Gore. I appreciate the question, Gore wrote on his website.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming".'}

Gore: Global Warming Causing Record Cold, Snow - David Icke Website


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, according to them history (well the only history that matters to them) began about 30 years ago.  What happened before then is immaterial.
> ...


That nails it EXACTLY what this GW occult is doing...also Westwall brought up an important point, as You did also.
All You have to do is look at the animals and plants that are on Greenland...the very name of that island says it all...and on Ellesmere Island there are not just polarbears.
We have a LOT OF WOLVES, and foxes, they eat  A LOT OF ARCTIC HARE, and these rabbits they sure as shit are not meat eaters.
I posted pictures of these animals and muscox herds, they eat plants as well...but every time somebody posts something "OldRocks" does not want to see he buries it under 10 or more posts in a row, so that any such information is one or more pages back.
Most people who look into this forum don`t page back, but read forward.
Even a dumb bastard like "OldRocks" knows it from the "Friends Of the Earth" web section how to fuck up a forum which goes against their grain.
These animals, like the rabbits, they stay with us all through the brutal winter @ CFS Alert & Thule Air Force Base. You can walk right up to them and snap pictures.
I was interested what the hell these rabbits eat that time of the year..
Then I could see how they dig with their front paws and find roots under the sparse snow cover we have up there.
There are a lot of spots which have natural shelter from the winds which deposit snow much like a sandstorm deposits sand dunes in a desert..
And that`s where these plants grow...even though the air temperature is frigging cold, when the sun appears in the spring all the non transparaent and non reflective objects heat up...
Astronauts will tell You the same thing..It`s just a few degrees Kelvin on the side sunlight can`t reach, but objects the sun hits have to bee cooled.
Stand anywhere up inside the polar circle during the "summer" and one side of your face gets baked while you might freeze the ear off the other side of your head...
The snow that melts fast is the snow that gets blown over with the gray-ish brown sand/dust we have...then the sun hits it in the summer and of course thaws out the "dirty snow"...
"OldRocks" posted several times a link to one of these mental masturbators, as You call them...and they actually claimed, that that gray stuff was Diesel and engine soot from You guys down south...
This snow layer up there is a pretty complicated thing...something City engineers in Winnipeg & Minneapolis also have to struggle with , these eddies and stuff and what happens with blowing snow...
Sometimes that snow piles up more than 20 meters high in snow drifts and some of our buildings disappear...I was buried like that once for 2 days, in the power plant.
They asked me to lean on my pager button, so they could find me...then they drove a BV (=a tracked Vehicle...an unarmed "A"PC) over top of me, cut a hole through the powerplant roof and hoisted me out on a rope.
But none of that snow came from an arctic low...at the same time during this storm our Met Tech @ the runway reported "CAVOKay" (ceiling & visibility unlimited) above an altitude of ~ 500 feet....
And of course the mountains around us follow the same laws of aerodynamic principles as buildings.* Entire areas are totally free of snow and always have been and on the lee side You get glaciers that are miles thick*
and that`s the way it REALLY works with the climate up there...
Also these animals have been there when mankind still believed the earth is flat...
And Al Gore etc are still at that stage of ignorance about the arctic...
If any one here wants to see a shitload of pictures about the plants and animals around our Base, just say so...I`lll post them again...
The ones I posted here a couple of months ago all vanished.
Instead of photobucket I stored them with a German (lefty) newspaper, which offered subscribers a similar service.
They did not like my pictures and erased the entire batch...
I subscribe to "lefty" publications, because that`s my "radar" what these bastards are up to and then I lay out my "road side" information bombs accordingly


----------



## konradv (Apr 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, according to them history (well the only history that matters to them) began about 30 years ago.  What happened before then is immaterial.
> ...



It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.  So what's so hard to understand that more would result in even more warming, despite the fact that it's a trace gas?  If its absolute concentration was important, why would it contribute to warming at all?  That's the problem with the deniers' positions.  When looked at carefully, they just don't pass the logic test.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







CO2 operates logarithmically.  The first little bit big impact.  Double it, not so much, double it again, negligible, double it again, nearly impossible to measure.  That's your problem.
The alarmists try to make you believe it operates linearly but that has been proven false many times.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What you and your virtual earth climate models have totally wrong is most apparent inside the polar circle.
Not a single plant would ever grow there if CO2 could trap a significant amount of IR...why don`t You look at REAL Spectrographic data form REAL SCIENTISTS...

The plants that grow inside the polar circle are able to exist because UNABATED solar radiation, especially the IR portion hits there 24 hours per day during the summer warming all non reflective objects...what is Your problem..understanding that...

If CO2 could trap IR at a magnitude as Your moron Computer models claim, the entire area inside the arctic circle would be a dome of death for all natural life that always was there...
Fuck I posted Spectral data here already...can`t You read?
Filter out the IR and there is less and less "heat" in solar radiation...even the window manufacturers know that and design window panes accordingly...
Have You ever been inside a climatology lab where they measure CO2 in the atmosphere, of course you have not...
I spent a lot of time inside  the arctic lab which happens to be right on the CFS Alert Base...You can`t even measure CO2 at the levels it is in our atmosphere with an Infrared Spectrograph...we have to use Gaschromathography with Ni63 Electron Capture detectors to measure it..!
Fuck are You assholes ignorant...
I posted pictures of these labs and what it looks like inside, + all the instruments on the benches, + the one narrow little band where CO2 does absorb IR...and all the other IR goes right by CO2 as if it does not even exist...the analogy is, it "catches" as much infrared as a wire can catch rain...
So why don`t You stand under a hydro wire during a rainstorm and see if You can stay dry...?
Water vapor is an entirely different matter it absorbs so much IR over the entire range, not in little discrete spectral bands but as a total block out...


Talking about CO2 and infrared absorption and none of you have a clue what an IR spectrophotometer even looks like, never mind how to operate one and interpret the read out
I`m a chemical engineer first @ a Military engineer second...as a chemical engineer I have done countless of THOUSANDS IR Analysis.
NOBODY in their right mind would even try to do a QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CO2 using Infrared Absorption....
Not just because the absorption (= NOT THE SAME as the ARTIFICIAL ABSORBANCE as Beer Lambert`s law) can`t even be measured @ these low levels, but the slightest amount of relative humidity would falsify Your results by a factor of > 100 times too high...

*Fuck are You assholes ever stupid and ignorant...  *


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.



Is it your contention that the earth would be colder without an atmosphere?


----------



## konradv (Apr 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.
> ...



I made no such contention, whatsoever.  Where did you come up with that goofy thought?  Typical of the deniers, though, to try and sidetrack the debate by bringing up irrelevancies!!!  My contention is exactly what I said, no CO2, lower temps.  If you have trouble understanding that and the known properties of CO2, perhaps you have no business posting to this thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> I made no such contention, whatsoever.



I was just asking.



> Where did you come up with that goofy thought?



You are clearly ignorant, I was just curious how deep your ignorance runs.

Algore Akbar, huh?


----------



## konradv (Apr 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > I made no such contention, whatsoever.
> ...



 You just proved you don't have a clue!!!  People that know the topic discuss it.  Those that don't talk about Gore.  So you were just asking.  So what?  What was the point, except to deflect attention from your own ignorance


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.
> ...



What kind of a dumb ass question is that....???
Let me ask you one...:
are You one of those stupid people that believe that Mars is so hot because the atmosphere there is almost entirely CO2...?

Mars would be that hot, regardless what kind of gas is around it, even if it were Hydrogen Gas..*.it`s the absence of water that makes Mars hot...*
GEEEEZUZ...what`s the matter with you wanna be scientists? Don`t You know anything about heat enthalpy?...specific heat (energy in Joules), of evaporation...? or just plain "specific heat"...like how many calories does it take to heat a specific substance by 1 degree...?

Lets start with this moronic "experiment" that "proved" that inside a plexiglass dome the "climate model" heated up quicker the more CO2 was inside this childish experiment.

Whatever IR strikes inside the dome,...all solid objects of course warm up...nevermind if there is any gas in the dome or not...
Then as You replace the air inside the dome with more and more CO2 You will jump for joy noticing that the temperature inside the dome climbs quicker...
and Your balloon of joy would be deflated just as quickly, had You bothered to look into any Physics book, because there You would find that it takes WAY LESS CALORIES to raise CO2 gas by 1 degree than Nitrogen & Oxygen, the chief constituents of our atmosphere...
and You ask ME, if I believe  


> Is it your contention that the earth would be colder without an atmosphere?


Man You did not just miss the boat, You are centuries behind...!!!

By the way, it`s not just "my contention"...*there was an entire delegation of renowned Physisists & Chemists from around the world telling the U.S. Congress the same thing I have been telling You just now in this post and the post just before it...
*
Of course Googling for nothing but "Global Warming Evidence + CO2" You will never  find out about it....and that`s why people like that stay stupid and ignorant

Google some using "Dr. Heinz Hug et al" and You will find out what the rest of the REAL SCIENTISTS have to say about this Michael Mann`s fantasy world


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The plants would all be pissed off to.

Water vapor is the dominant global warming gas.

BTW, from a geologic perspective, we currently live in an historic global sea level highstand. Catastrophy will be when the earth cools again, and sea level drops. Malibu will slide into the Pacific ocean and become a northeastern suburb of Hilo Hawaii.


----------



## konradv (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Nice post!!!  The trouble is MARS IS NOT HOT!!!  Shame you had to waste all that time posting total trash that could be debunked with no effort whatsoever.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> You just proved you don't have a clue!!!  People that know the topic discuss it.



I don't "debate" or "discuss" the finer points of the AGW religion with cultists.

I mock you. It's all you're worthy of. Tom Cruise has Scientology, you have AGW. Both claim a relationship to science, neither has an actual relationship to science.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 5, 2011)

Polar bears eat baby seals.


----------



## konradv (Apr 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You just proved you don't have a clue!!!  People that know the topic discuss it.
> ...



What a wuss!!!  Can't stand the heat, so you have to hide behind a "religion" jibe?!?!  What do you know of science?  You certainly haven't shown it.  Your denials are politically motivated and have no relation to true science or logic.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Google some using "Dr. Heinz Hug et al" and You will find out what the rest of the REAL SCIENTISTS have to say about this Michael Mann`s fantasy world



Michael Mann's fantasy world probably involves naked animals with hockey sticks....let's don't go there


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> What kind of a dumb ass question is that....???



Are you sure you meant to address this to me?



> Let me ask you one...:
> are You one of those stupid people that believe that Mars is so hot because the atmosphere there is almost entirely CO2...?



Uh, no.



> Mars would be that hot, regardless what kind of gas is around it, even if it were Hydrogen Gas..*.it`s the absence of water that makes Mars hot...*



What is the primary component of so-called "Green House Gas" again? 



> Lets start with this moronic "experiment" that "proved" that inside a plexiglass dome the "climate model" heated up quicker the more CO2 was inside this childish experiment.



There is no Plexiglas bubble around the Earth, just the void of space. There is no vent for convection. The Earth is not a greenhouse and doesn't behave like one.




> Man You did not just miss the boat, You are centuries behind...!!!



You are mistaken.

The Atmosphere of Earth reflects a great deal of inbound radiation. Without our atmosphere, the planet would be magnitudes hotter while facing the sun.



> Google some using "Dr. Heinz Hug et al" and You will find out what the rest of the REAL SCIENTISTS have to say about this Michael Mann`s fantasy world



Michael Mann is a charlatan, a fraud.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 5, 2011)

I think polar bear needs a nap. He mistook Unc for a global warminist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> I think polar bear needs a nap. He mistook Unc for a global warminist.



I'm SURE that's the first time *that *has ever happened...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yes I do get impatient with idiots like him, because I`m tired to explain all that CO2 crap over and over again. In my time off duty I also helped out as an adjunct professor, faculties Chemistry & Physical Chemistry, especially in the field of spectroscopy @ some Universities in Canada AND THE U.S.
People like that would have flown head first out of the lecture room...and that`s why I don`t work that field for a living and preferred the military where You get to ream out assholes like that...

By the way here is a good summary of how what works in a CO2 atmosphere, like that on Mars...: click here...>;
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Carbon_Dioxide.html]CO2 on Mars[/COLOR]
CO2 on Mars
a little further down the article You`ll find...:


> At low temperatures, a joint CO2-H2O ice is formed. This has a different crystal structure than normal ice which has hexagonal crystals (remember the shapes of snowflakes?).  CO2 clathrate has an open latticework formed by 44 water molecules which have spaces that trap up to 8 CO2 molecules in small 'cages' within the lattice. We would expect that the polecaps of Mars would contain quite a lot of clathrate, since both CO2 and water molecules are present and* clathrate i*s the preferred form rather than separate ices. Unfortunately, the Mars Polar Lander that would have answered questions like this was lost during re-entry to Mars and scientists will have to wait several years before a new mission can be mounted to replace it.



If anybody wants to know what a clathrate is,and  not just what "Wikipedia" says it is, I`ll explain it,....I promise I won`t get impatient...I wrote 2 patents on Clathrates...:





After that every Jim Dick and Harry started to apply for Clathrate Patents...
Actually these Patents are not my property, but that was part of my job I did for the U.S. Naval department. Clathrates are used in high powered chemical lasers...

So, I guess when it comes to Chemistry & Physics I do know a little bit more than "OldRocks" et al or  Al Gore....

And Spectroscopy & Infrared just happens to be my area of expertise....and that had a lot to do with why the U.S. + Canadian Military got interested in me and offered me an unusually interesting position...I took `m up on it and asked from the start, that I wanted to be stationed as much as possible in the arctic,* because I absolutely love it up there...
Number 1 reason was I wanted to be as far away as can be from stupid idiots, and the arctic does and will kill stupid people in short order...*

Now I`m retired and decided the best way to insulate myself from the stupid decisions politicians make was to live on the Indian Reservation my wife (for ~40) years is from...

One of my hobbies is to torment assholes like "OldRocks" ...but I don`t really want to spend more than 1/2 hour every other day doing that...I prefer REAL LIFE in the REAL WORLD...
So today FINALLY some snow and ice melted in my Yard and I`ll be able to pry out my riding lawnmower which got trapped there since last October and get it ready to spew CO2 when spring finally will arrive...

I`ll come back here once in a while just to amuse myself reading what`s being posted here, but won`t have a lot of time to write postings...
Have fun You Guys
and Bye for now...take care Bernard" and greetings to You`all from Bernhard aka Polarbear


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 5, 2011)

Canadian Military?

Karlvasa? Is that you?


----------



## wirebender (Apr 5, 2011)

konradv said:


> It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.



Do you really believe that?   If you do, I put it to you that you are not using your mind at all but merely following the dogma that a high priest has preached to you.  Here, let me give you an opportunity to actually use your intellect in a small bit of critical observation.

You say that the earth would be much colder if it weren't for CO2.  I say that the exact opposite is true and anyone who is capable of using his mind must come to the same conclusion.  The fact is that the atmosphere (primaraly water vapor) keeps us cool during the day, and slows the inevetable cooling that night time brings.

Consider the moon.  It is roughly the same distance as us from the sun and as such recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as earth except it has no atmosphere.  Ask yourself.  On the moon, what is the consequence during the day of having no atmosphere?  What is the consequence during the night of having no atmosphere.

During the day, the moon, which has no atmosphere and recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth, the temperature is over 250 degrees F.  Compare that to the hottest place on earth and you can't help but agree that during the day, the atmosphere keeps us from buring up.

During the night, the moon which has no atmosphere to slow the convection of heat absorbed by its surface into space drops to a chilly -387 degrees F very quickly.  

If you still believe that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it, explain the searing daytime temperatures on the moon.



konradv said:


> So what's so hard to understand that more would result in even more warming, despite the fact that it's a trace gas?



Rather than answer that I will ask you if you still beleive that the atmosphere keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be without it?  If you do, then clearly you are not using your mind.




konradv said:


> If its absolute concentration was important, why would it contribute to warming at all?  That's the problem with the deniers' positions.  When looked at carefully, they just don't pass the logic test.



The problem lies with your position as it opposes all observed evidence.  The foundations of your position are proveably wrong.  Your entire position rests on the idea that the atmosphere, namely CO2 somehow keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be without it, but the moon, our nearest neighbor, sears under the light of the sun with no atmosphere.  What makes you believe that the earth would burn under the sun the same as the moon if there was no atmosphere to keep daytime temperatures down to a liveable level?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2011)

wire bro.........this Konrad guy pops in and invariably jumps on the bandwagon of the hard core nutballs. He's not part of the religion..........just an example of what we refer to around here as a naive sheep = automatically embraces everything that is k00k left, no questions asked.

Its pretty fcukking funny when the trolls refer to "logic" as it relates to the global warming debate.........as if logic had anything to do with the scam. Think about it.........pairing "weather" and science" is beyond laughable.

When Old Rocks comes on here and tells me that someboy has come up with a method to control the direction and intensity of tornado's and hurricanes, I promised in this forum I'd listen intently.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



LOL, BiPolar is sucking on the torpedo juice again. Yessiree....  Hot Mars!

Temperature of Mars

For the most part, the temperature of Mars is cold, very cold. Thats because Mars is further from the Sun than Earth, and lacks a thick atmosphere to hold in the heat.



But Mars is also similar to Earth because its tilted on its axis about 25 degrees. This gives the planets seasons like we have on Earth.

During the Martian winter, temperatures can dip down to -140 C, and then rise up to 20 Â°C in the summers.

Mars has an extremely eccentric orbit around the Sun. The closest point in its orbit to the Sun is called perihelion; this is the same time that its summer in the southern hemisphere. This means that the summer temperatures in the southern hemisphere can be 30 C warmer than the summer temperatures in the north.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's well known that the earth would be much colder, if CO2 didn't exist.
> ...



Wow! What a real fucking dumb ass you have turned out to be. It is only the physicists that are telling us that CO2 is a GHG, and that without that in  the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear down to the equator. 

So we have all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Sciences, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real and a clear and present danger, and you come along and state it is not, that that CO2 is not a GHG. Without presenting the slightest bit of evidence other than your yap-yap. 

Lordy, lordy, the more they come, the dumber they get. And ol' BiPolar has just informed us of a hot Mars.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Im laughing................

What do the National Academies of Sciences and all the major universities have in common???


http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists


----------



## wirebender (Apr 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Wow! What a real fucking dumb ass you have turned out to be. It is only the physicists that are telling us that CO2 is a GHG, and that without that in  the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen clear down to the equator.



Physicists who depend on grant money for thier daily bread.  In fact, as far as scientists go, the AGW crowd consists mostly of government hacks and scientists who depend on grant money for a living.  No crisis, no money.  You have to look pretty hard to find a scientist on the AGW bandwagon who doesn't depend on grant money, which is most of them.

Clearly, you aren't able to use your mind.  How do you suppose that the earth would be frozen solid without CO2 and the moon burns in the sun?  Explain that if you can.  The atmosphere is what keeps the earth from buring in the day. 



Old Rocks said:


> So we have all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Sciences, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real and a clear and present danger, and you come along and state it is not, that that CO2 is not a GHG. Without presenting the slightest bit of evidence other than your yap-yap.



You have the political heads of the sceintific bodies on the bandwagon for the grant money.  When surveys are done of the membership of said bodies, you get an entirely different story.  Clearly, you can't speak on the subject yourself as you have no grasp of the science so you are left with nothing more than a fallacious appeal to an authority which you have no idea whether they are right or wrong.

Here rocks, have a gander at some peer reviewed science that states quite clearly that CO2 is not responsible for the changing climate.

WorldSciNet

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

SpringerLink - Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2

SpringerLink - Space Science Reviews, Volume 81, Numbers 1-2

Inter Research » CR » v10 » n1 » p69-82

ScienceDirect - The Science of The Total Environment : Evaluating the climatic effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 via an analysis of Earth's historical temperature record

ScienceDirect - Applied Energy : On the magnitude of the CO2 greenhouse effect

ScienceDirect - Atmospheric Environment (1967) : The climatic effect of co2: A different view

Want more?  I can point you to dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed papers that show that CO2 is not a driving climatic factor.

Your problem rocks, is that you don't grasp the science and as a result are at the mercy of people who seek to take advantage of your ignorance for their own political and financial gain.  Your political position makes you their patsy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2011)

Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists. 

The Carbon Dioxide Problem


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Problem







The Vostock Ice cores prove you wrong everytime, maybe that's why you studiously ignore them.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Problem



Sorry, but the physical record, and observed evidence prove me right.  The only "evidence" that contradicts what I am saying is the output of computer simulations and that hardly constitutes proof of anything other than the shortcomings of those who wrote the simulations.   Computer simulations have a singularly poor record of reflecting observations.

As to your "evidence"  I am laughing at you again old rocks.  Did you even read the information that was provided?  There was a big graphic representing the Vostok ice core data with a notation directly underneath.  Here is an excerpt from that notation:

*Notice that present carbon dioxide concentrations far exceed all values for the past 400,000 years, and that the concentration is high when temperature is high. This does not imply cause or effect. Both carbon dioxide and temperature are linked through feedback loops. *


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2011)

computer models are gay...........


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2011)

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.


----------



## konradv (Apr 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.
> 
> both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.



The first 20 ppm is more important?  That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic.  Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20.  Do the math!!!


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.
> ...




do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> computer models are gay...........



Skookerasbil is gay.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Skookerasbil is gay.



At least he isn't some fucking brain-dead AGW cultist. Gay I've got no problem with, cultists are fucked up, though.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Do you understand anything, Ian?  

A23A


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.
> ...






konrad, you need to go to a university and have one of the math profs teach you about logarithims.  Really you do.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Ian understands far more than you do while he is asleep then you ever will in your entire life.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Yet, the record, in real life and time, indicates just the opposite. As do the studies of many, many other scientists.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Problem



*So how would You explain all that..:*






*You fucking moron*


----------



## wirebender (Apr 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?



Obviously, he doesn't.  I doubt that a definiton would help much either but it's worth a shot.

logarithm  [Gr.,=relation number], number associated with a positive number, being the power to which a third number, called the base, must be raised in order to obtain the given positive number. For example, the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2, written log 10  100=2, since 10 2 =100. Logarithms of positive numbers using the number 10 as the base are called common logarithms; those using the number e (see separate article) as the base are called natural logarithms or Napierian logarithms (for John Napier). The natural logarithm of a number x  is denoted by ln x  or simply log x.  Since logarithms are exponents, they satisfy all the usual rules of exponents. Consequently, tedious calculations such as multiplications and divisions can be replaced by the simpler processes of adding or subtracting the corresponding logarithms. Logarithmic tables are generally used for this purpose.

If that doesn't help, maybe he could visit logarithms for dummies 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/logarithm-basics.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





Advice comes a bit late West..........he's already enrolled in the University of Mars.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > computer models are gay...........
> ...





Awwww c'mon Rocks..........you're just pissed that I blew up another one of your lame threads ( SEE BERKLEY ). 

As Ive said many times in the past, Rocks has the political IQ of a small soap dish, so once he started talking politics on one of these threads, it was like setting up a big old pumpkin on a baseball tee for me!!! ( He thinks a couple of million voting people are responsible for Cap and Trade going belly up ).


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?
> ...



By the way, that`s why "GW Infrared Specialists"  use Absorbance instead of Absorption in the "positive feedback" computer model.
Because with any substance at  the lowest concentration the ABSORBANCE (the log of  ABSORPTION)
is a linear function and double the concentration gives You a twice the height of the Y-axis point on a graph.
In reality the actual ABSORPTION is sloping in a curve and the *Y-axis  increments get smaller and smaller as You go up in concentration on the X-axis.*

ABSORBANCE is an entirely artificial value, the Instruments put out for the Operator`s convenience in quantitative Analysis.
Of course that`s what they chose in their virtual world of computer modeling  the "positive feedback"
and start boiling ocean water any time soon...

I showed the graphs, Lambert Beers Laws, the Absorbance and Absorption curves in this forum ~ 3 times by now,...along comes yet another "OldRocks" moron and wants to critisize me...:


> "Your refusal to debate this subject shows..."


......"that in his view he knows more about Infrared Absorption more than I do

It`s like trying to explain  to cavemen  what a solar eclipse is, and that it does not
work as their witch doctor claims, that the tribe committed a sin that causes the world to end.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

polarbear said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







Actually, they are followers of some Mayan God.  They had a big prayer for their God at the climate conference in Cancun.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif. &#8211; Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic&#8217;s ice cover.
> 
> ...




What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?

Our planet has had periods when it was much warmer than it is today.  And yet our planet still had many ice age cycles since then.

Hell, there was a time when our planet was a lifeless rock, with no ogranic material.  Yet everything came to be what it is today, so why all the doom and gloom?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2011)

theHawk said:


> What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?



The fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming is over. The priests are packing the gold onto the mules and heading for the city gates. The idiot acolytes are the only ones who haven't grasped the reality of the situation yet. Even as the Priests scurry off with their stolen loot, these fools continue to proclaim that "Doom is upon us, Gaia is angry and shall punish our carbon sin lest we sacrifice and give generously to Algore and the church of AGW..."

These are idiot, morons, fools.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?
> ...





Im laughing..........been saying that for a couple of years on here but never in such Shakesperian manner!!! Uncensored......the k00ks in here have no clue that the science and the politics go hand in hand.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



You remeber how often that was explained in this forum, by now...must be ~ 2 dozend times we`ve been around this bend....You and almost everyone else understood it the first time around...
here it is once more...:






You know for some strange reason there is not a single absorption plot to be found on the Internet...!!!
So in the graph above You have to use the %T (=transmittance) which is the inverse of absorption...then You can see how % Absorption of light of ANY WAVELENGTH slopes off as the % Concentration goes up...

Even today`s Students of physics and Chemistry seem to be dumbstruck by this elementary part of Beer Lambert`s law...:

Absorption vs.Absorbance



> Absorption vs.Absorbance
> thedy
> Regular Member
> ***
> ...



See this is the price we pay when when microprocessor controlled instruments* have a Computer doing the thinking for You...!*
Now Students of the subject don`t even know any more, that any Spectroscope first measures how much energy was absorbed in % as in % ABSORPTION...
Used to be a Chemist had only % Absorption or the inverse % Transmittance to work with.
They all knew what happens when You up the concentration of what You want to measure...how quickly it slopes off, and that as the concentration is increased, the % ABSORPTION that is actually happening gets progressively SMALLER....and fast!

Then came the new instruments for dummies, that converted % Absorption into Absorbance...an entirely artificial value which is the (linear) log-value of %ABSORPTION or the inverse % Transmission...and since then "scientists" think that if You double CO2 that it will 'absorb" twice as much light...






Way back Professor Roentgen discovered this fact about CO2 .....
*But it applies for any substance, not just for CO2...*

and then along came "Global Warming Science" and founded their quack science on a guy named Tyndall, who was an oven stoker in England and who claimed that Beer Lambert`s laws which he knew absolutely nothing about, but claimed that what none of it can be  applied  to CO2 or less so with increasing altitude.

And that is still the same idiotic belief that these "GW scientists" have today...
"OldRocks" quoted Tyndal to me more often than Beer Lambert`s laws have been quoted here
I wonder how M.Mann or Al Gore would score in a Physics or Chemistry exam...


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...






Your comments are spot on.  It is also indicitive of the low levels to which ALL education has sunk.  Modern textbooks are quite simply horrible.  I compared my old 1927 Los Angeles Unified School District High School Chemistry book vs a college textbook of today and the high school book is better.  By a lot!  My wife used to teach a graduate level class at Cal State Hayward and we were both amazed that incoming students had no idea what a Journal was!  It took quite a while to convince them she wasn't talking about the Wall Street Journal!  Sad.  Every time I see a post by konrad I am reminded of that.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yeah it`s like that across the board. Since the internet became a free for all shoutbox like CB Radio was once it`s been downhill all the way. high quality printed publications are being destroyed by this medium and "wikipedia" is supposed to be the substitute..???

In the field of Chemistry it`s probably worse than in any other field, order an older edition textbook and You run the risk of becoming  a terrorist suspect.
Same thing, I was trying to buy a half decent Chemistry set for one of my kids and these are down to baking soda and vinegar "experiments"...
With the new textbooks it`s just as bad. Worst of all at many Universities the best Professors are in retirement and the replacements are a product of the time.

Its almost at the level of watching Sesame street...

Even the exams are a joke. We never had exams where You chose from  a.) b.) or c.) for an answer, with this driver`s license type of exam far too many people make the grade that should not. Or this 75% thingy that is a passing grade...!!! My God no wonder there are so many fuck-ups these days, ....Chemical engineers are out there that may very well be totally ignorant about 25 % of Chemistry...all it takes is one miscalculation and you have an accident like in Bhopal...which claimed more lives than Chernobyl..!!
In our times You failed when You had more than 5% errors and 5% was rated as "mangelhaft" (insufficient) meaning You passed into the next semester, but had to do another exam later to stay there.
I still look into the curriculum and notice how much less Physics would be  Chemists have to take today and vice-versa Physics Students don`t even have to take any more Chemistry at all at some Universities. They can take some  goofy courses for the extra credits they need to pass...or being an indispensable quarterback or something like that compensates for utter  stupidity
It`s equality for all at the price of excellence for none, right from the Grade school level and up into the academics.
*Have You ever looked into how scientific progress is rated today..? I came across some articles from the U.N. stating that China will soon overtake the U.S. in science & technology.*

So I wanted to see how the U.N. quantifies "scientific progress". 
*It turns out they rate it by the number of publications generated by any nation  and how often these are quoted in other publications.
...and the subject matter of the publications has no bearing whatsoever on the rating
*
Pretty well the same way Google rates web-pages.




So "cell phone radiation will kill You" comes out on top...

It was Stalin that said, there is a certain quality in quantity...and applied it in both propaganda and other manufacture... and my God the man was right it seems...

it`s a throw away consumer item world, with cheap plastic bushings instead of roller bearings and last not least the same principle *quantity substituting for quality has now become a measure for "scientific progress"...*
and as we all know, M.Mann, Al Gore etc apply this new "standard" to the fullest
Makes You wonder how many ex-Nobelariates are puking in disgust


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2011)

Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2011)

By the way, BiPolar, your posts are a bit more lucid today. Run out of torpedo juice?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 7, 2011)

I would like to make an appeal to forum members who might be interested in gathering data for a* global CO2 consumption computer model.
*
What we need is data to get an acceptable estimate of this planet`s annual plant bio mass production. Everything...even the grass and the weeds that grow in Your yard count...

You can help by monitoring a few sqmeters in Your Yard, harvesting it, weighing it, then dry the sample-...re-weigh to subtract the moisture content...and posting the results here in this forum.

Agricultural data is easy to come by, so is forestry data...
A lot of people are not aware that any plant not just trees consume CO2, grass & weeds do so at an even higher rate.
Plant-fiber is a Carbohydrate, much like Amylose...:





The only difference is that the  Cellulose  Polymer link is stereoscopically a "beta" instead of an "alpha" link...:






You can make Glucose out of both...but stochiometricly both are the same C(6)H(12)O(6)
The term "Carbohydrate" is a bit misleading, because the photosynthesis does not hydrate Carbon as the term would suggest to most, but proceeds like this, as You all should know..:

                           6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy  C6H12O6 + 6O2 .

Yes, weeds, grass, shrubs, crops of any kind do it the same way as trees do it...
and just using estimated forest coverage satellite pictures do not give an accurate data set regardless who`s computer model You want to use.

Mauna Lua cheats BIG TIME with their CO2 levels, even more so than the Hockey Stick temp graph...it`s just not as easy to spot unless You have done CO2 trace analysis YOURSELF...and I have, not @ Mauna Lua, but at the "Astro Labs" in the arctic....and I was the guy that more often than not calibrated the Gaschromathographs






They cheat not just with the way the levels are reported, but also how the air sampling is timed.
*The timing cheat is that they never ever take samples if there was any major precipitation in the air-mass coming at the Astro Labs.
*...because the CO2 is knocked WAY DOWN then..

The reporting cheat works like this ...ppm CO2 is reported as "Molar moisture corrected ppm CO2 content"...
And aside from the people who actually do the analysis nobody seems to be able to spot this outrageous fraud...
That is VIRTUAL and not REAL AIR..!!! 
Just imagine what happens in the real world if You suck out all the Volume taken up by water vapor in REAL AIR...how massive the loss of volume is...well Hurricanes and Tornadoes give testimony to that...
Any  NORMAL SCIENCE would report CO2 either as ppm Volume per Volume or as ppm weight per Volume or as ppm weight per weight...and in each case the volume or the weight or water vapor which is ALWAYS PRESENT IN REAL AIR stays in the equation...:

ppm CO2 = [dim=milligrams or millilters] CO2 *DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL [dim=kilograms or liters] *
*and not divided by (air MINUS moisture..as in water vapor)*

*After that they express it in Molar format, using ASTM standard pressure & temperature  to hide this massive cheat...and it`s a simple Microsoft Spread SHIT program that does it all for them
*

They feed in milliliters per Liter into the input field and out comes "molar moisture corrected ppm CO2"
*They HAVE TO FEED INTO  this MS spread the bullshit program   milliliters per Liter, because the air sample is MEASURED in as  LITERS and the SAMPLE IS INJECTED into the sampling port of the GC in MILLILITERS..!!!!*

*And that nifty trick was not dreamt up by climate "scientists" that has all the earmarks of a well seasoned Chemist who whored himself out for big buck$*

The actual "climatology" technician at the Astro Labs are usually from European Universities, like the Max Planck institute or similar and NONE OF THEM is a Chemist...somehow Chemists are filtered out from these postings...and the poos slobs that are there
*are totally unaware of the gigantic cheat performed  by the equation which converts the GC readout to "molar moisture corrected ppm" *



Cheats like that are all too common in political statistics, but in Science that is totally unacceptable

Thank You in advance



Old Rocks said:


> By the way, BiPolar, your posts are a bit more lucid today. Run out of torpedo juice?



"Torpedo juice"...???
At least I`ld know how to make any if I wanted to, which kind of Torpedo would You like up your asshole, a "quicky" with a bubbles trail, or you prefer a more stelthy one that has no trail..?....telling the tell tail trail or* tale of the tail *as it were, you fucking low life fag...
Since You are not a Chemist I`m pretty sure what fags like you call "Torpedo juice" ..*.it sure as hell ain`t Hydrazine and Peroxide*
But I could also make "Torpedo Jews"....fuck I could even make soap out of Jews, why not "Torpedo Jews"...?
Fuck are You a fucking stupid moron, and a glutton for punishment


----------



## Chris (Apr 8, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2011 was 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the second-lowest March extent on record, after 2006.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 8, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I would like to make an appeal to forum members who might be interested in gathering data for a* global CO2 consumption computer model.
> *
> What we need is data to get an acceptable estimate of this planet`s annual plant bio mass production. Everything...even the grass and the weeds that grow in Your yard count...
> 
> ...





The earth is a closed chemical and biologic system. Gravity makes it that way. We get radiated by the sun, but other than that, evolution happens.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.



Three men apply to be controller of a company.

The first man to be interviewed sits down and the boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man is dumbfounded and the boss shows him to the door.

The next man is given the same question, he replies "well the basic accounting equation is assets = liabilities + stock holders equity. The assets are $12 million and the liabilities are $7.5 million so stock holders equity is $4.5 million." To his surprise, the boss shows HIM to the door as well.

The final man goes into the interview and boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man answers "Whatever you want it to be!" The boss says "You're hired and will go far."

Three physicists apply for a government grant.......


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 8, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.
> ...




Being both a physicist and an accountant...an odd combination...sales and costs in any given year are only obliquely related to assets, liabilities, and stock holder equity.

It was still funny...chuckle.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 8, 2011)

Lets get a little more into the REAL Chemical/ Physics  aspects versus "GW" Myths.
Before we close the chapter how Maun Lua & the arctic Astro Labs are cheating
with the "moisture corrected Molar CO2 ppm" I think its also necessary to
point out that none of these labs record the ACTUAL barometric pressure,
the ACTUAL temperature and the ACTUAL humidity for the air samples they took.
The MS Spreadsheet calculation simply plugs in a "standard atmosphere" of 20 deg C
etc in and then bloats up the actual ppm to "moisture corrected Molar ppm".

I need not say, that arctic air is cold and dense and in reality You sampled way more air
with 1 liter as You would have if You`ld draw air @ 20 C and >50% relative humidity.
Curiously the Mauna Lua calculation does correct for altitude pressure, after all
"GW" picks even the little scraps that work in their favor..
But even there the actual air temperature & RH of the sample is not recorded...
The "calculation" simply uses the same value for each sampling.

Now on to the "positive feedback effect".
GW with the minuscule amount of Infrared, that CO2 can absorb does not compute
without a "positive feedback"...it`s important to understand this.

Lets now examine how this Hollywood special effect is conjured up.
They quote the Clausius Clapeyron Equation to "substantiate" this "positive feedback"
and since they did have to acknowledge that water vapor IR absorption dwarfs
CO2 IR absorption into irrelevant oblivion, they parrot the CC equation and
the increased amount of water that an increase of atmospheric CO2 allegedly will
cause to happen.
First of all water evaporation has been monitored many decades before this CO2 fraud became
a political issue...and none of this is reflected in the world wide "pan evaporation" data
set. There was NO world wide INCREASE IN WATER EVAPORATION ....!

Furthermore the Clausius Clapeyron Equation says nothing of the kind as GW politics
would like to have you believe.
It`s a simplified equation Chemists use all the time if they don`t have
an actual  vapor pressure versus temperature for a given substance at a
pressure and Temperature other than the value listed in the Merck or the "Rubber Index"
of physical data for all known substances.






(I got the entire set these cost ~ U$ 200 per book...*it`s a job requirement* for REAL SCIENTISTS to own these..)




So we use the CC equation to extrapolate for a best possible estimate.
But we are talking about water here, not some exotic substance and only someone
who wants to make a theatrical appearance would quote Clausius Clapeyron.
There are vapor pressure versus Temperature to the hilt for water...!!!
Throwing buzzwords around like that is strictly Wizard of Oz theatrics.

Furthermore the CC equation is for a CLOSED SYSTEM...!!!
It will give You the partial pressure any component will contribute to
the  total pressure the closed system will be at the temperature You are
interested in, and that is all it will give you.
No way can you pretend that this equation states a "positive feedback"
with an increase in temperature
, unless of course you are sure that your audience `s eyes glazed over
when You mention something like the Clausius Clapeyron equation...
any Chemist would burst out laughing if You cite this equation while
you are talking about common water vapor .

And to apply this equation, chiefly designed for calculating expected
pressure inside an autoclave during a chemical reaction to our atmosphere
is beyond ridiculous.

Every man in the street knows, that when water evaporates and the
relative humidity increases, that contrary to Clauses Clapeyron the
barometric pressure is NOT GOING UP, but is falling.

But Clausius Clapeyron was  never even intended  for atmospheric
pressure changes due to the predicted increase in partial vapor pressure
of water as the temperature goes up, but it does so rather accurately for
a CLOSED SYSTEM like a vacuum distillation or the opposite
an autoclave for a high pressure environment that some chemical
reactions require.

But the most ridiculous part is citing this equation to "prove a positive
feedback"...

All things considered now, lets look again at this Hollywood "positive feedback" stunt...

1.) the temperature has to go up to begin with, so that the vapor pressure
of water increases...
2.) They say, because more water evaporated and water absorbs a lot of IR (which is true)
that...:
3.) The temperature will now climb more, .....and call it  a "positive feedback"....


*And no one accounts  where the extra heat energy +temperature to raise the water vapor pressure
came from to begin with...!!!!!*

What we have here is a typical Hollywood special effect  which makes it
possible to pull up global temperature like a cartoon character pulls himself up by his own boot straps...



By the way, the term "positive feedback" comes from the field of electronics...
Differential Amplifiers are wired either in negative or positive feed back mode.
You feed a portion of the amplifier's output back to the input...

The "positive feedback" is when the input and the output are in phase, and
in a negative feedback mode input and output are 180 degrees out of phase

but the cruel reality is, that  the extra energy to achieve the "positive feedback" result has to come from
a power supply...it`s not as if you could get an output increase just from
the tiny amount you were feeding back to the input side and thereby "boosted" the
energy with the tiny input...

Too bad, else we could have perpetual motion motors that power
our entire civilization...
Its also amazing how many people even today claim that its
only a question of time till "science" makes this final breakthrough


But Al Gore and "the positive feedback  Globalwarming science " pulled his feat off in public
not in a laboratory but on a political stage ...and that`s why he got the
Nobel Peace Prize, instead of the Nobel Prize in Physics

*look at this fraud artist posing as a "scientist"...:*






He sat down for this Photo with his tree in front of a shelf with Erlenmeyer and Volumetric Flasks, a stack of Petri Dishes and some boxes of filter paper to appear as a "scientist"...

and would not even have a clue what any of that stuff behind him is for...as if You`l need to be in a Chem Lab to count tree rings!


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2011)

but I thought when I tap on my barometer and it goes up....



good one PB


----------



## Chris (Apr 8, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2011)

Chris said:


>



A right click on the graph shows the source as :
[COLOR="Red"]http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png[/COLOR]
* So the original source for this graph image  was nsidc.org* National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) 


> The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
> Albert Einstein"




and @ NSIDC they freely discuss the problems they had (amongst themselves) , these problems are quite common, but not very often disclosed
http://nsidc.org/pubs/special/5/index.html[/COLOR]]NSIDC Special Report 5: Intercomparison of DMSP F11- and F13-derived Sea Ice Products


> The SSM/I instrument as flown on the DMSP spacecraft is a seven channel, four frequency, linearly polarized, passive microwave radiometric system that records emitted energy at 19.3, 22.2, 37.0 and 85.5 GHz. The SSM/I data used here were processed at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. The final product is a series of daily maps of brightness temperatures for the Northern and Southern hemispheres, gridded into 25 km by 25 km pixels for the 19, 22, and 37 GHz channels, and 12.5 km by 12.5 km pixels at 85 GHz (NSIDC 1996). Since in high latitudes multiple orbit crossings occur over some locations, each pixel consists of an average of all orbit swaths during a 24-hour period.
> 
> For the months of May through September 1995, a common data set for the two different SSM/I instruments is available. As indicated in Table 1, the orbit configurations and equator crossing times between F11 and F13 are quite similar, so a reasonable assumption is that* any differences between the F11 and F13 brightness temperatures are due primarily to sensor calibration*. However, initial examination of the overlapping data showed considerable scatter on specific days. *Closer examination of the data for these days indicates that this scatter is due to differences over open ocean areas, resulting from missing orbits in the F11 data*. Over such areas, the varying effects of weather over the 24-hour averaging period are substantial enough to introduce considerable differences in the daily averages for F11 and F13. This problem does not affect the systematic sensor-related differences we are considering here,* so a visual inspection of brightness temperature scatter plots was used to exclude days with particularly large scatter due to orbit averaging.* The end result used for subsequent analysis is a data set of 139 days of overlapping F11 and F13 data, with data excluded for 5 May, 14 July, 1-2 September and 21-22 September.
> 
> ...



Don`t read me wrong please, I am a fan of satellite data gathering, but You simply can`t beat close up inspection...applies to military intelligence gathering as well as science.

Satellites are great though for spotting subtle changes that You`l never notice close up, however when it comes to detail they are the wrong tool.
Sometimes a microscope is better suited than a telescope, to put it into an analogy what I am saying here.

Looking at the grey shaded Standard deviation on graph You posted here we are not really far off the 79-2000 average, and in that data set You have to wonder about the data quality even more than that of DMSP F11, which was launched November 1991.

So there are 12 years worth of un-explained data in that set 79 -2000 data set.
But the most important feature in the graph You posted is that 79-2000, 2007 and 2011 data from January till May...although they don`t fall exactly on the same Y points all lines proceed almost EXACTLY parallel to each other.

Had there been a "warming climate" these lines would certainly not track along in a perfect unison formation like that, but each line below would have began diverging downwards from the lines above it, as we proceed from left to right on the X-axis....to put it simply, a "warmer climate" also means a sooner melt

But I`m glad You did post this graph, I was always waiting for an opportunity to show* how a lot of this kind of data has been washed through various algorithms...*....making it not much better than computer model generated "data"  of a virtual reality.

*Again I am in no way saying You can`t gather valuable data with passive infrared satellite imagery but there are limitations!*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2011)

Chris said:


>



*You wanna see what kind of cheats your sources are...?*
It`s easy to show, because from the picture link for that doctored up graph it`s possible to bust right into their archives, the fools are using an insecure server.:
Index of /data/seaice_index/images

and in case You did not notice besides this pack of lies packed into this graph almost every file has been modified over and over...this batch:
N_year_timeseries_webtmb.png     08-Apr-2011 07:55   58K  

They want to front as legitimate science and *if you want to see the actual data t*hey want to know why you want it and what you plan to do with it...:
Konrad Steffen's group Greenland Climate Network


> Request Personal Information
> Please detail your project and the goal to use this dataset to achieve


well anyway instead of writing several pages of this phony data which is also only a "soft hack" away I`ll just show you with 3 pictures what these bastards are doing...it should give You a general idea..:

They started with this:





*which is less than 625 square kilometers resolution and washed it through algorithms till it became this...:
*





and this they further dramatized to this, which they published just yesterday @  about half a dozen wikipedia pages..:
Climate change in the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
titled *Arctic shrinkage*






Then they boast that they have ground stations on Greenland + a Data set from these ground stations and they even supply a link on their dot climate Orgasm web page...but if You figure You get to see data, WRONG....!!! all You get is:


> *Object not found!*



Then if You dig deeper about these "Greenland ground stations" You find that they either failed to transmit or have been removed years ago.

And why would they do this...???
Well here is the Answer.....:

Research at NSIDC: Satellite Studies of Arctic Climate Connections between Sea Ice, the Greenland Ice Sheet, the Adjacent Land and Atmospheric Cloud Properties



> *nsidc.org/research/projects*
> This project is funded by NASA grant NNG04G051G
> Test the utility of multivariate analysis of cryospheric variables as *a more effective means of detecting climatic change in regions where field observations are scarce*



As usual in "climate science" the virtual cyber-space temperature inside a "computer model" is preferred to a real thermometer...and if reality catches up to the latest batch of lies "climatologists" can`t be held accountable for *what kind of garbage came out of the* * Omega Equation"...*

Fuck I think they drove by a funeral home and liked the ominous name....goes so well with the flooded New York pictures don`t you think  



And on the front pages they are telling the public that they have "numerous groundstations on Greenland, " that monitor every fart

here is what they did see of Greenland...:
*The IceBridge crew fly down Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland with NASA's DC-8 aircraft*




*One quicky "Climatologist" summer tourist flyby like most of the other "Greenland Experts"*

And here is their latest creation"...:






and again it`s child`s play to source their "data"...:



> {{Information |Description={{en|1=Extends File:Seaice-1870-2007.png to 2009 using data from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/, lightly munged.}} |*Source={{own}*} |Author=William M. Connolley



*In other words he cooked it up himself.*.and that`s how he did it...:



> Data Summary
> The* data is derived from a dynamic model u*sing the omega equation which describes vertical atmospheric motion. The data are arrayed in a 67 x 69 grid with a grid length of 50 km.
> 
> Two versions of the data are available in separate directories (ver1 and ver2)




This clusterfuck has been  on the $$$$$ gravy train and still is...:


> This project is funded by NSF grant ARC 0805821
> Project Summary
> 
> This effort is testing the hypothesis that the loss of Arctic sea ice and northern high latitude snow cover will invoke changes in the seasonality, spatial distribution and magnitudes of precipitation (P) and net precipitation (P-E) over the Arctic, which along with attendant* changes in temperature, have ramifications for the freshwater budget of the Arctic Ocean and the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet.
> *



See, *they are not researching anything,* ..as  real scientists would do it, *they are scavenging for information that substantiates their doomsday prophecies*

So that You have something to quote in a forum like this one

Oh yeah this would be right up your alley there "James Bond"...





The temperature data set that they once had, but for some strange reason don`t have anymore...like Michael Mann`s Hockey stick data set, which vanished as well...they did email before to some select "clientele"..now they are telling them that they need the  "Polaris Program" to decrypt the temperature readings...
As if simple thermometer readings were some sort of "top secret information"...not for the general public.....they are in the "little endian hexa decimal format".
So all You need is one line in C+ and switch the digits so the LSB is behind the MSB, then convert HEX to DEC...
[B][SIZE="4"]and after that You have a shitload of totally meaning less numbers that show ABSOLUTELY NO TREND[/SIZE][/B]

But only members of Annie secret inner circle with the Ovaltine secret decoder ring are supposed to see these numbers...
You want them "James Bond"...? 
[IMG]http://www.usmessageboard.com/customavatars/avatar11254_1.gif

I can e-mail them to you

I did not mind doing this for entertainment tonight...it was another one of these nights where I took the night shift to babysit one of the kids who has brought home the flu from school..


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 9, 2011)

*Polar once again, decimating..............absolutely decimating the competition!!!!!!*



Polar bro..........Im laughing my balls off!!!

Its fascinating these dolts still show up!!! Having said that, I'd be bummed if they didnt!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 9, 2011)

dec·i·mate verb \&#712;de-s&#601;-&#716;m&#257;t\
dec·i·mat·eddec·i·mat·ing
Definition of DECIMATE
transitive verb
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of 
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier  John Dryden> 
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>







or...............my definition on this forum =


----------



## polarbear (Apr 9, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> dec·i·mate verb \&#712;de-s&#601;-&#716;m&#257;t\
> dec·i·mat·eddec·i·mat·ing
> Definition of DECIMATE
> transitive verb
> ...



Think nothing of it...except maybe the way older Germans define "decimate" and the 10% kill rate is not exactly the same as the Oxford dictionary definition,...

You could have fun with that...remember this...:.....?








> *I do believe I have You covered*



Or 



> *Don`t bring a knife to a gun fight*








*But some people just don`t learn...:*







*And others figure we should all run scared from these kind of guns...:*







Keep bringing it on "OldRocks" and the rest of you  Sciencewannabees....:










Why stop now...? As far as You guys are concerned You seem to be winning so far...:


----------



## Chris (Apr 9, 2011)

The news just seems to be getting worse and worse coming out of the Arctic and Antarctic. The melting of ice is not appearing to let up, and is in fact, getting faster. A new NASA-funded satellite study shows that the two biggest ice sheets on Earth - Greenland and Antarctica - are losing mass at an accelerating rate. This is the longest study ever conducted to analyze changing ice conditions at the poles, spanning nearly 20 years. Researchers concluded that the melting of ice caps has overtaken the melting of mountain glaciers to be the most dominant source of global sea level rise, much sooner than previous forecast models predicted. 

Over the length of the study, the ice caps have lost an average combined mass of 475 gigatons per year (1 gigaton = 1 billion metric tons). Over the course of the study, that number has risen by 36.3 gigatons for each consecutive year on average. In comparison, the loss of mountain glaciers was estimated at 402 gigatons per year on average. However, the rate of acceleration for mountain glacier loss is three times smaller than that of the ice caps.

NASA: Ice Caps Overtake Glaciers as Biggest Contributors to Rising Seas | Reuters


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> The news just seems to be getting worse and worse coming out of the Arctic and Antarctic. The melting of ice is not appearing to let up, and is in fact, getting faster. A new NASA-funded satellite study shows that the two biggest ice sheets on Earth - Greenland and Antarctica - are losing mass at an accelerating rate. This is the longest study ever conducted to analyze changing ice conditions at the poles, spanning nearly 20 years. Researchers concluded that the melting of ice caps has overtaken the melting of mountain glaciers to be the most dominant source of global sea level rise, much sooner than previous forecast models predicted.
> 
> Over the length of the study, the ice caps have lost an average combined mass of 475 gigatons per year (1 gigaton = 1 billion metric tons). Over the course of the study, that number has risen by 36.3 gigatons for each consecutive year on average. In comparison, the loss of mountain glaciers was estimated at 402 gigatons per year on average. However, the rate of acceleration for mountain glacier loss is three times smaller than that of the ice caps.
> 
> NASA: Ice Caps Overtake Glaciers as Biggest Contributors to Rising Seas | Reuters






Really?  I think not...

"It turns out these big blobs underneath the ice sheet were ice that had frozen on from the bottom of the ice sheet," she says. "There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet."

Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way  it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down. But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places.

Heat from the Earth had melted the bottom of the glaciers, and then that water refroze, and it created what you could think of as gigantic frost heaves, so powerful that they actually altered the shape of the surface, half a mile to 2 miles above.

Then of course there's this little photograph that shows the top 30 feet of transmission towers that were built by ITT back in the 1960's...they are 115 feet tall.....that means that 85 FEET of ice has been laid down in 50 years.
 That's the crane that was used to help build them.

It's Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets : NPR

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

World Climate Report » Uncertainties Galore!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

*Interesting trend for the last decade for sea ice, overall. *

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## Oddball (Apr 10, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Interesting trend for the last decade for sea ice, overall. *
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
> 
> ...







I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 10, 2011)

Oddball said:


>



You quoted :
"http://wxmaps.org/"
The first 2 images are *forecasts based on the the CRU 100-yr climatology computer model*...the web page says so right here.:
Short-Term Climate Outlooks


> The climate outlook for temperature shows the 0-7 day and 8-15 day means plus the departure of the first 7-day mean from the CRU 100-yr climatology.



And the third image actually shows that most of* North America is 4 to 6 deg Celsius below normal...*
*And that the arctic is more than 10 degrees below normal*

before your`s and the other postings the same2 idiots keep posting the same crap over and over again.

Let`s see what Environment Canada has to say about it...:

1.) about how ice sheets and glaciers break up...:
Environment Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Ice Shelf Calving Mechanisms


> *Ice Shelf Calving Mechanisms*
> 
> Environment Canada
> 
> ...



2.) how does melting from above occur *when it does...:
*



> Winds in the Arctic blow in mainly from the west as part of the westerlies, the name given to the main pattern of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere. Wind speeds in the western Arctic are generally lower than in the east. In Davis Strait, wind storms lasting two or three days per month are a common phenomenon each month throughout the winter.
> 
> Winds blowing downslope, from high to low ground, accelerate as the air descends. Such winds reach hurricane force over the* Melville Hills* at the base of the *Parry Peninsula, in the Amundsen Gulf,* NWT. These winds may also form over the glaciers in mountainous areas of the eastern Arctic Islands. Air flowing over these icy areas cools rapidly and flows downslope under the force of gravity. In some cases, these downslope or *katabatic winds are very warm*. In the Arctic, warm, dry foehn winds can cause melting at the edges of glaciers, and have been recorded over the *White Glacier of Axel Heiberg Island*.
> Winds blow more strongly over the flat, open areas of the central and western Arctic Islands and less over the more rugged terrain of the eastern Arctic Islands. These winds redistribute the snow cover, piling it into dunes or raking it into sastrugi (parallel ridges). The rougher the terrain, the more unequal the surface snow cover. Snow cover is relatively uniform over flat tundra and sea ice, but is generally blown away from watersheds, windward slopes, and plateaus into adjacent hollows.
> ...




*And GW "science" + every moron that believes it continues to ignore these well known factc*

They also have no interest in the extensive data collection carried out with the "Scandinavian Triangle"
One interesting thing that the "Scandinavian Triangle" has monitored over the years are the location and frequency of lightning...
Before we go into that, a little foreword explanation why this data is significant is in order.

1.)Heat causes convection...*that can not be avoided*
2.) Convective air-flows build up an electrical charge
3.) the more heat, the more convection, the more lightning activity.

So monitoring lightning activity gives a far wider overview for large areas and the prevailing temperatures...
Consider this...:







there is a direct relation to temperature and lightning activity:





And that relationship bears out short term and long term....:


http://www.geophysica.fi/pdf/geophysica_2008_44_1-2_067_tuomi.pdf


> Thunderstorm Climate of Finland 19982007
> Tapio J. Tuomi and Antti Mäkelä
> Finnish Meteorological Institute
> P.O. Box 503, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
> ...


And here is the area they monitored:





If You are looking for a trend, for the time period of 1998-2002 theres is no trend, but a status quo however 2003 -2007 clearly shows a downward trend and with it also clearly shows that the was NO INCREASE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
No point doing such a survey for Ellesmere & Greenland because the temperatures are far too low to set up the convection you need for lightning to ever occur, but Environment Canada does have maps for that and on these maps* the zone of increased temperatures for this convective action has not traveled one single mile further up North* ever since lightning activity has been monitored.
Environment Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Lightning activity in major cities in Canada - Manitoba
Lightning Detection - Environment Canada

So on one hand GW doomsday prophets* predict* catacalysmic storms with "computer models", yet ignore common lightning storms, why they happen, where and when...the same way they do it with "virtual" instead of REAL ice and with VIRTUAL temperature instead of REAL temperature, that in no way matched their predictions.

*All the while REAL science is saying if your computer model can`t even replicate empirical data then it it`s not valid...*

"GW climatology" has cemented their feet in the bucket using exaggerated data and an exaggerated model. Their is no way now they can go back now to actual empirical data 10 years back, run it through the model and show that it was right.
And now You know the reason why they refuse to publish the data set that they have used. 

No matter how often that is pointed out these utter morons + their following keep on quoting FORECASTS based on comedy models over and over again...

Like this guy for example: 






> Join Date: May 2008
> Location: Colbert Nation
> Posts: 13,611



*That`s almost 13 posts every day for 1075 consecutive days..*
That sure as shit does not leave a whole lot of time for reading and informing yourself....
as the stupid stuff he keeps posting here clearly shows



> Albert Einstein
> "If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."
> Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The news just seems to be getting worse and worse coming out of the Arctic and Antarctic. The melting of ice is not appearing to let up, and is in fact, getting faster. A new NASA-funded satellite study shows that the two biggest ice sheets on Earth - Greenland and Antarctica - are losing mass at an accelerating rate. This is the longest study ever conducted to analyze changing ice conditions at the poles, spanning nearly 20 years. Researchers concluded that the melting of ice caps has overtaken the melting of mountain glaciers to be the most dominant source of global sea level rise, much sooner than previous forecast models predicted.
> ...


But that's only because you're an ignorant, moronic dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine. The article you're citing in no way suggests that the amount of water being refrozen under one section of East Antarctica equals the amount of ice mass loss that is being recorded for Antarctica and Greenland. It is not, as would be obvious to any intelligent person reading that article. You only "_think_"(?) otherwise because some oil corp stooge put a deliberately twisted interpretation of that article up on some denier cult blog where you picked it up.





westwall said:


> Then of course there's this little photograph that shows the top 30 feet of transmission towers that were built by ITT back in the 1960's...they are 115 feet tall.....that means that 85 FEET of ice has been laid down in 50 years.
> That's the crane that was used to help build them.


Soooooooo gullible and sooooooooo stupid. Did you imagine that global warming means that it will stop snowing in Antarctica? LOL. Actually, global warming is increasing the water content of the atmosphere and is thus causing increased snowfall in cold areas like Antarctica and the northeastern US in wintertime and increased rainfalls/flooding in many places. Antarctica is losing ice mass mostly along the coastlines of Western Antarctica, although scientists have recently noticed ice mass losses from East Antarctica as well.



westwall said:


> I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?


Only if you're an idiot.





westwall said:


> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past


And just what, pray tell, does this article mean in relation to current global warming in your twisted little pea brain, walleyed? Do you imagine that "Greenland's lush past" refers to the Viking colonization? LOL.

From the article (excerpt):
*"DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago."
The ancient boreal forests were thought to cover southern Greenland during a period of increased global temperatures, known as an interglacial. Temperatures at the time were probably between 10C in summer and -17C in winter.
Although the ice contained only a handful of pollen grains and no fossils, the researchers were able to extract DNA from the organic matter held in the silt. 
Previously, the youngest fossil evidence of a native forest in the region came from fossils found in the Kap Kobenhavn Formation in northern Greenland. There, the fossils date from around 2.4m years ago.  *

So, they're talking about conditions in southern Greenland very far in the past, many glaciations ago. So what???

*Ice core evidence of recent glaciation*

*Ice cores are used to obtain a high resolution record of recent glaciation. It confirms the chronology of the marine isotopic stages. Ice core data shows that the last 400,000 years have consisted of short interglacials (10,000 to 30,000 years) about as warm as the present alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacials substantially colder than present. The new EPICA Antarctic ice core has revealed that between 400,000 and 780,000 years ago, interglacials occupied a considerably larger proportion of each glacial/interglacial cycle, but were not as warm as subsequent interglacials.
*






westwall said:


> World Climate Report » Uncertainties Galore!


Another fossil fuel industry sponsored disinformation site. Zero credibility.

"worldclimatereport.com"?

*World Climate Report*, *a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society, a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.*

*Western Fuels Association* *currently owns two mining operations that supply coal to its members... The Western Fuels Association has played a controversial role in the debate over global warming. They have established groups such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[2], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso. Groups established by industry bodies like the Western Fuels Association have been criticized as Astroturf organizations, since they appear superficially to be grassroots initiatives.  In addition to Patrick Michaels (chief editor), the staff is listed as Robert C. Balling, Jr (contributing editor)...
*

*The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels - It's a Small World After All*
26 May 09

*It&#8217;s not often the public gets to follow the money trail, so it was a treat this week when PR Watch revealed the Cato Institute has been bankrolling a consulting company owned by notorious climate denier Patrick Michaels to the tune of $242,900 since April 2006.

Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and according to tax documents uncovered by PR Watch for 2006 and 2007, Cato ponyed up almost a quarter million to Michaels&#8217; firm New Hope Environmental Services for "environmental policy" services.*
*Koch Industries* *(pronounced "coke") is the largest privately owned company in the United States[1]; though diversified, it amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining.[1] In spring 2010, Koch Industries was named one of the United States' top 10 air polluters in a study released by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst&#8217;s Political Economy Research Institute. [2]. The company was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a charter member of the John Birch Society and father of the current owners, who appear to be the most active orchestrators of anti-regulation efforts in the United States.*

*Robert C. Balling, Jr.* *is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[2]...
Balling was mentioned as a fossil fuel industry - funded scientist in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book The Heat is On. ...Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade... Between December 1998[5] and September 2001[6] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[7]*


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Soooooooo gullible and sooooooooo stupid. Did you imagine that global warming means that it will stop snowing in Antarctica?


One of the foremost and leading climatologists DID say however that snow would be a "rare and exciting event" in Europe due to global warming, back in 2000...

He really looks stupid and gullible now, by your own measure. Does he not?

*Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent*



> According to *Dr David Viner, a senior    research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of    East Anglia*,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare    and exciting event".   "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.




We're supposed to just faithfully believe what he says now, and not pay any attention to 11 years ago. Right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

LOL. Well, for sure, Balling is a well paid whore.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Interesting trend for the last decade for sea ice, overall. *
> ...



I think you are truly a dumb ass for even posting that kind of foolishness. And you dare try to pass yourself off as a scientist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2011)

NASA Finds Polar Ice Adding More to Rising Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 centimeters (3.1 inches) from glacial ice caps and 9 centimeters (3.5 inches) from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 centimeters (12.6 inches). While this provides one indication of the potential contribution ice sheets could make to sea level in the coming century, the authors caution that considerable uncertainties remain in estimating future ice loss acceleration.

Study results are published this month in Geophysical Research Letters. Other participating institutions include the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo.

JPL developed Grace and manages the mission for NASA. The University of Texas Center for Space Research in Austin has overall mission responsibility. GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ), Potsdam, Germany, is responsible for German mission elements.

*Lots of interesting information on this site. Even more here;*

GRACE Tellus


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Soooooooo gullible and sooooooooo stupid. Did you imagine that global warming means that it will stop snowing in Antarctica?
> ...


No, it is still you denier cult dimwits who look stupid and gullible.

Dr. Viner was working with the information they had at the time and since then some other newer trends have postponed his predictions but not invalidated them. "Within a few years" now seems to be more like 'within a few decades or so'. 

As the article you cited stated, the conditions when he made that statement were like this:
*"The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991. "*

Meanwhile, scientists have found that a rapidly warming Arctic, when coupled with the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, is pushing the cold weather south and, combined with the higher moisture content of the atmosphere created by global warming, is creating heavier snowfalls in North America and Europe.


*Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely*
March 1, 2011
_*Heavy Snowpack, Spring Creep Raise Threat Of Record Floods

WASHINGTON (March 1, 2011)  Global warming is loading the dice to increase the frequency of record-setting snowstorms like those that have pounded the United States and Europe the past two winters, according to scientists participating in a telephone press conference held today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet, said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for the Weather Underground website. In fact, as the Earth gets warmer and more moisture gets absorbed into the atmosphere, we are steadily loading the dice in favor of more extreme storms in all seasons, capable of causing greater impacts on society. ~Edit in accordance with our copyright rule, linked below. Please adhere to it in the future. - Moderator

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/144985-ok-listen-up.html

MORE RESOURCES
For more information about ties between extreme winter weather and global warming, see the UCS backgrounder: Its Cold and My Car Is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening?

For more information on the record low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, see the National Snow and Ice Data Center website. 

For more information on extreme weather trends across the country, see the Weather Underground website. *_

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

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


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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







Tell that to the ice!  Seems to me it has sure grown pretty damned deep in half a century don't you?  Gosh you're blind.


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





You want to know what's really funny?  You guys are trying so hard to rewrite history you no longer can remember which lie you told.  Sad and funny at the same time.  I'll just post one link which refutes your bloviating quite nicely, quality over quantity and all that you know....I hate to tell you blunder but no one cares about you and your failed religion any longer....buck up old chap, there will be some other "terrible threat" pop up any moment now and you can throw your religious fervor into that cause.  Cheerio!

Al Gore makes latest global-warming pitch in New York Times - NYPOST.com


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> NASA Finds Polar Ice Adding More to Rising Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> 
> The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 centimeters (3.1 inches) from glacial ice caps and 9 centimeters (3.5 inches) from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 centimeters (12.6 inches). While this provides one indication of the potential contribution ice sheets could make to sea level in the coming century, the authors caution that considerable uncertainties remain in estimating future ice loss acceleration.
> 
> ...






From your link....yet another case of some black box scientist plugging numbers into a poorly written computer model and thinking that is data...just like you folks.  Computer models are not data, they are predictions and they have never been correct once.


Rignot's team combined nearly two decades (1992-2009) of monthly satellite measurements with advanced regional atmospheric climate model data to examine changes in ice sheet mass and trends in acceleration of ice loss.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Following Viner and his crew's instructions faithfully, you refer to skeptical people as "deniers," trying to lump them all in with Holocaust deniers.

Do you not see your religious devotion at work?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


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



LOL. So typical that a denier cult dimwit would imagine that un-sourced pictures are better 'evidence' for his delusions than the actual scientific evidence that debunks his myths.

*Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study*
November 22, 2009 

*Measurements of Winter Arctic Sea Ice Shows Continuing Ice Loss, Study Finds*
ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011)

*Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds*
- Mar 9, 2011


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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


Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







I guess you didn't know about this peer reviewed study (or more likely you chose to ignore it because you're a religious fanatic) that shows how the GRACE satellites are heavily biased...

The two researchers report that the mean ocean mass trends they calculated "vary quite dramatically depending on which GRACE product is used, which adjustments are applied, and how the data are processed." More specifically, they state that "the PGR adjustment ranges from 1 to 2 mm/year, the geocenter adjustment may have biases on the order of 0.2 mm/year, and the atmospheric mass correction may have errors of up to 0.1 mm/year," while "differences between GRACE data centers are quite large, up to 1 mm/year, and differences due to variations in the processing may be up to 0.5 mm/year."

What it means
In light of the fact that Quinn and Ponte indicate that "over the last century, the rate of sea level rise has been only 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year, based on tide gauge reconstructions (Church and White, 2006)," it seems a bit strange that one would ever question that result on the basis of a GRACE-derived assessment, with its many and potentially very large "errors and biases." In addition, as Ramillien et al. (2006) have noted, "the GRACE data time series is still very short," and results obtained from it "must be considered as preliminary since we cannot exclude that apparent trends [derived from it] only reflect inter-annual fluctuations." And as Quinn and Ponte also add, "non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran-Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt the ocean trend estimates." 

Clearly, the GRACE approach to evaluating ocean mass and sea level trends still has a long way to go -- and must develop a long history of data acquisition -- before it can ever be considered a reliable means of providing assessments of ocean mass and sea level change that are accurate enough to detect an anthropogenic signal that could be confidently distinguished from natural variability.


CO2 Science



WHOOPS! LOOKS LIKE THE RELIGIOUS FANATIC SCREWED UP AGAIN!

You're so easy to refute, just go home little one, you're way out of your league...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Dr. Viner was working with the information they had at the time and since then some other newer trends have postponed his predictions but not invalidated them.


In other words, he was wrong, but he's right now! 

Were they right on accepted climate science then? --> *Rain follows the plow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

Of course not. Only now when they are just flat out wrong, their acolytes still defend it. Just keep moving the goalposts!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the fossil fuel industry propaganda whole without ever checking your sources or showing any discrimination on what constitutes a reliable source for accurate scientific information and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.

The reasons for using the term skeptics to identify some of those who question climate science and deniers for others are discussed at:

    * Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
    * Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
    * That Denier vs Septic thing again
    * Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
    * How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
    * About denialism
    * Skepticism
    * Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
    * climate denial is not skepticism!
    * Climate change deniers are flat-earthers
    * Six Aspects of Denial
    * Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
    * Climate Change Fundamentalism
    * Climate change creationists
    * Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
    * Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
    * Why Global Warming is a Lie


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Your ignorance is indeed towering.... You actually have no clue at all where I stand on this issue. I'm certainly not "pro oil."

BUT... I DO know a fundie religious fanatic when I see one. And you're it! Complete with bible thumping!


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Wow, if you change the term from denialist to alarmist quack they all work too!  

A more sure sign they have lost the argument you could never post.  These links are hilarious!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingLaughter You sure seem thin skinned about it all.... Almost like you have doubts yourself! Of course, you would first have to have a modicum of intellectual honesty and just honesty in general, for there to be any doubt!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term for idiots like you who swallow the  propaganda whole without ever checking your sources


^^^The irony of this is thick, after seeing this earlier pwnage: *PWNED!*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


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



And there's one more thing that you don't understand. An 'appeal to authority' is considered a logical fallacy in a formal debate because it can be an attempt to say that something is true _just_ because a supposed expert says it is true. However, in the real world, empirically, if the great majority of the experts in a given field say that all of the available research indicates a certain conclusion, then it's really strong odds that they  are right. For example, virtually all of the medical experts now believe that smoking tobacco causes an increased incidence of various diseases, like cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is not a 'fallacy' to use such a fact as a valid argument in a debate about the dangers of tobacco smoking, if you can demonstrate the truth of that consensus.

From the Wikipedia article that you obviously failed to read or else couldn't comprehend:

*On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted...The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument...The second form, citing a source who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and cannot be reasonably expected to have the same experience, knowledge and skill that that person has. Many trust a surgeon without ever needing to know all the details about surgery themselves. 

An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, given the nature of truth and the Consensus theory of truth, because the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so. The fact that, objectively, a proposition is in fact true or that it has good unrelated arguments supporting it will be what makes authorities believe it to be true.

As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue (this line of thought is sometimes known as the logical fallacy fallacy) and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument. It also must be noted that a rigorous concept of truth is a complex subject. In informal logic, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe Xfor example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialismmakes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe X.*


*The Skeptic's Dictionary - appeal to authority
*
*Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it.*



*Philosophical Society - Logical Fallacies *

*appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority. *


So, dimwit, in the case of my post that you labeled as a fallacious 'appeal to authority', we have an article from physorg.com about a study published in the journal *Nature Geoscience*, an article from ScienceDaily about some new data released by the scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, and an article in Bloomberg News about a study by the scientists at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal.
*All experts in this field of study
The experts are in agreement
The research results were explicitly referenced and quoted
*

You lose again.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


Once again you demonstrate that you are much too retarded to understand what is being said.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term
> industry propaganda
> accurate scientific information
> and what sources are* obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.*
> ...



Holy fuck, we have someone who reads nothing but "greenfyre" and *one-blue-marble.com/blog*   and lost most of his marbles giving us a "science lesson" here.


RollingThunder said:


> accurate scientific information



Isn`t that Robin,... OldRocks  new gay boyfriend, after he broke up with Batman ?
Maybe not, but for sure he either is a caveman or lived in some sort of bat-cave all this time.

"OldRocks" too is throwing more urls up into the air in sheer desperation, the same crap as always...I`ll let my kids read them after they are done with their comics


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

polarbear said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term
> ...


You seem to be especially retarded even when compared to the ordinary retards in your ginned up cult of denial. It is obvious that you wouldn't know "accurate scientific information" if it bit you. I insult your intelligence because it is obvious that you have none. You lamely attempt to insult me over my supposed sexual orientation, which you obviously know nothing about, but that kind of jibe is standard fare for homos in denial. Attack in others what you hate in yourself. LOL. Idiot.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






When nothing of import is being said you need very little intellect to understand it, you are perfect for the job!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Ah, but the problem is, walleyedretard, you lack even the minimal level of intellect that would be necessary in order to be able to discern when something of "_import is being said_".

Your problem really, is that you're so stupid you fall for the most idiotic nonsense and blatant propaganda from bad sources with an axe to grind. So stupid and ignorant are you that you reject the actual evidence and scientific testimony from every major scientific organization, society and national academy in the world in favor of silly lies and misinformation from the fossil fuel industry because it suits your political prejudices. You are a foolish dupe arguing from a position of ignorance and false beliefs. You are not a 'skeptic', you are a *denier*.

This piece describes you and some of the other deniers on this forum to a tee.

*Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?*
(excerpt)

*Differentiating between Denier, a person who denies and Skeptic a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual hinges on their behaviour...  

A survey of the standard denier websites...gives us a host of arguments that range from facile to fraudulent. They rely on distortions, misrepresentations, straw man arguments, cherry picking data, and in some cases, blatant lies.

~EDIT: Again, read and adhere to our posting rules regarding articles. - Moderator

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/144985-ok-listen-up.html
*


----------



## wirebender (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


> I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?



You are asking him to accept observation in lieu of his religion, the models.  That is a hell of a lot to ask a zealot to accept.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think 85 feet of ice added in 50 years is a hell of a lot more compelling...don't you?
> ...



No, little cretin, walleyed is asking us to accept a couple of un-referenced pictures of some snow as evidence for or against anything. If you think those pictures 'prove' something about the scientifically measured ice loss in the Arctic, then I guess you're just as retarded and ignorant as walleyed. It seems like having an IQ below 80 is some kind of requirement for getting into your denier cult. Or maybe you just have to be that stupid to be gullible enough to fall for the anti-science bullcrap that is the foundation of your little cult of reality denial.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Here's the perfect description of you and your movement....
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion





Cult Definition


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Unreferenced or not show us ANYPLACE ON THE PLANET WHERE 85 FEET OF ICE IS NO BIG DEAL!  You fools are burning in a pit of gasoline and think the little bit of smoke is important!  You guys are a hoot!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Never mind this thundering asshole that appeared here on behest of "real science".
He seems to know his place in the food chain though, he is at the end where the excrement comes out, and as they say, "You are what You eat"..
He is a typical bottom feeder and it shows in the "literature & science" that he quoted






*greenfyre.wordpress*.com
*greenfyre.wordpress*.comskeptics-contrarians-or-deniers/"Skeptics, Contrarians, or* Deniers?*
*greenfyre.wordpress**.comthat-denier*-vs-septic-thing-again/#more-2959"]That &#8220;Denier vs Septic&#8221; thing again
*greenfyre.wordpress*.com/Why real skeptics detest* global warming Deniers*[/url]
*anarchist606.blogspo*t.com/2009/02/denialism-climate-change-holocaust.html"]Denialism: *Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution*
*one-blue-marble.com/blog*/?p=302"Climate Change *Fundamentalism*






Our latest forum addition and the URLs he quotes is a perfect example, ....I awarded "OldRocks" this "prize", now I realize I was mistaken and stand corrected...
even "OldRocks" URL-references are quite a few rungs higher up the chickenshit ladder than what`s being posted here since this latest moron showed up here.
Sadly not even the staunchest defenders of man made global warming read up on what the academics of man made GW have to say...
I waited and waited...but I guess the "science" behind the "Modtran" Computer model, that the entire GW "science" is based on is far too complicated for them to comprehend, nevermind the "explanation" how the academics which created "Modtran" are trying in vain to defend it...
So let`s go to the horses mouth...:
Here is an on line Calculator for Modtran...:
Modtran Infrared Atmospheric Radiation Code 

And here is one of Modtran staunchest defenders has to say about it...
You can read the whole thing Yourself, I`ll just quote the parts here where Modtran TOTALLY BOMBED OUT..
Greenhouse effect revisited&#8230; | Climate Change



> Every once in a while* it is worth reviewing the basic physics* behind the greenhouse effect and global warming. Sometimes all the debate about global warming in the media loses focus of the fact that the world really is governed by the laws of physics. *Unfortunately, many internet explanations get dumbed down *to the point of having an atmosphere that serves as a single &#8220;slab&#8221; between the ground and space, and has a bunch of colorful arrows coming out of it and bouncing off it, etc.* This is a useless explanation, and gives no justice to understanding what is happening.*



Well so far he is *100% ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON CORRECT...*

And then he commits the first major error...:



> This post is not meant to discuss why greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases. But it should be noted that the* bulk of the atmosphere,* including N2, O2, and Argon *are not infrared active molecule*



And inadvertently advertized that he has absolutely no clue about Infrared Absorption, lest has he ever performed any measurements himself...because the exact opposite is true..:






_I have to point out again and again, that the CO2 absorption in these illustrations IS NOT AT THE ACTUAL CONCENTRATIONS WE HAVE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE, but are absorption curves in a concentration range _*where IR can actually DETECT CO2, at 
~ 3% concentration[*

But let`s cut this guy some slack here, because he is not committing any intentional and outrageous fraud here...and so far the the mistakes are not of a serious nature

*But they soon will be, and again that`s not his fault, but Modtran is at fault here:
*


> in radiative terms, this is:
> http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=\s...ff})+=++150++W+m^{-2}&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=0



First huge mistake here,  the equation is the right one , but the problem is that a wrong value has been fed into the modified Stefan Bolzman equation
He started out by saying that the "internet equations have been dumbed down" and then he does the exact same thing himself and this pesty little REAL WORLD detail already got lost on the way to this point...:










So even this good fellow is not only using the "dumbed down disc" but is also using the Planck`s equation in a totally wrong way...*actually he is not*...*but "Modtran" does....
*....:



> One could compute the temperature change for a perturbation in the OLR for just a change in CO2, leaving other climate variables constant.
> 
> http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=\l...0.27+K(W+m^{-2})^{-1}&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=0
> 
> ...



And this is were the Modtran error is really HUGE, because a TOTALLY WRONG VALUE was fed into the model at this point...here is what should have been fed into Modtran...:






The integral of the area between 1900 to 2300 nanometers and not the values "GW science" fed in.
Even that value, the integral of 1900-2300 nm would be way too high, because it includes spectral bands where CO2 absorption is way way weaker than at the "analytical wavenumber" where CO2 absorption actually follows Beer Lambert`s law,...increasing absorption with an increase of CO2 concentration..*.and the very same Max Planck Institute in Germany, that is named after Max Planck has tried over and over again to point out this serious flaw "Modtran" is using*...:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact


> The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] *over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 *band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
> 
> *This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
> *
> ...



*And I wish to add, that REAL SCIENTISTS have been overly polite in their statements, ....*


So far we have only discussed the data which is "pre-calculated" thus grossly exaggerated what "Modtran" is being fed...
But Modtran is really a total joke, as with the Clausius Clapeyron equation "Modtran" is using as if the real world were a closed system like a vacuum distillation apparatus or an enclosed autoclave reaction chamber, the way Modtran calculates the water vapor enthalpy effects...
Modtran does the same thing even way way worse with the Infrared Energy, after it has been absorbed...and the bulk of the absorption, by the way is by the surface, not the atmosphere....
Modtran goes on and uses thermodynamic coefficients for our N2, O2, H2O vapor and the whiff of CO2 that`s there the same stupid way as Modtran is using the Clausius Clapeyron equation...
it uses the specific caloric values AGAIN  as if our REAL WORLD was a closed system, like the calorimeters we use to measure specific heat ....how many joules energy it takes to raise a substance...in this case our atmosphere by 1 degree Celsius...:



> In an isothermal atmosphere, you could not get a greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there You have it....
Our Math Professor who by sheer coincidience was also my Physiscs (Herr Professor (Dr.Hallermayer.....Dr. in Pysics, Professor in Math) alwas said, 


> There are those few who comprehend Math and Physics, these don`t have to memorize anything...*and all the others don`t comprehend it * have to memorize everything, *or copy other people`s work..*
> unfortunately both kinds will graduate....which is in effect a disgrace to science



*And so right he was....*

Because there are a lot of people out there who would understand REAL SCIENCE, but never had the good fortune to attend University...







and any one of them could have built a Modtran Model, far better than the "science memorizers" which have no understanding built....:


Because any of these guys could have told the Modtran creators, what happens in the real world. Even a house is a more closed system than our planet...but never the less this is what happens...:
and any Power Company, even You Yourself can verify this with the "Barlow wheel" on Your Hydro-meter...
clock the amount of energy it actually does take to change the temperature inside Your house by say 2 degree increments...
CMHC (Canada) has done that for You already...so don`t bother...:

Starting at upping by +3 degrees in a modern well insulated building
raising by 3 deg C..........: needs  + 3 % more Energy
by           5                      needs  + 15% more
by           7                                  21
by         11  deg C                        33 % more Energy...

Anyone who UNDERSTANDS Calculus (versus the memorizers) can tell You right off the bat
that when an increment of delta x =2 and delta Y keeps doubling, albeit Y= 2 X, that the root function of the relationship will be Y= X squared...!

And so it is indeed...:

Heat Loss from Buildings



> H = Ht + Hv + Hi         (1)
> 
> where
> 
> ...




And this is where the memorizer science grads have a problem...they are unable to *understand* how to apply this principle...

Because in the REAL WORLD like our planet, there is such a thing as the "standard lapse rate"...any aviator knows about it*(...right Westwall...?)*, and you don`t have to climb very high even over Florida in the summer and the temp is - 30 deg C in no time...

So in the real world the "engineering toolbox" equation applies...:
H2-H1= H1*H1

H2 is Your "inside temperature" in this case @ 0 a.g.l.  and H1 is the temperature by which this "Modtran" model is supposed to be raised,.......and H1 *squared* would of course be the* energy required in the REAL WORLD to do that...*

*And as You can see, Modtran uses only the simpleton linear equation,...as it were in a CLOSED SYSTEM...*.i.e. double the temperature increase requires only double the energy all the way up to when all the polar ice is melted and New York will be flooded.

*Any one of the guys from "This Old House" *









*could have built a "Modtran model house" that would have been way more intelligent than this retarded piece of virtual reality computer model crap "GW Science" has come up with

*


Manitoba Hydro for ex. comes on request  and lets You look at Your house with passive infrared to spot the very same "black body" radiation as in the Planck equation...
...as you increase the thermostat setting during a winter day....
That has absolutely nothing to do with "warm air leaking out"....that looks entirely different on passive IR...


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> If you think those pictures 'prove' something about the scientifically measured ice loss in the Arctic, then I guess you're just as retarded and ignorant as walleyed.



You say that as if ice loss in the Arctic were something new.  Is that the impression you are living under?

Here, a US submarine surfacing in open water at the North Pole in 1987






Here is the USS Skate in open water at the North Pole in 1959.






The fact is that you engage in hand wringing hysterics and little else.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 12, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > If you think those pictures 'prove' something about the scientifically measured ice loss in the Arctic, then I guess you're just as retarded and ignorant as walleyed.
> ...







greenfyre.wordpress.com



> RollingThunder
> No, 'denier' is a perfectly suitable term
> industry propaganda
> accurate scientific information
> and what sources are obviously biased by their financial vested interests in selling fossil fuel.




*A total retard *calling others "retarded"...this imbecile thinks ice "melts" from the top down.
Perhaps he cares to explain why icebergs and even ice floes once they get smaller roll over once the mass* UNDERNEATH* is reduced by the *dissolving action of salt water currents* has on ice.







These movements are controlled by gravity, wind, and the rising and sinking of water in different parts of the world, due to varying temperature. Temperature has a great effect on the density of water. As water warms, it expands and becomes less dense, causing it to rise to the surface. In warm climates this water evaporates quickly, thereby *increasing its salt concentration.* The increased salt concentration increases the surface water's density, causing it to sink. This in turn causes the upwelling of cooler waters that are then warmed by the sun,* and the cycle continues.* Forces linked to the Earth's rotation also govern the direction of currents. These *Coriolis forces cause ocean currents to move clockwise* in the Northern Hemisphere, and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. 


In large parts of the Arctic Ocean, the top layer (about 50 m) is of lower salinity and lower temperature than the rest. It remains relatively stable, because the salinity effect on density is bigger than the temperature effect. It is fed by the freshwater input of the big Siberian and Canadian streams (Ob, Yenissey, Lena, MacKenzie), the water of which quasi floats on the saltier, denser, deeper ocean water. Between this lower salinity layer and the bulk of the ocean lies the so called halocline, in which both salinity and temperature are rising with increasing depth. Any convection eddies caused by the temperature difference between the cold ocean surface and the warmer depth stop at this thermocline, leaving only heat conduction as upward heat transport mechanism, which is orders of magnitude smaller. Without this insulation effect, there would be much less Arctic sea ice. The salinity and temperature pattern of the Arctic Ocean can be quite complex, being dependent on the different flows into and out of the Arctic region

Just Yesterday on BBC...:

BBC News - New warning on Arctic sea ice melt



> New warning on Arctic sea ice melt
> 
> The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski's team a *deal of criticism from some of their peers.*
> 
> ...



They just don`t give up "computer modelling" and showing virtual ice "melting at alarming rates", do they...







But ever since "Climatologists" have been caught inventing the hockey stick-Temp graph and the "CO2 positive feedback" ... it`s tough going...because since then a "peer review" is not just conducted amongst themselves any more...


like "97 % of climatologists agree...".......!!!

So now these quacks changed their tune and say no more that "the arctic will be ice free in 2013"....they say* it might be *partially ice free during *the summer* months...
as the flaws in this computer model that made this prediction became apparent...
*Same cop out* as with the hockey stick when they were pressed for the data they used...  

Thanks for that picture Wirebender....great find,* kudos to You...!!!*... keep digging 
and* hi to You from Canada*


----------



## polarbear (Apr 12, 2011)

That all depends how our "Al Gore" version will fare in our upcoming May 2.nd federal election, here he is, Jack  Layton NDP and what he stands for...:














Pretty well the same as Your democrats....
legalizing pot, gay weddings and fossil oil + gasoline is evil

This lunatic teams up with our "green party"...here is the leader of Canada`s "Green Party" who thinks we should transport our goods in Canada like they do in Vietnam...:











She came to us from south of our border, from the United States



And here is thee  Liberal Party of Canada...
Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff...... our would be Obama version






his predecessor Chretien was our Prime Minister before he got ousted big time and we replaced him with Stephen Harper, Canada`s Conservative Party.

Chretien signed the Kyoto accord and then went on to legislate mandatory gun registration, gun confiscation, forced Canadians to pay world spot prices for our own oil etc etc...so, Canada spoke loud an clear and voted for Stephen Harper, from the heart of Canada`s Oil Province Alberta, every "man made GW" Occult member`s worst nightmare...:







You probably don`t know this in the U.S., but Canada does not have an elected Senate, it`s been appointed by the Prime Minister.
Stephen Harper wants an elected Senate, American style, he set out to scrap the restricted firearms (hand guns)  confiscation laws and tried to fire the entire multi billion $ clusterfuck bureaucracy Chretien (the former liberal PM) created,..

Then these pigs Layton, Elizabeth May and the new Liberal leader Ignatieff tried a coup d`etat over the heads of Canadian voters and attempted to form a coalition Government...

To this day Canadians are totally pissed off and this is how the most recent polls have it for May 2.nd...:



> The last poll taken by EKOS before the election call yesterday shows that Conservatives have the support of 35.3 per cent of voters. This would probably translate into another minority government.
> 
> The Liberals have 28.3 per cent, the NDP 14.2 per cent the Bloc 9.7 and the Greens 10.6 and Other 2.1. The Bloc runs only in Quebec and they will probably win the largest number of seats of any party there. The Green Party has not yet elected anyone. Their vote is soft and often leaks away during the actual vote.



So the "Greens" have sacked Elizabeth,...and "The Bloc" I should explain is a strictly Quebec Party, who is trying to separate Quebec, our 2.nd largest voter block (thus the name "Bloc Quebecois") from Canada.



> The poll was taken from March 17-24. Some earlier polls put the Conservatives much further ahead. Things could very well change considerably during the campaign. If the Liberals do as badly as last time then Ignatieff will be out. Even Harper could be out if he does not get a majority or at least does not improve his standing. Layton may be out because of his health and also NDP poll numbers seem stagnant if not falling at times.



Canadians are so pissed off about this Kyoto crap, paying world spot prices for our own oil, the gun laws and an appointed Senate, that they have made it clear that the "PC`s" ...the Conservatives will have to choose a new leader that can win an absolute majority of Parliament seats to implement these changes the vast majority of Canadians want...

Should any of the other bastards succeed You won`t get the "toxic oil" from Canada...the slated pipeline from Alberta to the Texas refineries...
Canada by the way supplies 60 % of all the oil the Untited States needs so far, and this pipeline would further insulate the U.S. from the stranglehold Middle East Oil has on America.


Canada also has an abundance of fresh water. We also know about the water shortages in America`s southern regions.
A majority of Canadians are for fresh water pipelines to be built from British Columbia into the U.S. States that need this water.
We hold the view, that the border between Canada and the U.S. is the worlds largest undefended border and people from either side cross this border to go shopping on a daily basis, as if there was no border at all....so why not share our water..
The PC, (Progressive Conservative Party) has been advocating sharing our water supply with our friends down south, but as You guessed it that was blocked so far by the "Greens", the "Liberals", and the "NDP"...the fag party 

So I guess for the water shortages California and other States suffer You guys just will have to hope Stephen Harper comes out with a majority of Parliament seats on May the 3.rd

And God forbid any of the other ones should succeed, they will create jobs for welfare recipients to go up into our arctic with flamethrowers to prove Al Gore was right..







Just one footnote here about our Conservative Party, and Alberta..."The Red Neck Province" as fags call it, because the Liberals, the Greens etc don`t even get 1/2 % of the vote...
Ralf Klein Conservative, was the Premier Minister of Alberta almost for his entire political carrier....and the opposition in Ottawa has labelled him from day 1 as a "racist"...
One day Ralf Klein disappeared for an entire Year and his deputy ran the Province of Alberta. Of course rumors went rampant where he was, but Ralf kept his mouth shut, so did every Indian Reservation in Canada as they promised Ralf.
He decided in his first term that he wanted to learn about Canada`s First Nations himself and secretly arranged to live with a family in a Northern Alberta Reserve, eating what they ate, working as they did,...everything from babysitting to dish washing and skinning deer..but most importantly he wanted to learn about tribal Government
Then he re- emerged and the first thing he did was to divvy out the entire Oil revenues of Alberta amongst Albertan citizens as monthly Royalty checks and continued to remain silent where he was, enduring these  "Racist" accusations by the Liberals.
After he retired several TV and Newspaper crews wanted an interview...they could not locate him...finally Ralf`s family felt sorry for the reporters and told them "Ralf went fishing up north"...they rushed to that location and thought they found more racist fodder, because the former Premier had the audacity to violate Native Land and fish on it.
Only then did one of the band members blow a fuse and told them to fuck off, Ralf Klein is a Band Member in full standing and has been since the time he vanished as he became premier of Alberta...
else this entire episode would have never come to light...
*How many people think  Al Gore or Obama would pull a stunt like that...?*
*By the way Stephen Harper also knew all the time were Ralf was, but also kept his mouth shut ,....enduring the same "racist" smear campaigns during his run for PM of Canada*

In the United States "The Walking Eagle Award" is just another urban legend, however in Canada it`s been a very real and traditional thing...but nobody falls for it any more showing up to accept it.
It was given by natives to people likened to an eagle that is so full of shit, that  he can`t fly any more.
Needless to list who kept winning it over and over again this side of the border,....practical jokes don`t work indefinitely, so now it`s only an urban legend

Funny though, how easy it is to be a "racist" if You don`t submit to the "liberal" pipe dream world...how many times did "OldRocks" call me that...?
and Ive been married for 40 years to my Native American wife and live on Long Plains First Nations Tribal Territory as an honorary band member ever since I retired from professional life


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Thanks for that picture Wirebender....great find,* kudos to You...!!!*... keep digging
> and* hi to You from Canada*



Don't know why the second didn't show.  The US Navy has quite a few pictures of ships and subs in open water at the North Pole dating back to the early 1900's.  Ditto for the navies of other nations.  An ice free North Pole is nothing new.  The fact is that when one considers the entire history of the earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2011)

Arctic may melt before U.S. ready for northern ocean defense
Arctic may melt before U.S. ready for northern ocean defense | Security Zone

Leave a Comment
August 17, 2010 by Sonja Elmquist  
Filed under Covering Conflicts, Terrorism & National Security

WASHINGTON&#8211;Arctic melting is leaving new coastline and waterways up to the north, but some Arctic strategy experts are concerned that polar ice is melting faster than U.S. military planners are gearing up for what an open-water arctic will mean for U.S. security.

The once-impenetrable Northwest Passage, along the Alaskan and Canadian coast, and the Northeast Passage, along the Russian coast, were both navigable in the summer of 2008.

&#8220;If you think strategy relates somehow to means and investment in means then we don&#8217;t have a strategy,&#8221; said Robert Laird, a security consultant based in Washington and Paris. &#8220;You have five stakeholders in the Arctic,&#8221; he said. The U.S., Russia, Denmark, Norway and Canada each have Arctic territory. &#8220;The only country that&#8217;s not strategic in this is us.&#8221;

At best, maritime forces will be stretched to cover more coast, patrolling, providing surveillance and rescuing those imperiled at sea over greater territory.

At worst, the U.S. may be drawn into a resource war in which the five Arctic countries hash out territorial claims to seafloor mining of minerals and energy stores, while an even greater number of states advances claims on fishing territory and transportation routes


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2011)

wirebender said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that picture Wirebender....great find,* kudos to You...!!!*... keep digging
> ...



When one considers the whole of the history of the earth, having a breathable atmosphere is a recent event.

The first crossing of the Arctic Ocean, using an 84 ton herring boat was done in 1903 to 1906. Three years to cross that. 2008 two large freighters did the northeast passage in a matter of weeks. 2010, last summer, two sail boats navigated not only the northwest passage, but also the northeast passage, circumnavigating the north pole in one summers time.

At no time in recorded history has the amount of ice been less than in the last few years. And all signs point to a continued and accelerating decline.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2011)

*Max Planck Institute.*

Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie: Which future emission pathway is required to limit the global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels?

Which future emission pathway is required to limit the global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels?
SciencePublication26.07.2010
This question is investigated by Erich Roeckner and co-authors at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) in a study entitled &#8221;Historical and future anthropogenic emission pathways derived from coupled climate-carbon cycle simulations&#8220;, recently published in the scientific journal &#8221;Climatic Change&#8221;. 



The results are based on a pilot study performed within the EU-funded ENSEMBLES project. Using the MPI-M coupled climate-carbon cycle model the authors estimate the &#8221;allowable&#8221; CO2 emissions in a greenhouse gas stabilization scenario aimed at limiting global warming below the EU target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. To this end an inverse method is applied allowing to reconstruct the future CO2 emissions from a prescribed pathway of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 



Results: Significant and early policy actions are required in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In the greenhouse gas stabilization scenario the allowable CO2 emissions increase from 7 GtC in year 2000 to a maximum of about 10 GtC in 2015. Thereafter, the emissions have to be steadily reduced resulting in a decrease of 56 % in year 2050 and almost 100 % in year 2100. The global annual mean surface air temperature increases unabatedly within the next decades, until about year 2040, but more moderately thereafter. At the end of this century the global warming remains below the 2°C target but warming beyond this target cannot be ruled out if the simulations were extended further into the 22nd century.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2011)

*More from Max Planck Institute.*

Max Planck Florida Institute - Press Room : Archived News, Events, & Press Releases : Managing Global Warming "A Herculean Effort" Warns Max Planck Scientist at Public Lecture

Managing Global Warming "A Herculean Effort" Warns Max Planck Scientist at Public Lecture
Palm Beach, Fla.    February 25, 2011



It was another full house in the Royal Poinciana Chapel for the second lecture in a three-part series hosted by the Max Planck Florida Institute. More than 150 guests filled the Fellowship Hall on Feb. 23 for a discussion on climate change and global warming, presented by Dr. Martin Heimann, director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany

Titled, &#8220;A Balancing Act: Linking the Global Carbon Cycle to the Mitigation of Climate Change,&#8221; Dr. Heimann&#8217;s talk explored the data that demonstrates scientifically that the Earth is warming and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing, measured by temperatures recorded at weather stations in key points on the globe, rising sea levels and the steady retreat of glaciers worldwide. He believes that it is very likely that human activities are primarily responsible for this trend, and that the most important climate change drivers are the increasing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and changes in land use (primarily deforestation) which currently exceeds 35 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. The U.S. now leads the world in CO2 emissions per capita. The link between these emissions and the climate is called the global carbon cycle.

&#8220;Managing the global carbon cycle will be a Herculean effort,&#8221; said Heimann, who served as the lead author in assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. &#8220;Finding a workable balance between the need for food and energy versus climate change mitigation poses one of the biggest and most important challenges for our society in the coming decades.&#8221;


----------



## westwall (Apr 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...






Boy you're dense.  The Earth had a breathable atmosphere at least one billion years ago and it is likely the atmosphere was breatheable 1.5 billion years ago so roughly one third of Earths history witnessed a breathable atmosphere.  The temperature of the Earth for 90% of its existence has been 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the current day.

Your last sentence is likewise false.  Try again bucko.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> When one considers the whole of the history of the earth, having a breathable atmosphere is a recent event.



Sorry guy, but that statement is patently untrue.  The fact is that an event that has been named the Steptoean Positive Carbon Isotope Excursion resulted in a breathable atmosphere about 500 million years ago between the Cambrian and the Ordovician periods.  Do you ever bother to actually research anything or do you just make up whatever you can't find on a wacko site?



Old Rocks said:


> The first crossing of the Arctic Ocean, using an 84 ton herring boat was done in 1903 to 1906. Three years to cross that. 2008 two large freighters did the northeast passage in a matter of weeks. 2010, last summer, two sail boats navigated not only the northwest passage, but also the northeast passage, circumnavigating the north pole in one summers time.



Do you grasp the difference between the northwest passage and the north pole?



Old Rocks said:


> At no time in recorded history has the amount of ice been less than in the last few years. And all signs point to a continued and accelerating decline.



Again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.  Here is a simple graph (I know you have problems reading graphs but this one is about as simple as they get) showing the temperature history of the earth.  Note that for most of earth history, the global temperature has been above 20 degrees C.  At such a mean temperature, no ice would exist at one or both poles.  While you are at it, note the black line which represents atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  Note that the present atmosphere is positively starved for CO2 when compared to the rest of history.

I repeat, when one considers the history of the earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.  The fact is that there has been very little time in history when there was as much ice at the poles as at the present.  When you look at the graph note how much of earth history had temperatures at least 2 degrees above the current norm and you might come to understand the truth.  You might also note that one of the longest, deepest ice ages in history began with CO0 concentrations that were higher than present and the ice age in which we presently reside began with CO2 concentrations of almost 1000ppm.  Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

You really are operating under a set of gross misconceptions.






[/IMG]


----------



## wirebender (Apr 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Boy you're dense.  The Earth had a breathable atmosphere at least one billion years ago and it is likely the atmosphere was breatheable 1.5 billion years ago so roughly one third of Earths history witnessed a breathable atmosphere.  The temperature of the Earth for 90% of its existence has been 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the current day.
> 
> Your last sentence is likewise false.  Try again bucko.



He has to be just making it up as he goes.  I searched even the wacko sites looking for something that even approached a credible reference suggesting that a breathable atmosphere was something relatively new on earth and couldn't find it.  I posted a breathable atmosphere of 500 million years because during the cambrian there was a period where oxygen was pretty scarce which led to a global extinction.  Since that time, the atmosphere has been breathable without a break.

As to his claim that there has never been less ice, clearly he just doesn't have a clue.  Even the wacko sites make a concentrated effort to never mention earth history prior to the ice age we are still in the process of coming out of.  They know perfectly well that if one goes back before the beginning of the present ice age, one finds global temps so warm that ice was not to be found on earth...anywhere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So, for two thirds of the Earth's history, it did not have a breathable atmosphere for oxygen breathers. In fact, the atmosphere may not have been breathable for modern mammals at the beginning of the Cambrian, and even into the late Cambrian.

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt1103.pdf

Today, atmospheric oxygen plays a crucial role in shaping
the surface of our planet. However, during most of Earths history,
molecular oxygen was only sparsely available and probably
accumulated in two broad steps: during the Great
Oxygenation (or Oxidation) Event (GOE) at 2.4 Ga (e.g., Holland,
2002) and then during the Neoproterozoic Oxygenation
Event (or NOE) almost two billion years later. Both events were
accompanied by tectonic upheaval, climatic extremes, and biological
innovations, implying a close interaction between the
biotic and abiotic realms of system Earth.
The most commonly proposed environmental trigger for early
animal evolution is oxygen (Nursall, 1959; Canfield and Teske,
1996). Most animals require molecular oxygen in order to produce
their energy, and this has led to the widespread presumption
that a rise in atmospheric oxygen was the essential precursor
to the evolution of animals (Runnegar, 1991; Catling et al.,
2005). Geochemical evidence for an oxygenation event during
the late Precambrian has accumulated over the past quarter
century, but it is still hard to distinguish atmospheric from
ocean and global from local (or even porewater) redox changes.
Evidence has emerged recently that the Neoproterozoic oceans
were characterized by the spread of sulphidic and ferruginous
anoxic environments, which is apparently at odds with the
emergence of modern animal groups for which free sulphide is
lethal and anoxia unfavorable.
Here we focus attention on the NOE, exploring geochemical
evidence for its existence and examining the case for a causal
relationship between oxygen and early animal evolution. Considering
recent evidence for widespread ocean anoxia during
the NOE, we speculate that metabolic versatility during the
nascent stages of animal evolution may have been a key factor
in the emergence and diversification of metazoan life on our
planet, while later oxygenation allowed metazoans to increase
their size and mobility.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Boy you're dense.  The Earth had a breathable atmosphere at least one billion years ago and it is likely the atmosphere was breatheable 1.5 billion years ago so roughly one third of Earths history witnessed a breathable atmosphere.  The temperature of the Earth for 90% of its existence has been 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the current day.
> ...



In the written record, there has never been less ice than there is today in the Arctic. 

As for the temperature and CO2 over geological time, here is a much more recent and accurate assessment, from the AGU 2009 Convention;

A23A

And here is a lecture on what is presently happening in the Arctic. Of coures, I don't expect you to listen or look at them, Bender, but someone lurking with a reasonable level of intelligiance might wish to see what real scientists are stating.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/C24A.shtml


----------



## westwall (Apr 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Written record?  I guess that depends on who wrote the record eh?


----------



## Chris (Apr 13, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Apr 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> He has to be just making it up as he goes.  I searched even the wacko sites looking for something that even approached a credible reference
> As to his claim that there has never been less ice, clearly he just doesn't have a clue.  Even the wacko sites make a concentrated effort to never mention earth history prior to the ice age we are still in the process of coming out of.  They know perfectly well that if one goes back before the beginning of the present ice age, one finds global temps so warm that ice was not to be found on earth...anywhere.



By the way that 2.nd picture You thought did not show up, it did show and I got it, thanks again!

As for what info is posted on the internet about the arctic north of 80 deg Latt. is totally garbaged over by "climatology" that even Google can`t find the needle in the hay stack any more.  Try for example "fossil trees + Greenland" or "fossil trees + Ellesmere" You won`t find a thing..and sure as hell someone who scavenges for "global warming evidence" will never find anything.

Yet the trees are there, ....:






*And not a single picture or reference to it on the entire internet*...except for some private pictures of Military personnel which was stationed @ Thule and CFS Alert.

I assure You all, we did not take these pictures in California.
No matter which search word combination You try with any search engine, You come up empty handed. You have to know where these trees are and then type in the search word...:  Fort Conger.
And that`s where these trees are. What the fuck is the matter with these GW assholes here, I posted these pictures on my very first posts when I registered for this forum..

Here is what CAN BE found about Fort Conger on the Internet:
Location...:
81° 43' 0" North, 64° 43' 0" West, so it is on the North western tip of Ellesmere Island just across from NORTHERN GREENLAND...like I  have said at least 100 times here already.
90- 81 43 = 8 deg +  17 minutes of arc from the North Pole, so that`s 8 x 60 +17 miles=
*ONLY 497 miles from the North Pole and that`s where these trees are* and no way are these millions of years old.

Would these climate change assholes read up a little bit about the history of Fort Conger then they would know that...:
Nunatsiaq News


> FORT CONGER, Ellesmere Island &#8212; On a sunny day, as icebergs float lazily in the bay and heat rises in waves from the warming earth, it&#8217;s hard to imagine just how far north this place really is, or that anyone ever knew any hardship here.
> It&#8217;s an isolated spot, across the strait from Greenland
> But more than one hundred years ago, this remote location on Discovery Bay was an important staging point for polar explorers.
> Here, in 1881, A.W. Greeley and 24 men were dropped off to spend a winter working on research projects. But after two full years passed, with no* resupply ships calling*, the expedition members ended up abandoning their scientific collections to head towards a more accessible point.









So how many times did I write here already that they did not have Icebreakers in 1881..????


> Peary, nonetheless, used Fort Conger as a base from 1901 on, until he finally reached &#8212; or came close to &#8212; the North Pole in 1909.



I also posted pictures showing the inside of these shacks and all around these shacks, which were built on bare ground,* NOT ON ICE OR SNOW...*

Here is more info, 
http://www.arcticwebsite.com/greely1881expedition.html

Parks Canada - Quttinirpaaq National Park - Cultural Heritage


See how retarded all these GW claims are...."ever since recorded history...blah blah blah"
I don`t care how long You search up and down the internet, You will not find a single comment about this or what is REALLY in the high arctic by anyone of the fuckhead GW arctic experts"...
They rather have you looking at computer model "Satellite pictures" which are`nt even the *real thing.*..as a quick look with any hex editor at the picture headings would show...the first series of bytes are the date when the picture had been created or altered, and after that you will find with almost ANY of these alarmist "Satellite pictures" the signature how it was done..."Ducky, Adobe"....with Adobe photo shop...
That`s not what NASA uses and genuine NASA Sat pictures do not have a heading like that...
But who cares, even on authentic NASA Sat pics, You`l never ever find out, that this entire region has always been ice free during the summer month, not just lately and the evidence is in RECORDED HISTORY...in HISTORY BOOKS and the evidence is STILL ON THE GROUND....all You have to do is go there and look for Yourself...
As if this fuckhead who pretends to be interested in tree growth and  "man made global warming" would do that,...




I`d rather suspect he would try and destroy the evidence rather than explaining how that fits into his hockey stick

Look at how ignorant the world is being kept about "wood + Fort Conger" if You Google for it...:

Fort Conger, Robert Peary, Matthew Henson, Arctic exploration


> Research on the microbes attacking the *historic woods at Fort Conger and the Peary huts on Ellesmere Island*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the "woods of Fort Conger" are becoming "evidence of Global warming" because of fungi attacks...
*And as far as Wikipedia, the rest of the Internet and the world "knows" the only wood around Fort Conger is the wood from these shacks
*
I guess the trees and the stumps are some sort of weed up the ass for the entire U.N. and the IPCC

But not a single picture of any of the tree stumps that pepper the ENTIRE AREA THERE...YOU CANT MISS THEM WHEN YOU ARE THERE....

Fuck if it this retarded Modtran Computer model were the other way around predicting that CO2 causes global cooling and that the New York region will be once again plowed level by advancing ice...and "deniers" like us would dispute that, these trees would have been on every TV station and in every newspaper around the globe,,,and Al Gore would be posing next to them.










Try a Google picture only search with the term "fort conger"...:
fort conger - Google Search



> About 32,900 results (0.14 seconds)



*and not ONE SINGLE PICTURE OF WHAT IS ALL AROUND THIS AREA...fuck you trip over tree stumps there when you walk around there...
*

Yet there are people who rather bury their heads in the virtual "reality" of Michael Mann and wannabee policy makers...
Well that`s up to them, but no way do any of them have the right to demand from us to pay $$$$ for *their stupidity*

If they want to keep going while their dip sticks are not touching any oil and encounter a major seizure sooner or later that is not our problem


----------



## polarbear (Apr 13, 2011)

Un petit divertissement (as the French would have it) -  "There are only 2 types of people in the world that understand computers: Those who understand binary, and those who don't are at the mercy of computers."
It`s all too easy to fake and doctor up "genuine NASA" Satellite pictures and the "Global Warming Scientists" do nothing but faking and doctoring up dramatic images of "melting arctic ice".
That`s easy and with a decent HP printer and the right paper you can also make some convincing looking money and go shopping with it.

But it`s not so easy to wipe out the evidence when You cheat and alter digital the digital fingerprints You leave behind.

NASA does not use "Adobe Photoshop" to color enhance or alter their pictures and the file headers of authentic NASA Satellite pictures are entirely different from anything You do on a Home Computer with a Windows or a Linux Operating System.

An authentic file header for raw down-link Satellite (NASA + all GEOSATS) data looks like this :





The symbols You see are how an ordinary Home use PC would like to show You Hexadecimal Data as an ASCII Keyboard character..
And the down-linked data is organized in this Sequence...:






If You have a 10 foot dish and the right feedhorn on it (as I do...You did see it in my Manitoba weather videos in my backyard) You can capture this data easily Yourself.

I write my own programs, but if You don`t NASA is not stingy and will give You the decoders + the program which makes JFIF images out of this data...:

http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/samples/UITfuv2582gc.fits

And this is where You can request it...:

FITS Support Office


This is how REAL SCIENTISTS do it like for example *Andreas Muenchow *whom I have quoted in this forum many times..:



polarbear said:


> Andreas K Muenchow - Experts at University of Delaware - Experts@UD



Anyway no matter by which method You decode genuine NASA data to an image which Your Home PC can display or so that You can post it on the internet *all the file headers of picture files that have not been cheated together, altered or otherwise falsified they all have these unmistakable digital fingerprints in the file headers.*..:






This is a legitimate GEOSAT picture, that has not been tampered with,...
Its in JFIF format and there is no other digital fingerprint...

Even if You take a screenshot of this, as I did just now and check it then the fingerprint looks like this...:

FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  01 01 00 60   IF  `
00 60 00 00  FF DB 00 43    `  ÿÛ C
00 01 01 01  01 01 01 01    

Because I did not falsify any of the pixels of the image..

Here is another 'LANDSAT" picture that has been through many stages of re-sizing and reproductions, *BUT NONE OF THE PIXELS IN THE IMAGE had been falsified...:*







Even if it comes from any digital Camera or if its a "still frame" taken from a video the fingerprint remains intact...:






I have re-sized, flipped, rotated and clipped this image several times but I have not tampered with the pixel elements of the picture itself...
In case You wonder who that is, that`s one of my friends in Germany taking his granddaughter for a walk, she is 2 years old and knows already her alphabet and her numbers from 1 to 10

Okay, now let`s take a look what "Global Warming genuine NASA Satellite pictures" *all have in common
*

Here is a typical fake, it`s from one of these links 'OldRocks" keeps quoting...:





This one is a rare exception, because the forgery was done with "Adobe Photoshop version 3.0" instead of the typical "Ducky"
Forgers of course use the best "printing press" money can buy, say for faking prints You would of course settle for nothing less than a "Heidelberg" printing press...
and the best money can buy in the digital imagery world is Adobe Photo shop....
To alter pixel elements, enhance, expand, re-paint...shit in short anything You want to, including putting donkey ears so seamless on Obama`s head that they look as if he actually grew these...
This Adobe photoshop program that can alter pictures to this extent is nicknamed 'Ducky" by the guys who wrote it...
And every picture that has been falsified with "Ducky" has the unmistakable "rubber ducky" fingerprint on it...You just can`t get rid of it, unless of course You know how to implant hexadecimal data without destroying the entire source file...

Here is another "rubber ducky"...stuck in my face also by "OldRocks"...:
I discussed this picture already and also showed You how the "GW scientists" rubber ducked this into a whole series of color coded "genuine NASA" pictures of shrinkinng polar ice...:






This once was a NASA Sat picture, a RADAR image picture with which NASA attempted to distinguish  "wet (melting) snow" from dry (cold) snow...

Then the "Climatologists" Rubber Duckied it with Adobe Photoshop, increased the contrast by a factor of > 5, expanded the regions and from that they made this other "genuine NASA Satellite picture" of the "dramatically shrinking ice cap" over Greenland.



polarbear said:


>




And by the way, "OldRocks"...I exclude Chris, because Chris is not really stupid, he is only acting in good faith as many others that are simply concerned about the environment and there is nothing wrong with that...but You are of a different category!
This picture above there, that "GW scientists" published as a "NASA Sat-picture of shrinking ice"...guess what shows up if You leaf froward in the hex data...:

50 68 6F 74  6F 73 68 6F   Photosho
70 20 33 2E  30 00 38 42   p 3.0 8B
49 4D 03 ED  0A 52 65 73   IMí Res
6F 6C 75 74  69 6F 6E 00   olution 
00 00 00 10  00 4B 00 00       K  
00 01 00 01  00 4B 00 00      K  
00 01 00 01  38 42 49 4D     8BIM
04 0D 18 46  58 20 47 6C    FX *Gl*
6F 62 61 6C  20 4C 69 67  * obal Lig*
68 74 69 6E  67 20 41 6E   *hting An*
67 6C 65 00  00 00 00 04  * gle  * 
00 00 00 1E  38 42 49 4D      8BIM
04 19 12 46  58 20 47 6C   FX *Gl*
6F 62 61 6C  20 41 6C 74  * obal Alt*
69 74 75 64  65 00 00 00  * itude   *
00 04 00 00  00 1E 38 42       8B
49 4D 03 F3  0B 50 72 69   IMó
Pri
6E 74 20 46  6C 61 67 73   nt Flags
00 00 00 09  00 00 00 00           
00 00 00 00  01 00 38 42        8B
49 4D 04 0A  0E 43 6F 70   IM Cop
79 72 69 67  68 74 20 46   yright F
6C 61 67 00  00 00 00 01   lag    
00 00 38 42  49 4D 27 10     8BIM'
14 4A 61 70  61 6E 65 73   Japanes
65 20 50 72  69 6E 74 20   e Print 
46 6C 61 67  73 00 00 00   Flags   
00 0A 00 01  00 00 00 00          
00 00 00 02  38 42 49 4D      8BIM
03 F5 17 43  6F 6C 6F 72   õColor
20 48 61 6C  66 74 6F 6E    Halfton
65 20 53 65  74 74 69 6E   e Settin
67 73 00 00  00 48 00 2F   gs   H /
66 66 00 01  00 6C 66 66   ff  lff
00 06 00 00  00 00 00 01         
00 2F 66 66  00 01 00 A1    /ff  ¡
99 9A 00 06  00 00 00 00   &#8482;&#353;     
00 01 00 32  00 00 00 01     2   
00 5A 00 00  00 06 00 00    Z     
00 00 00 01  00 35 00 00       5  
00 01 00 2D  00 00 00 06     -   
00 00 00 00  00 01 38 42        8B
49 4D 03 F8  17 43 6F 6C   IMøCol
6F 72 20 54  72 61 6E 73   or Trans
66 65 72 20  53 65 74 74   fer Sett
69 6E 67 73  00 00 00 70   ings   p
00 00 FF FF  FF FF FF FF     ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

*See, the Adobe digital fingerprint did not overwrite the ORIGINAL TITLE this picture had,
It was "Global Lighting Angle" which has fuck all to do with how thick or thin the ice is up in the arctic*...*and 'Your CO2 Global Warming science" changed it to "NASA evidence of shrinking ice" in the filename You get to see on You Walmart Computer
*
*NASA and anybody else who is using REAL SCIENCE is NOT USING ADOBE PHOTOSHOP "Ducky" to generate color scale encoded Satellite images for the Internet,....
they all use MATHEMATICAL algorithms  to do that...*
*But the fakers and forgers use the Rubber Duck from Adobe Photo Shop and dither their own pixels in with the mouse, like a child would do it drawing a picture with MSPAINT.exe
*

And that leaves that pesty "Ducky" digital fingerprint, they have not yet learned how to conceal 

So the cheating did not stop after they got caught with the hockey stick...they just changed their method

This post is intended for You guys who are interested in the facts and how to sort out fakes from THE REAL DEAL...
I guess that excludes "OldRocks" and his alter ego "Rollingthunder"...
I should try diverting the user(s?) behind that name to my "askbernhard" web site again...

http://askbernhard.9f.com/

this time I`ll embed a bit of Java script and capture their IP...my guess is they both not only have the same IP, but even the same "MAC" address.
My guess is based on my estimate that the chances that more than one person of this level of stupidity exists in North America are extremely remote...but I may be mistaken



There is Hexadecimal Data Reading Software available on the Internet,...but many of these "free downloads" are either just free trial programs and others, once you install them write a shitload of .dll`s into Your OP system32 folder, which You can`t get rid off anymore later..also a whole lot of crap is written into the W reg32 registry without Your consent.
You can download the "hexfile" viewer program I wrote from here:

YourFileHost.com - Free hosting for ALL your files -S

I put it into a simple .zip file, download it and unpack it into any file folder that You wish to create for it...even in "My Documents" will work....as long as You don`t separate the dll`s and the .tkn file from the "hexfile.exe" file.

You don`t have to install anything with this program. Just unzip the downloaded file and double click on "hexfile.exe", then click on the "choose file button" and browse Your PC for the file you want to examine.
I tell You I have yet to find one single authentic NASA picture what these GW bastards publish on the internet as Satellite evidence of blah blah blah...
*But there is no substitute for seeing this with your own eyes...!!!!!!*

You can have a shitload of fun with it nailing these bastards and their forgeries with that simple program, but You can also use it to examine any file You download from the Internet if it`s a virus or a trojan posing as a picture, a video or a pdf file ...which is the latest trick mal-ware designers came up with...

Trust me I don`t get my jollies out of infecting PC`s with mal-ware...so here is my source code that will be executed ..:

dim s$(16)
dim h$(16)
NOMAINWIN
WindowWidth = 500
WindowHeight = 380
UpperLeftX = 200
UpperLeftY = 150
statictext #hexView.fname, "File Name: ", 5, 10, 350, 14
button #hexView.cf, "Choose File", [CFClicked], UL, 370, 7, 100, 25
button #hexView.nxt, "Next", [NextClicked], Ul, 370, 45, 0, 0
button #hexView.prv, "Previous", [PrevClicked], UL, 370, 75, 0, 0
statictext #hexView.alabel, "Hexadecimal address:", 370, 125, 150, 15
textbox #hexView.addr, 370, 145, 50, 25
button #hexView.go, "Go", [GoClicked], UL, 430, 145, 0, 0
textbox #hexView.field, 50, 45, 300, 270
statictext #hexView.hexlabel, "Hexadecimal View", 53, 32, 130, 14
statictext #hexView.textlabel, "Text View", 270, 32, 50, 14
statictext #hexView.addrlabel1, "000000:", 5, 50, 45, 14
statictext #hexView.addrlabel2, "000020:", 5, 114, 45, 14
statictext #hexView.addrlabel3, "000040:", 5, 178, 45, 14
statictext #hexView.addrlabel4, "000060:", 5, 242, 45, 14
open "Polarbear`s Hexadecimal Fileheader view" for window as #hexView
print #hexView, "trapclose [quit]"
print #hexView.field, "!font Courier_New 10";
wait

[quit]
close #hexView
end

[GoClicked]
print #hexView.addr, "!contents? hexAddr$";
startLoc = hexdec(hexAddr$)
if startLoc < 0 then startLoc = 0
if currentFile$="" then wait
goto [ShowData]

[PrevClicked]
startLoc = startLoc - 128
if startLoc < 0 then startLoc = 0
if currentFile$="" then wait
goto [ShowData]

[NextClicked]
startLoc = startLoc + 128
if currentFile$="" then wait
goto [ShowData]


[CFClicked]
filedialog "Open file to view", "*.*", fileName$

if fileName$="" then wait
startLoc = 0
print #hexView.nxt, "!locate 370, 45, 100, 25"
print #hexView.go, "!locate 430, 145, 40, 25"
currentFile$ = fileName$

[ShowData]
open currentFile$ for input as #f
print #hexView.fname, "File Name: " + currentFile$
if startLoc > 5000 then print #hexView.field, "One moment please ..."
if startLoc > 0 then
  for x = 1 to startLoc
    if eof(#f)=0 then x$ = input$(#f,1)
  next x
  print #hexView.prv, "!locate 370, 75, 100, 25"
else
  print #hexView.prv, "!locate 370, 75, 0, 0"
end if
hexaddr1$ = pad$(dechex$(startLoc))
hexaddr2$ = pad$(dechex$(startLoc + 32))
hexaddr3$ = pad$(dechex$(startLoc + 64))
hexaddr4$ = pad$(dechex$(startLoc + 96))
print #hexView.addrlabel1, hexaddr1$; ":"
print #hexView.addrlabel2, hexaddr2$; ":"
print #hexView.addrlabel3, hexaddr3$; ":"
print #hexView.addrlabel4, hexaddr4$; ":"
disp$ = ""
for index1 = 0 to 15
  s$(index1) = ""
  h$(index1) = ""
  for index2 = 0 to 7
    if eof(#f)=0 then
      val = asc(input$(#f,1))
      if val = 10 or val = 13 or val = 0 or val = 9 then
        s$(index1) = s$(index1) + " "
      else
        s$(index1) = s$(index1) + chr$(val)
      end if
      hexval$ = dechex$(val)
      if len(hexval$)<2 then hexval$ = "0" + hexval$
      h$(index1) = h$(index1) + hexval$ + " "
    else
      s$(index1) = s$(index1) + " "
      h$(index1) = h$(index1) + ".. "
    end if
    if index2=3 then h$(index1) = h$(index1) + " "
  next index2
  disp$ = disp$ + h$(index1) + "  " + s$(index1) + chr$(13) + chr$(10)
next index1
print #hexView.field, disp$
close #f
print #hexView, "refresh"
wait

function pad$(h$)
while len(h$) < 6
  h$ = "0" + h$
wend
pad$ = h$
end function
*'end of program *

That`s all for today
God bless & Good Night from Canada
please cross Your thumbs for our
upcoming federal election on May 2.nd


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2011)

Bipolar, nobody reads your silly rants.


----------



## westwall (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bipolar, nobody reads your silly rants.






As usual you are totally, completely, irrevocably, wrong.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bipolar, nobody reads your silly rants.
> ...



It`s not the polar ice that`s shrinking it`s the iddy biddy brains that assholes like "OldRocks" have that shrink....
Look at the site that "wirebender" quoted to which this other asshole replied it`s an oil lobby/GW/holocaust/and so on denial site has,...
I found it quite by accident when I Googled for Satellite pictures showing the polar ice caps..:
Step one was...:
Google Image Result for http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20080626.jpg

That brought up this picture which makes total crap out of the "shrinking polar ice"...:








So I gave it the once over *and it is genuine:*

FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  01 01 00 48   IF  H
00 48 00 00  FF DB 00 43    H  ÿÛ C
00 01 01 01  01 01 01 01    
01 01 01 01  01 01 01 01   
01 01 01 01  01 01 01 01   

And when I clicked on the Google link to the web site that uses this picture I landed where Wirebender found this picture..:






and *this web site which quite apparently does not engage in the kind of cheating as the "GW" alarmist do  posts this...:*



> Ice Caps Melting?
> *(or More Pumped Hysteria from the Global-Warming Cons?)
> 
> [Today's Vocabulary Builder: "PBEM", or "Policy-based Evidence Making"]*
> ...



Did I ever have a good laugh..*.they nailed this same asshole *that claimed the arctic "is contaminated"  with soot from oil fields in Siberia "dirtying the snow" in the arctic...I was writing about a few months ago...this is the same moron that posed for a National Geographic Photo -op in front of some dirty snow and said that this is soot from Siberia and from our diesel exhaust pipes...never having seen how the 150 klicks + winds that howl all over Greenland and Ellesmere cause dust-storms that are every bit as bad as Sahara Sand Storms.


And the rest of my post is for our forum resident moron "OldRocks"...:

.aurenkaplan.com/wp-content/uploads*/2010/11/melting-polar-ice-caps.jpg
*






49 46 00 01  02 00 00 64   IF   d
00 64 00 00  FF EC 00 11    d  ÿì 
44 75 63 6B  79 00 01 00  * Ducky* 
04 00 00 00  46 00 00 FF      F  ÿ
EE 00 26 41  64 6F 62 65   î &Adobe
00 64 C0 00  00 00 01 03    dÀ   







/StudentDoc/current/ED101fa09/iwaitt/*Images/ice-cap-melt1.jpg*






FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  02 00 00 64   IF   d
00 64 00 00  FF EC 00 11    d  ÿì 
44 75 63 6B  79 00 01 00  * Ducky* 
04 00 00 00  3C 00 00 FF      <  ÿ
EE 00 0E 41  64 6F 62 65   î Adobe
00 64 C0 00  00 00 01 FF    dÀ   ÿ







*globalwarmingsiren.com*/wp-content/gallery/*polar-ice-caps/greenland-ice-melt1.jpg*



FF D8 FF E0  00 10 4A 46   ÿØÿà JF
49 46 00 01  02 00 00 64   IF   d
00 64 00 00  FF EC 00 11    d  ÿì 
44 75 63 6B  79 00 01 00   *Ducky* 







*I could post more "Rubber Duck" evidence  here than the usmessageboard.com/ server could possibly handle....its the entire fucking Internet "Data" on "Man made Global warming Satellite evidence" *


----------



## polarbear (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *And here is a lecture on what is presently happening in the Arctic. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...













Hey can You follow these instructions or is that a bit too complicated for You..:...?






*Its a lot less complicated than fibbing "NASASatellite Images" with Adobe photoshop DUCKY, like the REALLYwarmer Globheads you keep quoting do it
*
*If You aquire some skills like coloring the snow in the arctic "dirty" Dr James Hansen might give You a job...he says that`s why the polar ice is "shrinking"....someone must have fucked up with Ducky, using the wrong airbrush color on the tool-bar of Adobe photoshop`s Ducky ....because even on his "geniune NASA Pictures" , the ice looks way too white
*



> Hansen is only telling half the story. In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases [pdf], in which he explained how CO2 causes "polar amplification." He predicted nearly symmetrical warming at both poles. As shown in Figure 2-2 from the article, Hansen calculated that both the Arctic and Antarctic would warm by 5-6 degrees Centigrade. His predictions were largely incorrect, as most of Antarctica has cooled and sea ice has rapidly expanded. The evidence does not support the theory.
> 
> 
> In 2004, Dr Hansen returned to the subject. This time, he explained (pdf) that most of Arctic warming and melting is due to dirty snow from soot, not CO2.
> ...








;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It`s important to stay updated in the field of computer technology, "Ducky" has become obsolete and the latest cry from Adobe Photoshop can outperform "Ducky" and has a new digital fingerprint..*which will appear no doubt sooner than later in  "updated Global warming Satellite imagery evidence"...:*

45 Brilliant Examples of Photo Manipulation Art - Noupe Design Blog


> *45 Brilliant Examples of Photo Manipulation Art*
> 
> The "Chog"..:
> 
> ...



And the latest Adobe image manipulation tool has the digital fingerprint of :
(apparently they had a lot of customer pressure to let "Ducky" off the fingerprint)
* Now it`s almost as perfect as a tool a forger could want*
*00 06 04 04  04 05 04 06* 
*05 05 06 09  06 05 06 09  * 
*0B 08 06 06  08 0B 0C 0A * 

Too bad, no more "pun" with Ducky, once "Global Warming Science" upgrades to Photoshop Pro CS5 or better


----------



## wirebender (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In the written record, there has never been less ice than there is today in the Arctic.



The written record?  I am laughing in your face.  I provided you with a photographic record clearly showing open water at the fricking north pole and you want to say that there has never been less ice at the Arctic than there is today.  How much kookaid do you consume every day?

As for the temperature and CO2 over geological time, here is a much more recent and accurate assessment, from the AGU 2009 Convention;



Old Rocks said:


> A23A
> 
> And here is a lecture on what is presently happening in the Arctic. Of coures, I don't expect you to listen or look at them, Bender, but someone lurking with a reasonable level of intelligiance might wish to see what real scientists are stating.
> 
> C24A



Once more, I am lauging in your face.  You are consuming it by the gallon aren't you?  Tell me, are you taking it by mouth or as a steady intravenious drip round the clock?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> As for the temperature and CO2 over geological time, here is a much more recent and accurate assessment, from the AGU 2009 Convention;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wirebender You have to consider the "schoolbooks" morons like "OldRocks" had






Now he is trying to impress You with "intelligent people" that lurk somewhere backing him up....any time soon, just as soon as Al Gore quits throwing his love letters in the waste basket...

I don`t think he is heterosexual, and probably doesn`t have a wife ironing his pants...
and this might have happened :






But maybe not* exactly *like that, he probably plays that part in his personal relationships







And as for this..:


> Once more, I am laughing in your face. You are consuming it by the gallon aren't you? Tell me, are you taking it by mouth or as a steady intravenous drip round the clock?



*He prefers  taking it rectally... *


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2011)

BiPolar, once again, I don't bother to read your rants. Post real information, and stick to one subject per post. But, being who and what you are, that is not possible.


----------



## westwall (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> BiPolar, once again, I don't bother to read your rants. Post real information, and stick to one subject per post. But, being who and what you are, that is not possible.






He does!  It would be nice if you did too!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Max Planck Institute.*
> 
> Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie: Which future emission pathway is required to limit the global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels?
> 
> ...








;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





*Right off the bat, it`s made pretty clear what this  hullabaloo is all about...it`s not about Science it`s about policy making*

See this is what happens if you don`t read "rants"....as You term the technical details, and the only thing You read is what comes out of these "black boxes" that your little pea brain can`t understand...

So let`s take a look at the internal correspondence these "scientists" You quote *say about their own MPI-Model * shall we...?
I`m sure *anybody but You* will not think this is a "rant"

I`ll just post the "mother link here" because the rest of the science rants I am quoting are in the sub-links and all You have to do to verify is go to the main link and follow the tell tale trail...:

http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/


> 3/3/2011
> Dear all, please be careful with evaporation. I have looked at the evspsbl files recently, and I found that there are different sign conventions in use:* Apparently MPI, ETHZ and CNRM have it positive downwards, i.e., mostly negative numbers. ICTP, KNMI, DMI, SMHI and HC use the opposite convention, with mostly positive numbers. I have not looked at the remaining institutes. *
> depending on your software: NetCDF CRU-interpolated files from the HC start with high latitude and go south, in contrast to everybody else. The "lat" array is correct, and the files are consistent. But, if you blindly read data from several models, *you may get errors! *
> 
> ...



Comment break...
And that`s the "experts" assholes like You are quoting here



> 14/01/2010
> *Take care with CDO. I have been told that there is a serious problem *when using the MPI tool CDO to handle monthly mean (MM) files, and *have just realised how serious it is. *
> 
> 13/01/2010
> Do you know by heart what a Rockel-box is? If not, look here. These European sub-areas have been used both in PRUDENCE and in ENSEMBLES for model intercomparison.



Comment break...:
That`s what scares the shit out of them, "Rocket Box" is a program that compare these fuck head computer models and shows how idiotic these wildly different predictions were in a "hind-cast" mode



> 16/4/2007:
> Erik van Meijgaard *has found inconsistencies in several data sets. *The SMHI data are being replaced by ones where the time variable is the same as for the other institutes. I am behind schedule in fixing flaws in other data sets
> The UCLM files *do not contain a grid_mapping variable "Lambert_Conformal".* Instead these files contain a global attribute grid_mapping="lambert_conformal_conical" without parameter values.



Comment break..:
How many times have I told You already that these fuck head computer models have this error in common..to no avail, because a retard like You has no idea what  *"Lambert_Conformal".* means...here it is again..:






Remember when I tried to explan it to you in the other threads...?...does that jog your pea brain memory..:






*I did tell You that these childish Models have solar radiation coming in at a 90 deg elevation angle all day long and year round as if the earth were flat*

But let`s get back to the rantings our Your hero "scientists"...shall we...:
on the URL sub-links branching out from the mother URL



> CORDEX: A COordinated Regional climate Downscaling EXperiment
> Final specifications 	PDF 	Print 	E-mail
> Written by Ole Bøssing Christensen
> Monday, 11 April 2011 12:20
> ...





> PRUDENCE and what came after
> ENSEMBLES and CORDEX
> Scientific highlights of PRUDENCE
> 
> ...



Comment break...
*See the "OldRocks" You moron, that`s the entire purpose of this crap,...this is not science it`s Propaganda Scheisters dressed in White Lab coats*



> 11/7/2007:
> Two important updates: The special issue of Climatic Change (Vol. 81 2007) concerning the PRUDENCE project is now available. *And, I have removed the participants-only data from this server. This means that prudencerestricted.dmi.dk just points to this page. If you REALLY need the data, and if you are allowed (you probably are not...), then write me a mail.*
> PRUDENCE (2001-2004) was a European-scale investigation with the objectives:
> 
> to address and reduce deficiencies in projections of future climate change;



Comment break..
*Does it finally sink into Your cement rock head why they can`t make their "data" public...?*


This is from a site internal link...same parent URL which leads to one of their pdf files..:

http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/RCM-cc-performance.pdf



> In order to enable users of various *impacts models *to span the space of *possible climate trajectories allowed by the A1B emission scenario, we shall give some rules* of thumb. We have chosen to focus on four physical parameters:
> * Summer and winter change from the 1961-1990 reference period in
> temperature and precipitation to a future period 2070-2099. *
> *We shall only look at average values over the whole of Europe,* and we shall compare eleven simulations.
> These simulations are exactly those in the archive that cover the period 1951-2099. *We have made the subjective choice to exclude simulations driven by the global models HadCM3Q3 and HadCM3Q16,* which are versions of the HadCM3 model with perturbed parameterization (&#8220;low&#8221; and &#8220;high&#8221; climate sensitivity, respectively); *the current climate is not simulated very well with these two models.*



So, was that enough ranting for today...?

And to all the other fellows with a brain in their head..:
*My God, thank God there is such a thing as "Global Warming Science"...*
I shudder at the thought were these dope heads employed somewhere else.,,,like in Pharmacy dispensary , a Restaurant Kitchen, a McDonald`s drive through,...
I don`t dare think about the ramifications if these morons were AT-Controllers in Airport Towers, Pilots or in some sort of Engineering like for ex. Chemical Engineering..
So may be we are better off  not apply the budget axe to this "science"
Bhopal would be the "norm"...OOOOPS our computer model fucked up again


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2011)

@Westwall
Every time something gets posted here, no matter by whom  that shows what kind of crap this policy making "science" is doing with GW computer model predictions, "OldRocks" + his dummy friends either post a dozen stupid replies in a row, to put such a post a few pages back in the forum listing ...
But not this time, the last thing he wrote was:



Old Rocks said:


> BiPolar, once again, I don't bother to read your rants. Post real information, and stick to one subject per post. But, being who and what you are, that is not possible.



And now it seems we have this thread for ourselves...he`s is probably starting up yet another GW  thread somewhere else as usual.

Well then perhaps it`s possible to point out the major math flaws these "Climatolgist" computer models all have in common...it`s not just confined to this example, which I found where they discuss their own data:
The ENSEMBLES project RT3


> 16/4/2007:
> Erik van Meijgaard has found inconsistencies in several data sets. The SMHI data are being replaced by ones where the time variable is the same as for the other institutes. I am behind schedule in fixing flaws in other data sets
> The UCLM files do not contain a grid_mapping variable "Lambert_Conformal".



The climate models apply simpleton linear math for almost every physics/chemistry principle...as they did here, using a flat earth, where the sun angle is at a constant 90 degree elevation.
Standard ASCII keyboards have no math symbols other than kindergarten math, so I have to write the words as one would pronounce the equation.
Even if these morons were to incorporate the Lambert function it would still be way wrong.
Apparently they have not figured out yet what the Integral of Cosine (a) for a 1--->90 degrees. And that would still be wrong because so far that would correct only for the decrease in impacting sun radiation north and south of the equator...but still have the sun at a 90 degree elevation  from coast to coast,...instead of where the sun really is in the horizon in relation to longitude at any given time.
And on top of that the 3.rd error is that so far this did not take the seasonal 23 degree tilt into account. Climatologists live either in European or North American rizzy cities and perhaps that`s why it never occurred to them just how much this angle changes every day the further north You go. 
It`s common knowledge that the arctic is pitch black night 24/7 during the winter time, but "climatoligst" computer models have the sun shine there every day of the year at an elevation angle like 12 noon mid summer on the equator...
simply because they did not know how to write an integral function for a stereo angle and a 23 degree precessional motion for one earth orbit...

And demanding that these models correct for the fact that during the winter months a huge area in the northern hemisphere is cover by white snow is asking for too much.
You don`t have to be a scientist of any sort to know, that air over such an area does not warm at the same rate as it does over areas with exposed darker ground

*Climatologists quote equations from wikipedia, like Beer Lambert`s laws, but they sure as shit don`t incorporate the proper non linear functions and the non linear integral functions thereof in any of their computer models...*
With Beer Lambert`s laws they quote t to the public but then also use the linear absorbance value which has absolutely nothing to do with actual absorption

*With  "computer models" based on kindergarten math "climatologists" have been making 50 year predictions, Newspapers have been printing these and Al Gore is giving lectures at the U.N.*

This just goes to show for what purpose these "computer model" generate a steady stream of garabage:


> PRUDENCE and what came after
> ENSEMBLES and CORDEX, Scientific highlights of PRUDENCE
> 
> *An article on "High-resolution climate modelling: Assessment, added value and applications" made it as a news item in Nature, 428, 593.*
> About the* record-breaking heat wave that affected much of Europe in the summer of 2003:* The Summer Heat Wave of 2003: A Signal of Climate Change? about how the 2003 summer is hardly consistent with the present probability distribution. It was very different from the heat waves recorded in 1947 and 1976,



A summer heatwave in 2003 on postage stamp sized Europe is used as "proof" that their computer model works even in "high resolution mode".
But try and point out how cold it was in Canada, ...where Europe fits in ~ 10 times with room to spare, then You get chastised for "cherry picking" and a lecture that this was just local weather and has nothing to do with "global climate"


*And that`s what EVERYBODY who is checking up on the math these models are using has been saying all along.*
This entire "Global warming science" is political science, the goals are policy making and has nothing at all to do with real science


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2011)

Every time Manitoba Hydro has to dump out the huge Nelson River reservoirs into the Hudson bay Idiots from all over the world book every Hotel room in Churchill to take pictures of "starving polarbears".
Next day the ice is back, the bears are gone and so are the "Global Warming" Pavarazzi.
The Lincoln See and the Behring Strait same thing. A slug of warm Pacific Water runs up North which is not uncommon and then all kinds of "evidence of thinning polar ice" appears all over the News Media. Greenland & Ellesmere Island same thing.
They love to show You pictures of the breaking ice up the Nares Strait, but no one wants to show You pictures of the landscape around Fort Conger with tree stumps everywhere You look.

And the fact that for 200 years ships have been going up the Nares Strait all the way to
Fort Conger is mentioned only in History books, but nowhere in "Global Warming science"

This is a POLITICAL SCIENCE with the aim of Bilderberg Group policy making,
This group has no mandate and yet holds each year closed door meetings
with every Treasury Secretary and President the U.S. had so far + all
heads od States of the entire E.U.
No minutes are taken and the public has to wait what Wikileaks has on
these shady dealings...
What we do know for certain that   Agenda 21, this gravy train for  U.N.
fat cats and a lot of treasonous politicians was put on the rails in
the Bilderberg Group closed door meetings.
Then  Agenda 21,  had to be sold to the public at large.
And it`s attempted  by stupefying the public at large with "Man made Global Warming"
, so far with little success...

The "S 21" (Stuttgart 21) Project which is plunging Europe`s tax payers into
a bottomless national debt quagmire ...is an Agenda 21 Project
every politicien in Europe openly says so...and will brag in the same breath
that this S-21/U.N/ Agenda 21 is supposed to counteract the
"Global Warming" their childish computer models forecast.

But none of them want to comment on the pictures which show them
EVERY YEAR coming to or going from at a Bilderberg Group meeting or tell you what was discussed there.
*And just asking the question immediately makes a ridiculous "conspiracy theorist" out of  legitimate journalists, except for the media that spreads the kind garbage which is supposedly "The Truth"
*
To date this is "Save the world from Global Warming/Agenda 21" scam is
probably thee most massive financial swindel perpetrated on earth.

But the fuel of any sort hyper taxation financing this lucrative Carbon credits exchange Market is already legislated in most countries, this scum bag fraud market is already open for business and presently has a higher trading volume exceeding  the NASDAC and the DAX combined.


Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






List of Bilderberg participants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The following is a list of prominent persons who have attended one or more conferences organized by the Bilderberg Group. The list is currently organized by category. It is not a complete list and it includes both living and deceased people. Where known, the year(s) they attended are denoted in brackets.
> 
> United States
> 
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 15, 2011)

The ENSEMBLES project RT3


> ENSEMBLES and CORDEX, Scientific highlights of PRUDENCE
> An article on "High-resolution climate modelling: Assessment, added value and applications" made it as a news item in Nature, 428, 593.
> About the record-breaking* heat wave that affected much of Europe in the summer of 2003:* The Summer Heat Wave of 2003: A Signal of Climate Change? about how the 2003 summer is hardly consistent with the present probability distribution. It was very different from the heat waves recorded in 1947 and 1976,



Look at the "measuring sticks" used by "GLOBAL warming"...:

Manitoba's total area is 676000 square kilometers,
Saskatechewan            588276 square kilometers 
NWT                          1541844 square kilometers,
Nunavut   about          1994000 square kilometers

I`m not even including the Yukon here...

*Germany, where this news breaking "Global Heat wave, proving" this ridiculous Computer forecast was has an area of  356910 square kilometers..*
*It fits into what is just a small portion of Canada 14 times with room to spare...
*
Yet when I post a video, what our current weather is, "OldRocks" etc who have a strange concept of significance this would be dismissed as "just local weather"...with "no global significance"...and a *mid summer heat wave in  postage stamp sized Europe* "proves Global Warming"......???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

By the way this is what`s going on in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, etc right now (april 15th @ ~17:00 local time.:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQNBL-ExAyg]YouTube - Global Warming in Canada[/ame]


And just a couple of weeks ago ....:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk]YouTube - Canada Wetterbericht.wmv[/ame]

And  an asshole like "OldRocks" will find on one of his Climate sex change dot.Orgasm web pages that Canada is in heat like a bitch dog in  in a suburban Seattle back alley or wherever that little world he lives in is..


----------



## jesereL (Apr 16, 2011)

I must start learning how to swim.


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Apr 17, 2011)

Chris said:


>



This must be what..? almost a dozen times that You post this image here over and over again without a single comment...
As if You are puzzled by it and this is some sort of outcry for an explanation You need...
Okay, I`ll help You out then...but don`t make a habit of it, because I`m pretty busy and can`t do this all the time.
So for the future, get Yourself the "TinEye" plug in for Your browser, and install it.
Then when You see an image like the one which seems to trouble You, all You have to do is right click the pretty little picture and You get an almost up to date list of every web site which is using this image.
188 results - TinEye
after that it`s of course entirely up to You if You want to remain ignorant an read only the kind of web pages "Old Rocks" reads or if You want to read web pages of people that have a direct data down link and the ability to graph this data...
I do it all the time and that`s why I don`t really have the time to give You free math & computer tutoring every day...unless you start paying me

This graph You show is a gross distortion of the original *JAXA* data set (JAXA= *J*apan* A*erospace E*x*ploration *A*gency)

And all You have to do is download the same Data Your Global Warming Hysterical Alarmsiren Web Sites use ,* open an XL spreadsheet and plet XL plot the graph...it`s that simple!*
Of Course when You graph data there are all kinds of ways to cheat...You know, like the Hockey Stick...??
Anyway here is the same JAXA date set , it exists NOT JUST for the Arctic, we also have one for the Antarctic...which Your regular diet web sites don`t want to show you for easily understandable reasons...:
Well here are both North & South JAXA Data super imposed..:






Your GW web sites are still in disarray how to explain this, and currently they are leaning towards the Ozon hole guilt trip..but the problem is, that  the Ozone Hole doesnt form until August and is gone by December. 
So You can see, they are between an "Old Rock" and a hard place here ...!!

The other strategy GW "science" is also floating is...: we expected Antarctica to warm more slowly because of the mass of the southern oceans.

The Problem with this "explanation" is that  slower warming  not the same as cooling.

*Plots of the JAXA Data made by a lot of people that know what they are doing*

JAXA Melt Season  Shortest On Record | Real Science



> *JAXA Melt Season  Shortest On Record*
> Posted on September 13, 2010 by stevengoddard
> 
> 
> ...




*So why don`t You ask Your friends who`s graph You keep posting why they stopped Your Tibetan Prayer mill graph on June  in each line on this stupid graph You keep posting...is that when the GW Year ends..? I don`t know about You, but all the people I know, the year ain`t over till the fat lady sings December 31 rst *

*And You never noticed that...or suspected anything?*






*and You never noticed they left off everything else for every year which came down from JAXA  from June  to December 31 in EVERY YEAR on THEIR GRAPH?????*




Arctic Continues Record Ice Growth | Real Science



> Another massive gain yesterday. *CT area showed an increase of 108842 km^2. Since the minimum, weve gained 624214 km^2, now the highest gain from the minimum in the last 10 years!
> *


There are 2 kinds of people in this business, one kind understands binary and Computers and all the others are at the mercy of what they are being told by those who do know how to use a computer *other than just scavenging the Internet for web sites that augment You Fantasy World..
*




*Well anyway if You keep it up as You have so far posting this fucking distorted graph here over and over gain, then I will just keep on dumping the complete JAXA data set here from which Your "Scientists" have cherry picked their Data to scare the shit out of brainless people...:*




http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

I won`t do it this time...it`s a massive set of numbers, check out the link above

*Let`s just leave this as a lesson , that you should be more careful what you quote to one of the oldest computer whores on the block here ...*

*So why don`t You first inform yourself  what the IPCC has to say about this shit you keep quoting here..  *

IPCC Latest Arctic Ice Extent Update Corrections


> *The Fifth Assessment Report due , will provide an important update of knowledge related to climate change regarding the arcic ice sheet*
> *Meanwhile, two Special Reports are due in 2011 - Advance Climate Change Adaptation regarding Computer Modelling *



*You are way out of Your depth...*




and then  it`s important you know how to swim...:






> I must start learning how to swim.



She want`s somebody teaching her the* "breast stroke"*

*I sure as shit can`t my wife would kill me*

So I read the newspapers instead to get my mind of these "wicked thoughts";
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Maybe You should change Your " top secret Intel sources" and read something else because what You dug up so far  does not go well with the image 
.............you are trying to project here..:;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 you come across is a lot more like this...:; 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





*Try wrap Your head around this..:
*
From The New York Times, 1969



> From the 9th century to the 13th century almost no ice was reported there. This was the period- of Norse colonization of Iceland and Greenland. Then, conditions worsened and the Norse colonies declined. After the Little Ice Age of 1650 to 1840 the ice began to vanish near Iceland and had almost disappeared when the trend re versed, disastrously crippling Icelandic fisheries last year.



From The New York Times, 2000



> The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate. The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.



*Is it possible that the IPCC is trying to rewrite the history books?*


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2011)

Sea ice cover in the Arctic appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year, and according to scientists with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that extent ties 2006 for the lowest on record.

Watching a time-lapse movie of sea ice as it waxes and wanes over the course of a year is a little like watching a lung breathe in and breathe out. Over the fall and winter months, it steadily expands until it achieves its greatest extent - generally somewhere in March - and then it retreats until it reaches its lowest area, generally in September.

Arctic Ice Is Younger, Thinner, and Disappearing

As Arctic temperatures warm, particularly in summer, the minimum sea ice extent has decreased precipitously. It is presently declining by 11.5 percent per decade relative to the 1979-2000 average. That decline has in turn affected sea ice recovery in the winter, as the ice that reforms is now younger and thinner, and thus less likely to persist. However, because the Arctic remains an extremely cold environment in the winter months, winter sea ice decline is less than in summer: about 3 to 4 percent per decade since 1979, when satellite measurements began.

2011 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Joint Lowest On Record : Discovery News


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2011)

Polar.......Im laughing my balls off...........and these k00ks. Soooooooooooooo fcukking boring. Thats why they took to the sciences. When you have the social abilites of a handball, thats what you do. Asshole social invalids like this k00k hris learned in school at an early age that "creativity" is spelled "cetivty", thus, you spend your life in front of the PC 14 hours/day.

And by the way..........ever notice the k00ks never want to talk about the Antarctic........like it doesnt exist on earth!!!


Not winning..............


----------



## wirebender (Apr 18, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Your GW web sites are still in disarray how to explain this, and currently they are leaning towards the Ozon hole guilt trip..but the problem is, that  the Ozone Hole doesnt form until August and is gone by December.



I tried to get some of the wackos to talk about the "ozone hole".  If they weren't afraid to look at the truth, maybe they would know why the hole over the antarctic doesn't form till august and is gone by december.  It certainly has nothing to do with anything man is doing.


----------



## konradv (Apr 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Your GW web sites are still in disarray how to explain this, and currently they are leaning towards the Ozon hole guilt trip..but the problem is, that  the Ozone Hole doesnt form until August and is gone by December.
> ...



But the size of it may.  You can't dispute the effect of chlorine on ozone.  That's straight chemistry, whether in a test tube or in the atmosphere.  It's intellectual dishonesty to leave out half the story.


----------



## westwall (Apr 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







Maybe, the problem with that is the ozone hole disappears.  The chlorine molecules are still up there and magically the hole closes?  An honest person would figure out there is a problem with the theory after that had happened a few times or so....but I think we know who's intellectually honest when it comes to environmental science.  And it's sure not you and your ilk!


----------



## wirebender (Apr 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> But the size of it may.  You can't dispute the effect of chlorine on ozone.  That's straight chemistry, whether in a test tube or in the atmosphere.  It's intellectual dishonesty to leave out half the story.



I am telling you that man has nothing to do with the ozone "hole".  If you care to discuss the topic, I will be happy to lead you to the same unavoidable conclusion.  If you are in posession of the facts, the hoax simply falls away.  

Once more I ask...What do you believe the ozone layer to be, how do you believe it got there, and what do you believe it does.  Answer the questions or admit your intellectual cowardice.

Care to learn the truth?


----------



## konradv (Apr 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > But the size of it may.  You can't dispute the effect of chlorine on ozone.  That's straight chemistry, whether in a test tube or in the atmosphere.  It's intellectual dishonesty to leave out half the story.
> ...



How can we learn the truth, if you're only willing to tell half the story?  Yes, the hole existed before man.  Yes, it gets larger and smaller naturally.  Neither of those two facts perclude the man having an effect on its size by the emission of chemicals KNOWN to breakdown ozone.  Please, address THIS issue before going any further, including your contention that man has "nothing" to do with the size of the hole.  Considering you're bashing others for having few facts to back them up, you've got a lot of nerve expecting us to believe something for which you have NO facts!!! Once again, intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> How can we learn the truth, if you're only willing to tell half the story?  Yes, the hole existed before man.  Yes, it gets larger and smaller naturally.  Neither of those two facts perclude the man having an effect on its size by the emission of chemicals KNOWN to breakdown ozone.



I am willing to tell the whole story.  Have you gloamed onto this "half the story" line in an effort to avoid discussing the topic?



konradv said:


> Please, address THIS issue before going any further, including your contention that man has "nothing" to do with the size of the hole.  Considering you're bashing others for having few facts to back them up, you've got a lot of nerve expecting us to believe something for which you have NO facts!!! Once again, intellectual dishonesty.



No.  I won't address THAT before going any further.  Before the discussion progresses, I would like to know what you believe you know about the ozone layer.  Till I know that you at least have a grasp of the basics, there is no point in continuing.  

Again.  What do you believe the ozone layer is?  How do you believe it got there?  And what do you believe it does.  Answer the questions and we can either proceed with the discussion or get you in touch with the basic facts.

As to your suggestion that I have no facts, once more you are just talking.  To date, you don't know what I have because so far, you are afraid to begin the conversation.  I am not going to suggest anyting to you that I can not prove with credible materials. 

Now, are you up to the conversation or not?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2011)

how will they move the goalposts if you demand a snapshot before you start? totally unfair of youold chap.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




What the fuck are you talking about...did you ever study chemistry...?
So how would you be qualified to make a judgement call,* which part of the crap you dig up i*s legitimate and which is not.
Have you ever even looked into the wikipedia rules...?
1. "wiki wiki" means ANYBODY can write almost any crap they want, and for "references & sources" even a garbage web site is accepted.
I`m not saying there is only garbage on wikipedia or the rest of the internet, I am saying *there is a lot of garbage *
And if the subject is Ozone Chemistry *how would you for example know *which is legitimate data and which is the garbage..??
You are one of the countless stupid people who are instant "science experts" and all it takes is to yank the plug on your PC and you are an instant moron.
I wonder why Chemists or other Science Students attend years and years at Universities at great expense....who needs it...all it takes is go to a forum like this and and see what morons like you dig up on Ozone chemistry using the  search word "THE OZONE HOLE" + "OH MY GOD!"
If You want to know about Ozone Chemistry but are too stupid + lazy to study Chemistry then look around in these enviro-wacko threads and You`l find that this Ozone "hole" + Ozone Chemistry has already been discussed @ length ...
First of all there is no such thing as an Ozone* HOLE* nor has there ever been an Ozone *HOLE*
If you would have to answer right now in some public place some surprise  questions by some TV Reporter what You know about Dobson Units, what a free radical is, what governs a reaction speed or even what the molecular structure of Ozone looks like You sure a shit would saddle up and fuck off without saying a word..

*By the way Westwall and the others had it right...*

and you came back...:


> But the size of it may. You can't dispute the effect of chlorine on ozone. That's straight chemistry, *whether in a test tube or in the atmosphere*. It's intellectual dishonesty to leave out half the story.



 a typical "wikipedia  chemistry" graduate "answer"...
So we Chemists had it all wrong all these years...?


The effect of concentration on rates of reaction


> Collisions involving two particles
> *In order for any reaction to happen, those particles must first collide.
> If the concentration is higher, the chances of collision are greater.*


The same argument applies whether the reaction involves collision between two different particles or two of the same particle.

And Dobson Units are not Ozone concentration, but simply a unit taken from the "Umkehr Methode"...it`s a German word, that You would have to google first...don`t bother I`ll show You a NASA picture that your eenzy weenzy mind might understand..:







So from there You can see...(can you?) that the max concentration is not quite 8 ppm,
So only 8 parts in 1 Million parts are ozone the rest is not...
and You quote web page "science" that tell You that a Cl-radial can have more than 200 000 collisions in a row seeking and finding Ozone Molecules like a radar guided missile..

Do You know what a free radical is,,,doooh...?
It can be  an atom or a complete Molecule as long as it has an electron in the outer layer that is not spin-coupled with another other one of the opposite spin...
This single Cl radical that your science has killing almost a million Ozone molecule un-docked just now from another radical that has this opposite spin electron in the outer layer...
so what do you think are the chances....will it first find these 8 in one million Ozone molecules and "destroy the Ozone Layer" or will it sooner than later find something right in it`s vicinity a radical with an opposite spin electron...?....and the "Ozone destructive Radical" is then  annihilated

All us  of here already know how you answered that one, so don`t bother.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That's straight chemistry, whether in a test tube or in the atmosphere*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You, Chris and the chief moron Old Rock that`s all You`ll ever "know" because you have no clue about anything, nor would any of you even be reading anything remotely intelligent..

As if You`l get useful information using the kinds of Google Queries You guys use ..
like "Ozone hole", "Record high temperature", "Thin arctic ice" and garbage like that...
So why not "cell phone radiation:...:





And then can back it up with "real science"...:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/technology/personaltech/31basics.html



> *Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain*. Lets Talk.
> 
> In a culture where people cradle their cellphones next to their heads with the same constancy and affection that toddlers hold their security blankets, it was unsettling last month when a study published in *The Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that doing so could alter brain activity. *





> San Francisco Mandates Cell Phone Radiation Labels
> San Francisco's law will be the first in the nation despite controversy and uncertainty if cell phone radiations do cause cancer.



And you would believe the entire crock of shit..!!!


The chief source of Ozone is UV sunlight impacting on Oxygen and that creates 2 Oxygen radicals which each react with an un-split Oxygen Molecule, but then spin couple their unpaired outer electrons with one of the 2 O=O bonds and then You have O(3)

You can even buy Ozone Generators today which are simply a high intensity UV lamp in a flow through tube...

So if You still haven`t figured out why the this Ozone "hole" *only forms over the poles* then shut the fuck up and accuse others..:



> It's intellectual dishonesty to leave out half the story.







which are pitch dark 24/7 at each respective polar winter


*OH MY GOD LOOK @ THIS WE ARE ALL BEING FRIED BY UV RADIATION...:*


> *Ozone Hole 2006 Largest on Record*



Google will find what You want it to find..:







*Can You figure out why the Ozone "Hole" might have been almost as big in 2006 as an asshole as You are
*


By the way, there is no Ozone hole, that is a figure of speech, because the "Umkehr Method" and the Dobson Units are not in ppm Ozone, but rather a virtual figure expressing how many molecules of Ozone it would take to for a 0.01 millimeter thick "Ozone Layer" around the globe, @ zero degrees Celsius and a pressure we have at ground level...
I hope you realize, that`s not how Ozone exists in fact around our planet...
so the* Ozone HOLE is only a virtual mathematical concept, there is no such thing as a "real Ozone hole" nor was there ever,,,take my word for it !!!*
*The phrase with the scary word Hole in it was coined by "WODC" ~1960 which was then pretty much what the IPCC is*

Ever since we had CFC propellant hair-spray for women we have an *Ozone "HOLE"*
Ever since we have cars "spewing CO2" we have "Global Warming"...
I don`t dispute that there is* no correlation between the phrases we use since then*...the correlation is perfect...
But these "scientific arguments"....which assert that the absence of all other explanations...which are not printed by the News papers "proves" that the Ozone "HOLE" and "Global waming" is man made.

Okay then prove that this was not the cause of this horrible calamity...:
It was admittedly colder when women dressed in the summer like that..:  







*That guy checking the hem line with a tape measure was the "Global Warming Police"...
and today he could say "I told You so"
*
And then they (*thank God)* started dressing like this...:









*And wouldn`t You know it there is a way better correlation, between the shrinking women`s attire than the "shrinking Polar Ice" than there is between M.Manns tree rings and "man`s evil activities" or Hairspray and the Ozone "HOLE"*


Looking at my choices if I had my pick I sure hope the ice and the girl`s cloths keep on shrinking...


----------



## wirebender (Apr 18, 2011)

Good post.  Lots of info.  I don't think he will get it though because I don't think he understands the basics.  I don't think he grasps that ozone is created by an interaction between high altitude O2 and incoming UV from the sun.  Without that bit of information, I don't think he is able to make the leap to understanding that since the ozone "layer" is dependent on incoming UV from the sun for its very existence, that it stands to reason that the lowest atmospheric concentration of ozone at any given time will be at the point on earth where there is the least amount of UV from the sun hitting the atmosphere, ie. whichever pole is experiencing winter.

Further, I don't think that he has the slightest idea of how long an unstable molecule like ozone can actually last in the atmosphere.  His wiki states that an O3 molecule in atmospheric conditions will last about half an hour.  An instance where wiki is quite accurate for a change.

Ozone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen (with a half-life of about half an hour in atmospheric conditions)
 2 O3 &#8594; 3 O2 
This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure. Deflagration of ozone can be triggered by a spark, and can occur in ozone concentrations of 10 wt% or higher_

Because he doesn't grasp the basic science, I doubt that he can even begin to understand the implications of O3 being created by an interaction between incoming UV from the sun and high altitude O2 and O3 molecules having a half life of about half an hour in the "wild".

I doubt very seriously that he is capable of wondering what happens to the "ozone" layer on the dark side of the Earth a few hours or so after there is no more incoming UV from the sun to replentish the ozone "layer" and I doubt very very seriously that he is even close to wondering why the ozone layer is right back in place as soon as the atmosphere comes back around to daylight.

Back to the basics.  Since he probably doesn't fully grasp that since UV energy is being absorbed to create O3, he has probably never wondered which energy he believes ozone is protecting us from.  He can't grasp that the ozone "layer" is the result of UV from the sun being absorbed.  He can't understand that the ozone "layer" is a result, not a cause.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Good post.  Lots of info.  I don't think he will get it though because I don't think he understands the basics.  I don't think he grasps that ozone is created by an interaction between high altitude O2 and incoming UV from the sun.  Without that bit of information, I don't think he is able to make the leap to understanding that since the ozone "layer" is dependent on incoming UV from the sun for its very existence, that it stands to reason that the lowest atmospheric concentration of ozone at any given time will be at the point on earth where there is the least amount of UV from the sun hitting the atmosphere, ie. whichever pole is experiencing winter.
> 
> Further, I don't think that he has the slightest idea of how long an unstable molecule like ozone can actually last in the atmosphere.  His wiki states that an O3 molecule in atmospheric conditions will last about half an hour.  An instance where wiki is quite accurate for a change.
> 
> ...


See this is what happens he quotes Wikipedia and does not understand that this is a Lab figure Chemists use for* pure Ozone at - 50 degrees Celsius.*

And in his "Wiki qucky" science course he has all the Ozone which is generated @ high altitude staying up there....
The same kind of people can`t figure out why air gets lighter as the moisture content goes up..because he never had anything to do with chemistry..
People like that have to be led by the hand through any of the hundreds of the principles which someone who studied Chemistry & Physics takes for granted...but were not in the same "wiki quicky" science lesson he just had from his Google results..


So with  his "Wiki qucky" science course he  concludes Ozone  *would be staying up there for 6 months unmolested by the evil Chemical and Oil Industries *were it not for us and some spray cans with CFC propellent ....and everyone that took the trouble to attend chemistry lectures is wasting their money and their time...
Lecture 32


> Lecture 32
> 
> Chemical Reactions in the Atmosphere




And in the* OldRocks Science Courses a pound of Rocks is heavier than a pound of air..*.so therefore Water (vapor)  is heavier than air...????????
H2O  1 G-Mol = *18* grams 
O2=*32*, N2=*28*, the R-constant @ standard Gas conditions we use for comparisons = 22.4 liters per G-mole, so You can see why moist air rises the more moisture (as in H2O) in contains...it becomes ever lighter and rises in violent torrents

Chemists do these calculations all the time, so we don`t even have to look up values from tables or the equations ... we know them like other people know phone numbers they call every day...and we don`t confuse the Pizza man`s phone number with the dentist like "Wiki science graduates"...

Anyway I think everybody knows how high a "towering cumulus" can rise...?
So for starters, there is a shit load of a violent air torrent rising from low altitude to >40 000 all the time all over the world...what is it again ~ 70  to 80 Lightning events per second world wide...
And no way will that leave the Ozone it comes in contact with at the Lab-table value and as pure Ozone alone for 6 months except what`s higher than 15 kilometers...
And the Ozone that is above that height...let me get that straight now...:
Wicki and Internet "scientists" have CFC`s going up there, forming radicals that streak around like missiles and colliding with ever Ozone Molecule there is...
but the Ozone Molecules hover perfectly still up there and don`t follow the laws of physics...?
Not even in 6 months a single Ozone molecule makes it down to the boundary layer where all kinds of natural chemical interactions are happening...?

Have this idiot check out the stability of Ozone when it`s no longer of  analytical grade purity like his strange "climate model world" would have it...Ozone, 6 months half-life in the *REAL WORLD.*..what a joke...

I don`t see why the fuck You & I should do all this work for him...
Assholes like that make the most retarded assertions and I`m supposed to spend the rest of the day scanning in Chemistry and Physics book pages and upload these to "photobucket" so he can read them...as if he would...and as if he could understand one single statement made on any single page in any REAL Physics or Chemistry book...
if he would he`l never even be quoting ridiculous stuff like this "6 Months Half Life Time " *for pure Ozone held at - 50 C and standard pressure *

If he starts paying me say *$ 40 per download, like most of the REAL SCIENCE publications cost on the internet* if You want to download them, then I might reconsider...

As far as I am concerned I don`t care how stupid he is and how stupid he stays..
let him continue to "study science" the way he and Old Rocks do it....
And let him continue to post it here..
It would be a shame if they would stop...then we would not have any more whipping boys to have fun with






;


----------



## wirebender (Apr 19, 2011)

polarbear said:


> As far as I am concerned I don`t care how stupid he is and how stupid he stays..
> let him continue to "study science" the way he and Old Rocks do it....
> And let him continue to post it here..
> It would be a shame if they would stop...then we would not have any more whipping boys to have fun with



Good point, but personally, I believe that ozone reactions in the atmosphere are so basic, that even a bag of rocks could be taught without a great deal of effort and when they actually learn the basics and are able to use those principles to come to the conclusion themselves that the ozone "hole" was a hoax and that there never was anything to worry about, maybe, just maybe, they will wonder what other hoaxes and half truths they have been spoon fed.

And if they clap their hands over their ears and yell LA LA LA as loud as they can rather than even attempt to understand the basics when someone is willing to teach them, then they have said all that needs to be said about the quality of their intellect and their character.

As a side note, do you remember when Australia spent a dump truck full of money on an advertising campaign warning its citizens that the sun was shining through the ozone hole and giving them skin cancer?  That was a prime example of what you get when you don't at least try to help them get a handle on the basics.  Imagine, the leadership of an industrialized nation scaring the hell out of their citizens and a nation full of citizens who aren't able to build a model in their head and realize that the claims being made simply could not happen.

The sun is forever to the north of Australia.  The ozone hole is forever to the south of Australia.  By what twisted bit of logic to you believe a sun that is forever to your north is shining down on you through a "hole" that is forever to your south?

That dumptruck full of money they spent could have been used for a worthy cause rather than being flushed down the toilet on a hoax.  The same is true for the anthropogenic climate change hoax; except instead of spending a dump truck full of money, they are talking about spending several fleets of dumptrucks full of money.  Money that could be used to actually do some good but instead, is being used to line the pockets of people like the UN leadership and algore.

I am not particularly attached to any illusion that rocks et al will actually try to grasp the scientific basics and begin to question the stories they have bought into, but if I don't at least try to explain the elementaries to those who don't know them, then I am left thinking less of myself.


----------



## expat_panama (Apr 19, 2011)

Chris said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.
> ...



 --the idea being arctic ice floats and melts to the same volume.  

That could also apply for Greenland and Antarctica too because the weight of the ice pack has pushed land elevations there several thousand feet below sea level.  Then the land levels would be pushed back up, the displacement would lower ocean floors that would go down further from the weight of more water.

Ocean levels are caused by factors other than ice packs.  We had rising ocean levels back in the 70's during the 'global cooling' era.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)

Hey Polar........great pic on that last post. The Question is...........where does your face go?? A question, by the way, unable to be answered by the k00ks.

Hey Polar........see DRUDGE this AM???

Greenhouse gases at a 15 year low.............FT.com / US & Canada - US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low


As if it mattered for anything.............


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2011)

wirebender said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I am concerned I don`t care how stupid he is and how stupid he stays..
> ...







First @ Skookerasbil


> The Question is...........where does your face go?? A question, by the way, unable to be answered by the k00ks.
> 
> Hey Polar........see DRUDGE this AM???
> 
> Greenhouse gases at a 15 year low.............FT.com / US & Canada - US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low



Captain Awesome, why did You change that Avatar You had...? You f-d up I don`t know how many posts in German Hi HI Hi HA HA HA ho ho ho lolo Co$$T web sites where I borrowed Your avatar. You know that Jewish "Eyewitnesses" could not make up their mind till ~ 1960 how us Germans killed them.. It was`nt always "Zyklon B Gaschambers"..
They said we made soap out of them and in Isreal there are actually  "graves" with soap bars + head stones....(for real), they also said we used "superheated steam", explosives, "automatic neck shooting machines", even footballfield sized high voltage steel plates where they had to stand for "twitch and roll calls".... and all kinds of stuff before they settled on Zyklon-B after the Hollywood movies and Elie Wiesel,,,the Al Gore of the "holocaust science"...he wrote about 3 different versions in his books first in Yiddish we killed them with mass shootings and after Wiesel walked over a site where we buried dead Jews he said with every foot step "Fountains of blood" squirted up from the ground..the problem is that no dead bodies other than the Typhus louse Jews;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




; were ever found...
So I showed with Your old avatar how we evil Germans really did it...we nailed a $100 bill on a hydro pole close to the H-V wires and positioned a garbage can below at the pole in every street in German cities.
Once a week the Sanitation Dep. Trucks came to empty out the garbage cans...and that was that...Now all my holocaust "science" posts are fucked up..because I`ve been using a direct [img/url]to Your old avatar..*and each post now shows Captain Awesome
*


> Greenhouse gases at a 15 year low.............FT.com / US & Canada - US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low


Yeah, right how wonderful
That`s how they "closed the Ozone hole" too CFC`s were banned, just the way Dupont liked it after their patent ran out and then the Ozone "hole" closed...
I guess I should write again how these "current CO2" levels are cheated together.

@ Expat- Panama

You are damned right!! Of course GW "scientists"  will deny and ridicule Your argument but it is the very same argument "GW science" uses when You point out where the Roman Sea walls are today in relation to where the beech is now...
"The Bitish Isles rose up" = the first thing You`ll hear...
But if I were You I would not even worry about how much ice per time slides due to gravity down the slopes in Greenland and calves into icebergs..
*It`s not any more than it always has been * and icebergs have been monitored ever since the Titanic was sunk by that steady train of icebergs that calve off the steep slopes @ the Greenland coast...for a while after 1945 this count went up, because the detection with airborne RADAR was improved...
CO2 had nothing to do with that either.
GW "science" collects thier "data" @ and dramatic Youtube videos @ and Photos on these steep slopes...there are lots  & lots of glaciers on Greenland & Ellesmere where the slope gradient is less and the glaciers do not "melt".*.see pics below*
This shows up even on the "Ducky" doctored NASA Radar altimeter Sat-pictures...*even after *the shades of color coding gray has been forged to suit the purpose
And for the icebergs and  the ice sheets, ice was dissolved by warmer salt water long before there was homo C-OTwo-ius on this planet.
And tell `m again to put some cubes in a glass of water and let them "melt"...as if that would raise the water level...
I don`t know why everybody insists the ice is "melting"...
It`s DISSOLVED....why the fuck then don`t they say the Sugar cubes they put into their hot coffee are "being melted"

@ wirebender 


> The sun is forever to the north of Australia. The ozone hole is forever to the south of Australia. By what twisted bit of logic to you believe a sun that is forever to your north is shining down on you through a "hole" that is forever to your south?
> 
> That dumptruck full of money they spent could have been used for a worthy cause rather than being flushed down the toilet on a hoax. The same is true for the anthropogenic climate change hoax; except instead of spending a dump truck full of money, they are talking about spending several fleets of dumptrucks full of money. Money that could be used to actually do some good but instead, is being used to line the pockets of people like the UN leadership and algore.


*E X A C T L Y*
This is all political science and the soviets were the first to have institutions that taught it, along with propaganda & agitation...
The West actually adopted a shitload of Soviet methods long before the DDR & the USSR imploded and this was one of them.
It was a nifty improvement over old style propaganda methods, which did not incorporate modern insights in human behavior.....

I`ll show You an example from my personal e-mail...I edited out my private e-mail of course...:


> U.S. Navy Daily Digest Bulletin
> Inbox
> Add star
> U.S. Navy
> ...



See what I mean, we all have "Mass communication Specialists"  now, courtesy of the USSR & DDR...
*They don`t just have a B.A. degree in English they are INDEED specially trained and very well trained, believe You me ....!!! * 

Some old graduates from these colleges now are in high office in the West, like Chancellor A. Merkel a.k.a the "Climate Chancellor of Germany" who`s every body orifice gets licked by the current U.S. President....of course that is only "sort of new speek" ....we don`t really know for sure if he has a Monika Lewinsky


The niftiest part of this "science" is to exploit involuntary mind associations with pictures and even just with single words that have a well imparted spin.
And You can manipulate popular believe without having to make a statement that science could shoot down..
all You have to do is say "radiation" and the next word that comes to mind in the general public is "cancer", then after the news papers and TV news  kept mentioning "free radicals" the same association happens...Then "UV index"  = "skin cancer" so Yeah in Australia they run away from the Ozone "HOLE" ,.... 
And "Climate science" exploits these associations to the fullest...
'"free radicals"...by now the "Wikipedia science" educated public knows these cause cancer..and then stick the word "free chlorine-radical" as often in Your face as they can in their Ozone "Hole" publications..on top of that the mind associates that with the UV index & skin cancer...so the desired effects are easily achieved..and the whole crock of shit became  "widely accepted and well known facts"...
The fact that one single free radical cancer  @ first DNA is modified and all it takes is to do that in one single cell which then multiplies till the host drops dead is also common knowledge...and this association is then used to convince the "wikipedia" readers how one
single free Cl radical can wipe out 100`s of thousands of "healthy " Ozone molecules, rolling the dice against 8/ 1 million odds ~ half a million times in a row..
but since You can rely on that the simple mind manipulation has already kicked in @ the moment the word "free radical" registered You can avoid the entire chapter of REAL Chemistry, that a collision must first happen and what the odd are if 2 parts collide when each is only 2 or 3 times present in 1 million other parts that are inert..

None of these mind games would work with a Chemist or someone who studied Physics & Math...but the do work well with a buzz word conditioned public.

Sometimes when I read a publication or listen to the news I use one of the click counter we use in a Lab when we count cultures on a Petri dish..
I make a click for every adjective and for every Buzzword like that...
*Astonishing....the difference say between CNN and the BBC...try it out some day*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I uploaded these pics just now to "Imageshack"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<












Sometimes You guys click on "quote" too soon...I got a shitload if pictures covering Greenland & Ellesmere Island, which I took over every time I did a tour of duty there. It takes me a while to find an example on the scratched up CD`s where I have kept them...and I upload them only  as You guys might need them.
and of course these pictures were not taken @ winter time...else  they would look like this picture taken @ 20:00 , where Old Rocks lives





And I don`t doctor up my pictures with "Ducky the Adobe" photo falsifier like GW "evidence collectors" do it...
For ex. that "NASA Scientist" I just mentioned a few posts ago again who stood on a Glacier & posed for TV and National Geographic Cameras showing "Diesel & industrial soot" on a Glacier..
and I know EXACTLY where he stood...
We have valleys where 150+ Kmh winds howl through and there are dust storms every bit as bad as in the Sahara desert, You have to wear a visor or You face gets sandblasted...and he actually sold his assertions successfully to this day on "NASA" web sites and many others...his crap is quoted all over the internet...
*So where is our "Diesel soot" on all the other glaciers..*must have just been covered with fresh snow eeey ?
See...no "melt water run-off"...You can go to the bottom of shallow slope glaciers and will be hard pressed to find water...
It`s gravity & the enormous pressure below a km thick ice layer that causes a water triple point condition....it`s got fuck all to do with "Global Warming"
We covered the Physics with all the legitimate science quotes already in another thread here...
These GW fuckheads spawn new Climate doomsday threads quicker than Salmonella Bacteria spawns new cultures, it`s hard to find anything useful here any more...but that`s the idea, isn`t it "Old Rocks"..!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)

hey.....fixed that up for ya Polar. You're good to go..............

Found some old classic Photobuckt gems in my search too................

Feel free to use them..........alot were aimed at this idiot Old Rocks too................







[/IMG]













Old Rocks idea for national defense...............







Old Rocks advocates for greener auto's ( actual pic he posted up!!)...............















Heres one for you Polar..........comes in handy any time you pwn a k00k.........









used all the time in the old days while debating the environmental mental cases...............








Polar..........the original attempt Chris made at building an ark as an emergency vessel in cse of floods........







Old Rocks prototype ark made in his backyard............asshole stole the idea from the movie about Kon Tikki








Hey.....found this by chance...........most people dont know her. Its Katarina Witt, the Olymic figure skater from the 1980's. What a babe.............








And Polar...........a mental case to address the mental cases..............


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)

and who can forget this???


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)

The green czar FTMFL!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2011)

Chris said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked.  Get a life...  Environmental wackos are out tonight...  Beware.
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Apr 19, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> hey.....fixed that up for ya Polar. You're good to go..............
> 
> 
> Hey.....found this by chance...........most people dont know her. Its Katarina Witt, the Olymic figure skater from the 1980's. What a babe.............



Hey thanks, the Yad Vashem Hysterical History Experts will be happy again about my murder confession 
No,I did not know Katarina Witt either, for sure not carnally how does that song go again "You cayaayaint always have what you woooooant.."?
Although once when I still lived in the Yukon, I had a friend a journalist from France...he had a girl friend Sophie Villeneuve from the french Olympic Giant Slalom team..
He wanted to dump her for his new girl friend...So he vanished in the Yukon for a Year to win a bet, that he could make it there for 1 Year starting out with nothing but a shotgun, an axe and a Swede Saw...in my neighborhood.
Sophie showed up at my cabin, straight from an Air France Flight to Vancouver and then on commuter to Whitehorse...First thing she wanted was a hot bath, so I had to go outside and melt a pile of snow in an empty fuel drum...I came back in with the first 2 pails of hot water and she stood there stark naked in my bath tub waiting for the water...which  dropped with my jaw to the floor..
And then she asked me if Germans have a bath with their cloths on...but hey I`ve been married a long time ago 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baFlfAH2KQQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baFlfAH2KQQ[/ame]

...and I attend church regularly, besides my wife was on her way home from shopping in Whitehorse....and  I`m pretty sure she wouldn`t have believed me had I  told her. that  I just came home from church and was only trying to make our guest from France feel right at home here..

Olaf by the way won his bet + he wrote a book...even little old me is in there and this book sold like hot cakes in Europe,...with the wager and the book sales Olaf bought a new house on the French Rivieara...(that`s how we spell it in German I`m not sure this is correct "en anglais")....
*And while Olaf made a piss pot full of money and had girls like Sophie* ( Woooohaw is the best word to describe her) *chasing him, I was working with and for frozen Nipples and dimes in the arctic...*
Yeah, but I should not complain because * I do get fu|<ed a lot*, like last night for example...we had freezing  rain and the wires on my FM link on my roof got ripped out of the antenna  box 
So for now, till I get up there to fix it I gotta use a 56 k modem for the internet...
I can grow a beard before this web page loads
*Is there a God..? If so I sure as shit  want to know a few "whys" answered...
I know that the law has nothing to do with justice,...and religion I don`t care which even less*

By the way are You or anyone else interested in some programs I wrote, say if You want to sort out something like a JAXA data stream and graph it yourself...
I can upload these to the "fileden" if You want them


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2011)

Chris said:


>



I smelled that aftershave twice before and each time it was a rat...to quote your hero James Bond
I`don`t mean you Chris with the rat, I am talking about this phony graph. I know for sure the source Data is from the JAXA Satellite, because of the phrase "Area of ocean with at least 15 % sea ice". I have seen all kinds of graphs and each graph the author used "averages"..
But what these bastards did brings a whole new dimension to cheating...
JAXA`s data stream has the figure -9999 embedded in the same data field where the ice surface area is. -9999 is when the satellite was "parked" every time there were solar flares endangering the JAXA-S 
IJIS Web Site


> Numeric data of sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean (CSV file)
> 
> Data from June 2002 to the present are included.
> The format is "month, day, year, extent (unit: square km)".
> Number "-9999" represents that we couldn't conduct the observation during the period for the reason that the satellite went into constrained operation mode or stand-by mode to avoid harmful effects by meteor showers and solar flares.



And You guessed right, the enviro wacko sites incorporated  the 999 code as sea ice extent in their averaging..and then type in about 2 dozen averages into a Windows XL spreadsheet instead of the ~3000 data points JAXA supplied from 06/01/2002 to date.

When I run the entire set through my program without picking out data that I like and graph it I get an entirely different picture than what these bastards show in their simpleton "average trend" graph...:





But do you see now how these bastards cheated...where is their line for 2008, 2009 & 2010...?? See how much higher the peaks are than 2007..!!!
*They picked the lowest data set which was  2007  and an "average"...an average of what data???*


and here is another  "averaged" graph but it has every year on it and gives you a much more honest account.....;its from
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu






And also in case You did not know...:



> The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC)* exceeds 15%. SIC data of JAXA&#8217;s AMSR-E* standard products are used for this purpose (http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/AMSR/products/pdf/alg_des.pdf). The algorithm for calculating SIC was developed and provided by Dr. Comiso of NASA GSFC through a cooperative relationship between NASA and JAXA.



*The actual amount of sea ice is 15 % more than the JAXA data, which kind of makes crap out of your graph that "shows ice less than average" and "shrinking at an alarming rate" to begin with
*
If You figure I cheated I`ll publish the  source code here for my program any time You want me to...:
*It draws a point for EVERY SINGLE of the ~3000 data points
*


 here is how the JAXA.cvs data stream looks like...
I wont dump it here a so instead I`ll just show a screenshot.:





there is a lot more than You can see, if You squint @ the screenshot you may notice that the horizontal scroll will go ~ 5 full screen pages to the right filled with numbers and not a single space is waisted 



> In general, sea-ice extent is defined as a temporal average of several days (e.g., five days) in order to eliminate calculation errors due to a lack of data (e.g., for traditional microwave sensors such as SMMR and SSM/I). However, we adopt the average of two days to achieve rapid data release. The wider spatial coverage of AMSR-E enables reducing the data-production period.



I did not use any averages but used every single data point and let the viewer "average it" visually..works way better...all You have to do is step back 1 foot and Your eyes do it like they do it with every thing they see every day ...
don`t know what I mean...? Motion picture cinematography would not work if the human eye would not visualize in "optic averaging" mode...

And instead of taking 10 day averages to avoid the missing -9999 data codes I simply wrote the program so It wont average "empty days" and plot these on a graph...here is the code...:
if mid$(clean$,1,1)="-9999" then let clean$="No Data from JAXA "
   print #O,clean$
   ice=val(clean$)
   month$=right$(item$,2)
   print #O,month$;"/";
   return
[code10]
   a$=""
   return
[readclean]
    open "c:\JAXA\cleanplot.txt" for input as #B
    open "c:\JAXA\NoData.txt" for output as #ND
[fetchnextclean]
    if eof (#B) < 0 then [quit]
    input #B, text$
    if instr(text$,"No")=12 then gosub [nodata]
    if instr(text$,"No")<12 and ND=1 then print text$;" Data stream resumes "rint #ND,text$;" Data stream resumes "
    if instr(text$,"No")<12 and ND=1 then print #ND," ":ND=0:Res=0ld$=""
    goto [fetchnextclean]

so it "pre-cleans" it from all these -9999 "Satellite is parked" signal codes and even gives me a summary how often that happens. say fro 2003:

10/29/2003/No Data from JAXA
11/08/2003/9179688 Data stream resumes 
11/13/2003/No Data from JAXA
11/16/2003/9703281 Data stream resumes 
11/18/2003/No Data from JAXA
11/21/2003/9885313 Data stream resumes 


and then on the graph it does not generate any wrong peaks either, here is a close up..:





The web sites you keep quoting here could not be bothered using the entire set and simply picked out a half dozen numbers that suited them...because either they have no clue how to "pipe" an entire data set like this into a graph or because they are total frauds...
*If a stock broker or a banker does something like that the FBI gets interested...Or if this was money instead of sea ice and You`l report like this to the NRS, they sure as shit would not be dumb enough to let anyone get away with cheating of this magnitude*...

*But I know, that no matter who runs the entire data set, through any other program that DOES NOT AVERAGE or play crooked accounting they will get THE EXACT SAME RESULTS MILLIMETER FOR MILLIMETER as I did...and I`m willing to stake my life on it..*.it`s an everyday thing for some of us to do that...
Try flying an airplane or being isolated high up North...*one fuck up can cost You Your life in a split second*

*And that`s how REAL SCIENCE works...
If You publish something in science then it`s not accepted, till others can duplicate THE EXACT SAME RESULTS.. not just approximately  or"on average"*


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 20, 2011)

Polar.......Katarina Witt actually did a Playboy issue about 10 years ago. Pretty hot but she lost too much weight. She was alwyas pretty much a full figured gal with spectacular boobs........google her skating routines and you tell me bro...........


----------



## signelect (Apr 20, 2011)

Does this mean I have to quit drinking my Dr. Pepper with ice.  These is just so much to worry about.  I think I will table this until some time next year and see how it goes.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 20, 2011)

I mean, does that not take the proverbial cake or what...???
Take a look at how they scaled their graph...
*the bottom line starts @ 8 million to leave room on top for MAXIMAL SCALE EXPANSION..!!!*
so that a measly few hundred thou`s difference appear as a huge change...
This is how You would "graph" if you wanted to show, that it made a difference to a multi millionaire if he dropped a few bucks...
had they graphed it the way  graphs are *properly shown,* as in mine up top, the *bottom line XY coordinates are  zero, silch, null, 0.000 *
their tops would be popping out the top of your PC screen and go to the ceiling in the room where you are sitting trying to look at it, that`s how much they expanded the scale...
*the proverbial mole-hill  trick,...it works EVERY TIME*
Fuck and none of these morons notice this EVER on ANY of these funny graphs they make, well... just for morons...so why the fuck did I even marvel at that..??? 

These bastards really know their customers..!!!
These stupid graphs are not to argue science with anyone who has common sense...
GW scientology an the IPISSY till the oceans overflow are well aware that this crap  *fools nothing  but the fools * 
and it sells...it all makes sense from that viewpoint...you sell tricycles to little kids, and not 10 speed mountain bikes...or  Porsches to people who get smacked in the head by shopping mall doors because they can`t tell "in" from "out"...

The other day when I uploaded some pic to photo-bucket they had an I.Q. quiz popup there. The questions were childish and if I remember correctly ~ 300 000 people took it and scored an I.Q. on average only ~ 80%...man that is scary...and they can all vote in elections...I think I should have stayed on Greenland or Ellesmere Island, it wasn`t all that bad there..:






skookerasbil said:


> Polar.......Katarina Witt actually did a Playboy issue about 10 years ago. Pretty hot but she lost too much weight. She was alwyas pretty much a full figured gal with spectacular boobs........google her skating routines and you tell me bro...........




I don`t like`m too skinny,....skinny or whatever You wanna call it , the farther it goes into that direction the further it approaches some sex less creature where You`re not sure anymore what it is....
In Germany if we have say have 5 kids we l`d list them "Kraut, Kraut Kraut 3 with a Wiener and 2 without"...
And when I "eat out" I wanna be damn sure I know what I`m eating even when it`s dark like all winter in the arctic


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 21, 2011)

Hey Polar...........Im gearing up for campaign mode on this board. Trying to decide which gay MS PAINT Photobucket Classic Im going to go with..............

Which do you think???








OR










Of course..........the pink and purple cars pay homage to the limpwristed supporters of Obama!!!


----------



## wirebender (Apr 21, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Of course..........the pink and purple cars pay homage to the limpwristed supporters of Obama!!!



Should have made them hybrids.  Draw attention to two colossal failures with one image.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Of course..........the pink and purple cars pay homage to the limpwristed supporters of Obama!!!
> ...



LMAO...........I drive by a hybrid about once per hour. People are confused.

So Wire bro.........which campaign symbol should I go with for beating up on the far let k00ks as we enter 2012??


----------



## polarbear (Apr 21, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Polar...........Im gearing up for campaign mode on this board. Trying to decide which gay MS PAINT Photobucket Classic Im going to go with..............
> 
> Which do you think???
> 
> Of course..........the pink and purple cars pay homage to the limpwristed supporters of Obama!!!


*My Opinion ?*
Let`s get gay and get married, because my present *wife NEVER wants my opinion.*

About these idiotic cars, the IPCC and everything that goes with it, we put that behind us in Canada already...more or less...the "less" is that we still have some kooks here too.
See You guys should have left our Third Reich alone...we told You so..
We had what Jews call the "Selection Process"..: 







*You would`nt have these problems now would You ?*

Anyways here is my opinion...:





But hey You have to look @ the bright side...look how cheap the spare tires will be, some of Michael Mann`s ideas are not all that bad...except that he should go back to grade school and let a kindergarten teacher explain it to him again what an average is and how to add up and divide a couple of numbers.

Suppose You had data set sequence of 10,10,8,10,8,10.5,8,8,10,8 which are nine numbers which add up to 82.5   
so far there is no argument, that 82.5 divided by 9 =  an average of 9.16

He has a real problem with his "math" when another 10 walks in...even though this new 10 is below the 10.5 we have in the above set he gets confused.

What do You do now...????
is the new 10 now part of a data set that should look like this..:

10,10,8,10,8,10.5,8,8,10,8,10 which add up to 92.5 and give You a new average of 92.5/10= 9.25

If You do that then the *average increase* was   9.25-9.166 =0.084
*...and this gives then an average increase of only 0.908 %*

Or should You do it like that...:
You use the data set of the first nine...hey even if it`s got a 10.5 in it, *no sweat we have "Global Warming Math"...*...:







*the new 10 is a massive increase of 10-9.166= 0.834 above the average * (using the data set of the previous 9 numbers even with the 10.5)

And there was a massive increase of 0.834 * 100/9.166 =* 9.098 % above average* of whatever the fuck it was, temperature, the size of the Ozone "HOLE", a "rise in Ocean levels" or a drop in polar ice coverage

*So which do you "report" to the IPCC and the morons like Old Rocks...???
0.908 % "above average" even though the world already survived a 10.5*

*Or will New York get flooded soon 
because we just had an ALARMING INCREASE of 9.098 % above average*

Here I piped the entire JAXA Data set through a little computer program and this is what came out...:






See what kind of games You could play with that...?
*I could show MASSIVE average increases in % of the # of square kilometers of ice we had since 2007*

or I could* expand the top of the scale* I used on this JAXA data graph which uses the ENTIRE DATA SET not just funny "averages"* to have the 2008, 2009 and 2010 ice coverage TOWERING over 2007*, the graph that Chris ( kept sticking in our faces here..) They expanded the scale so much that they have to use 8 million square kilometers as a "zero" on the Y-axis, eles the graph would be 10 feet tall instead of a few inches...just so You can see "how massive the ice loss" was in 2007...the data set they keep using everywhere on the internet



And here is a closeup how my program plots EVERY DATA Point of the ENTIRE SET, not just "averages"...:







*The empty spaces are when the JAXA satellite transmits a -9999 code, meaning the bird was "parked" to safe guard it from solar flare ups.*







And  in every data set the maximum ice cover observed was less in every year with a lot of violent solar activity...
*You`ld never spot this unless You let a computer program sort out the JAXA data which sifts -9999 Satellite  codes
*

*So...is the arctic ice cover "shrinking at an alarming rate"...?*

*I guess it all depends on a very tiny little  change in a mathematical algorithm, rather than a tiny "Greenhouse Gas" fart if New York will flood or not..:.:*

       open "c:\JAXA\cleanplot.txt" for input as #i
       minz=20000000
[readdata]
       if eof (#i) < 0 then [done]
       input #i, item$:l=len(item$)
       if item$="99/" then [average]
       if instr(item$,"No",12)=12 then [readdata]
    gosub [value]
        sum=sum+z:nd=nd+1
       if z>maxz then let maxz=z:maxd$=d$
       if z<minz then let minz=z:mind$=d$
scan
       if dp<dmax then let f$="c:\JAXA\"+year$+"plot.bmp":gosub [average]:dmax=0:gosub [value]
       goto [readdata]
[value]
       d$=mid$(item$,1,10)
       z=val(mid$(item$,12,50))
       year$=mid$(item$,7,4):year=val(year$)
       beg$="01/01/"+ year$
       s=date$(beg$)
       dn=date$(d$)
       dp=dn-s
       if dp>dmax then let dmax=dp
       return
[average]
        print  ""
        year=year-1:if item$="99/" then let year=year+1
        print "Year ";year
        av=int(sum/nd)
        print "Average ";av
        print "Number of Data Points  ";nd
        print"Max= ";maxz;"  Date ";maxd$
        print"Min= ";minz;" Date ";mind$
        sum=0:nd=0:maxz=0:minz=20000000:maxd$="":mind$=""
        if item$="99/" then [quit]
        return
[done]
        wait
[quit]
        close #i
        end

Here is a message "Old Rocks" put in my Comment box


> Old Rocks 	BiPolar, old wimp, it would take more that a few of the likes of you to handle this old boy.



"Old Boy" is that your new user name instead of "Old Rocks"...
well anytime "OldBoy"...I told You I`m a real genuine 100 % purebred Bavarian Nazi...
I wonder *how many of us it would take t*o rip off these threads that hang out from your shirt...the ones You call "arms"..:






Each one of our girls could make spam in a can out of You..:






*I know "Skookerasbil" is  not looking at our beer...:
*






That`s called a "Dirndl" and has been the traditional dress for women in Bavaria ever since there was a Bavaria...see why Uncle Adolf liked it there too..this is where he wrote "Mein Kampf"...
*Amazing..
When I go for a visit back home I always find  it hard to control on what  my eyes focus , never-mind my thoughts *

*See I had to come back here again because of the typos I stared making when I Googled Images for "Dirndl" and I had a screen full of that in my face
*
Fuck I actually wrote "stared making" instead of started making
Try that for a deadly combination, the size of the jugs, ...also the ones that have beer in them..= 2 liters and our weakest beer = 12%, *+ no speed limit * and many of our cars can exceed 350 kmh ....

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

So Sookerasbil, be careful with that phrase "when in Rome do as the Romans do"...the phrase never mentioned "but they are used to it..!"
And if You do wanna visit where I was born & raised...I better tell You right now...
Every time they start singing "Oans Zwoa XSUFFA..." that means You have to down the entire content of You beer mug...
Could be the waitress just brought Yo a fresh one,....that would be 1/2 Gallon of 12 % beer...
If You can`t the fine is a round of beer for Your table...and our beer tent tables seat > 100...!!

So remember "practice makes perfect"....
Hey I gave You a good excuse now, ...so You owe me one too...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1PUjFZ8Eis"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1PUjFZ8Eis[/ame]


----------



## wirebender (Apr 22, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> LMAO...........I drive by a hybrid about once per hour. People are confused.
> 
> So Wire bro.........which campaign symbol should I go with for beating up on the far let k00ks as we enter 2012??



Either.  They both convey the "over a cliff" message effectively.


----------



## Chris (May 12, 2011)

Arctic sea ice declined slowly through most of April. Because of the slow decline in April, ice extent for the month as a whole did not approach record lows, as it did in March. However, ice extent began to decline more quickly towards the end of the month.

Central Russia saw an early retreat of snow cover, as a result of prevailing warm conditions during the past winter over the eastern Arctic and Siberia.

Mean ice extent for the month was 14.15 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the average for the reference period of 1979 to 2000.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 13, 2011)

The avg global temperature by 2025 better fucking be at least .2c warmer then today or I'm going to put my fucking fist through a fucking wall. Better NOT be lieing to us. 

I went honest data that is NOT about money, but about science. I went these predictions for better or worst to have a fair chance of being right. Not that I went extictions, but there better fucking be a reason for 1/3rds of the people in the USA demanding and scaring the other 2/3rd of the population into making offical policy out of it.


----------



## Chris (May 14, 2011)

Arctic sea ice declined slowly through most of April. Because of the slow decline in April, ice extent for the month as a whole did not approach record lows, as it did in March. However, ice extent began to decline more quickly towards the end of the month.

Central Russia saw an early retreat of snow cover, as a result of prevailing warm conditions during the past winter over the eastern Arctic and Siberia.

Mean ice extent for the month was 14.15 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the average for the reference period of 1979 to 2000.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## saveliberty (May 15, 2011)

It might surprise some of you mental midgets, but the thickness of ice caps seems to be a far trickier thing to measure than NASA lets on.  Area is a little easier to measure, but for some reason they want to lie about the results.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> It might surprise some of you mental midgets, but the thickness of ice caps seems to be a far trickier thing to measure than NASA lets on.  Area is a little easier to measure, but for some reason they want to lie about the results.



Being fitted for a little tinfoil cap, old boy?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

Geez........the posts by the k00ks are so stinkin' boring, are they not?

No wonder they're on the internet 16 hours a day.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Geez........the posts by the k00ks are so stinkin' boring, are they not?
> 
> No wonder they're on the internet 16 hours a day.






They don't have jobs (other than sucking off the public tit in some form or other) so need to keep themselves occupied.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Being fitted for a little tinfoil cap, old boy?



You afraid he's going to steal yours?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2011)

^^^^ This thread makes me Happy!!!!


----------



## saveliberty (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It might surprise some of you mental midgets, but the thickness of ice caps seems to be a far trickier thing to measure than NASA lets on.  Area is a little easier to measure, but for some reason they want to lie about the results.
> ...



What part of sea ice is more effected by ocean currents is giving you trouble?  I know that is pretty tough for you to deal with, but I thought maybe you actually have learned something in the nearly three years this whole concept has befuddled you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice declined slowly through most of April. Because of the slow decline in April, ice extent for the month as a whole did not approach record lows, as it did in March. However, ice extent began to decline more quickly towards the end of the month.
> 
> Central Russia saw an early retreat of snow cover, as a result of prevailing warm conditions during the past winter over the eastern Arctic and Siberia.
> 
> ...



and?

In a related story, green leaves appeared on trees up and down New York's Hudson Valley


----------



## Chris (May 16, 2011)




----------



## RWatt (May 16, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I`don`t mean you Chris with the rat, I am talking about this phony graph. I know for sure the source Data is from the JAXA Satellite, because of the phrase "Area of ocean with at least 15 % sea ice". I have seen all kinds of graphs and each graph the author used "averages"..
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2011)

Are Mann's tree rings are causing the ice to melt?


----------



## Chris (May 17, 2011)

As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -  prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting.  The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought. 

The  report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done


----------



## hendrickL (May 18, 2011)

That's scary, I better take a serious swimming lesson starting today....


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done



Not to mention the hard observed evidence that you aren yours are universally unable to refute.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done
> ...



You've never once come up with any "_hard observed evidence_" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.


----------



## saveliberty (May 18, 2011)

Chris said:


> As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -  prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting.  The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought.
> 
> The  report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.
> 
> Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English



Raw data or "corrected data"?  Where's the flood then genius?  Oh, and where is the link to it being manmade?  Science?  Not a chance.


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> You've never once come up with any "_hard observed evidence_" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.



You are kidding right?  Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change.  The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at.  Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.  

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

Challenging someone to list hard observed evidence that refutes the hypothesis of AGW has got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen any AGW hysteric say.  The fact is that you guys spend most of your time trying to put forward models instead of observed data as the observed data just doesn't support your claims.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 18, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Okay, i have to disagree a little with you.

Hybrids ARE a good idea, but not for the reasons that the ecofascists say. Every railroad locomotive is a first generation hybrid.  The diesel engines power generators for electric motors.  Essentially the difference is that they don't have a battery or capacitor to store a charge an then use it to cut back on fuel consumption.  Then again, locomotives are very efficient when compared to cars and semis.

I think hybrid buses and cars are essentially a good idea.  Not because of saving the planet, but fuel costs.  I haven't driven any of our Hybrid buses, but I've heard good things about them for driving, and I don't mind being parked behind them when waiting, AND they are lower impact on negative qualities of life.

So, they are a good thing, but the problem lies in that the technology is new, and the limits of battery technology which we desperately needs to improve.  I do hope that the labs get quantum well technology figured out so I can have superduper capacitors and programmable matter.  This is the future... where's my flying car, sexbot and phaser gun?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -  prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting.  The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought.
> ...



Lordy, lordy, another dumbass. Eight nations that share the Artic are worried enough about the melt, it's implications for climatic and political problems, that they are holding meetings. 

If you are really interested in the science, you can easily get data and articles published in peer reviewed journals, from the US, Europe, and Asia, stating what the scientists are seeing and measuring. 

However, science and real data is hardly what you desire. You much prefer your data ran through an obese junkie of a radio jock, and then prefeced with 'the way things ought to be'. Reality is not your strong suit.


----------



## RWatt (May 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change.  The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at.
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You've never once come up with any "_hard observed evidence_" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.
> ...



Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

The ice sheets melted off of Europe and North America around 11,000 to 14,000 years ago but that melting had slowed enormously by around 10,000 years ago and stopped completely by about 6000 years ago. The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation. In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation. The present time *is* indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined. CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century. You are just scientifically clueless and very ignorant and in denial of the facts. The fact is, as I said before, you have no "_hard observed evidence_" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes; you just always claim to have it but you can never actually produce any. I doubt that you, in your denier cult delirium, even know the actual meaning of "_hard observed evidence_".

Here's some "_hard observed evidence_" for you.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades. Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Ice caps and glaciers in Antarctica and around the world are melting. In North America, the Glacier National Park has already lost 123 of its 150 glaciers and the Bering Glacier has already lost over 20% of its parts and 11 kilometers of its entire length. New Zealand's glaciers have also shrunk by about 26% within the last century. Throughout that time, the Tasman Glacier thinned by over a hundred meters. India's Gangotri Glacier has also been melting by 30 meters annually within the past 2 decades. Its annual melting rate was 18 meters from 1935-1990 and 7 meters from 1842-1935.

Rapid ice melts have also been occurring across the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by over a million square kilometers. 
The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.​Antarctica has been shown to be losing ice mass at an increasing rate and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is already starting to collapse.

Because the world's ice is melting rapidly and because of thermal expansion of the oceans caused by global warming, sea levels are rising and satellite measurements show that the rate of that rise  has doubled since the first part of the twentieth century and is still increasing. 

Due to the rise in global temperature and sea levels, corals have been dying. The worst even coral bleaching was recorded in 1998 when, in some areas, up to 70% of coral reefs died. Among the worst die-offs have been observed in the Caribbean.

Infectious tropical diseases are slowly spreading to more temperate areas. Dengue fever and malaria, for example, have spread to the United States.

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
*Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier*


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







This spring we are 20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world.  We are now enjoying our 5th straight day of snow.  We have yet to be able to plant my daughters garden do to cold.  Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims.  Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.

The claim of GW spreading malaria and Dengue fever to the US is laughable.  The link is to the CDC and it has a brief history of malaria as you can see it was rampant throughout the south.  Malaria dates back to the beginning of time in the southern US with many conquistadores contracting it when adventuring in the New World.  You grasp of history is, like your grasp of science, pathetic.

The link below that is to the Dengue Fever map and as you can see in the map (also from the Center for Diesease Control) the two cases in Florida were brought to the US via air travel.

The U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - The Integration of Malaria Control with Economic Development (1933)

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933. The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region. An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley. Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications. 

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

DengueMap | A CDC-HealthMap Collaboration


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
> ...



LOLOLOL....ahhh yes, that "_warmist blog_" called *National Geographic* and that other one called *The Associated Press*....LOLOLOL.

*Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier*
March 20, 2008
(excerpts)

*Washington, D.C.'s famous cherry trees are primed to burst in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom until around April 5. In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, drab little butterflies, was fluttering about on March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged there anywhere from mid-April to mid-May. And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 9, when allergist Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn't be measured until late April.

For biologists, these trends are a worrying sign of the ominous effects of global warming. The fingerprints of human-caused climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state. "The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982 north of the Mason-Dixon line. (Related: "Warming Sign? Another Early Spring for Rocky Mountains" [April 9, 2007].) *


....."_no empirical data_"....LOLOLOLOLOL....you are such a clueless lying troll, walleyedretard.

*Unlike sea ice in the Arctic, which recently has shown record ice losses, the way climate change is tinkering with the natural timing of day-to-day life is concrete and local. People can experience it with all five senses.

 You can see the trees and bushes blooming earlier. A photo of Lowell Cemetery, in Lowell, Massachusetts, taken May 30, 1868, shows bare limbs. But the same scene photographed May 30, 2005, by Boston University biology professor Richard Primack shows them in full spring greenery.

 You can smell the lilacs and honeysuckle. In the U.S. West, they are coming out two to four days earlier each decade over more than half a century, according to a 2001 study.

 You can hear it in the birds. Scientists in Gothic, Colorado, have watched the first robin of spring arrive earlier each year in that mountain ghost town, marching forward from April 9 in 1981 to March 14 last year. This year, heavy snows may keep the birds away until April.

 You can feel it in your nose from increased allergies. Spring airborne pollen is being released about 20 hours earlier every year, according to a Swiss study that looked at common allergies since 1979.

 You can even taste it in the honey. Bees, which sample many plants, are producing their peak amount of honey weeks earlier. The nectar is coming from different plants now, which means noticeably different honeyat least in Highland, Maryland, where Wayne Esaias has been monitoring honey production since 1992. Instead of the rich, red, earthy tulip poplar honey that used to be prevalent, bees are producing lighter, fruitier black locust honey. Esaias, a NASA oceanographer as well as beekeeper, says global warming is a factor.

In D.C., seven of the past 20 Cherry Blossom Festivals have started after peak bloom. This year will be close, the National Park Service predicts.

Last year, Knoxville's dogwood blooms came and went before the city's dogwood festival started. Boston's Arnold Arboretum permanently rescheduled Lilac Sunday to a May date eight days earlier than it once was.

Even western wildfires have a timing connection to global warming and are coming earlier. An early spring generally means the plants that fuel fires are drier, producing nastier fire seasons, said University of Arizona geology professor Steve Yool.

It's such a good correlation that Weltzin, the phenology network director, is talking about using real-time lilac data to predict upcoming fire seasons. Lilacs, which are found in most parts of the country, offer some of the broadest climate overview data going back to the 1950s.

This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles.

A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on February 1 about the early blooming. A 2001 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.

*


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Care to explain the BS about malaria then?


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Your point here is well reasoned, but I wonder could man be responsible for recent changes even if changes have happened naturally in the past? Are the two really mutually exclusive? I can't see why they would be, after-all man can be responsible for a whole number of things that have happened naturally in the past. Forest fires are a prime example.



Occam says.........no.  The fact that the climate change we are experiencing today is no way unprecedented or even slightly unusual is strong evidence that man is not responsible.  Logic suggests that if man were altering the climate that would be a new thing and in all likelyhood, look quite different from past climate change.  



RWatt said:


> This is a good argument too, but is it not possible for man to be changing the climate even if the changes are not unprecedented in 14,000 years? I don't believe the basis of assigning man as the cause is based on changes being unprecedented in 14,000 years, so I don't think this fact necessarily refutes the idea. In fact if man's changes were to become unprecedented for this timespan, there would always be an initial period in which they weren't, so I hesitate to write off man's role along these lines.



Simply a different wording of your previous argument.  Again, Occam says no.  Climate change precipitated by man would be unprecedented in earth history and there is no reason to believe it would mimic natural changes in past climate.



RWatt said:


> I would think CO2 being a greenhouse gas must in some form or another be contributing to the significant warmth that the greenhouse effect affords the Earth, whether or not that be described in terms of trapping or by other words.



The greenhouse effect is little more than a piss poor hypothesis.  Not a shred of empirical evidence exists to support its existence.  CO2 has no capacity to absorb and retain heat.  Look at the moon.  It recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as the earth.  In the daytime, the temperature on the moon is considerably higher than the temperature on the earth.  The moon has no atmosphere.  The earth has an atmosphere.  A rational mind must conclude that the atmosphere does not serve to warm the earth, it, in reality, keeps the earth cool during daylight hours and slows the escape of heat during the night time hours.  In reality, the atmosphere does precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse hypothesis suggests.


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.



Actually, I don't, but thanks for lying anyway.

 The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation.[/quote]

Prove it.  Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.




RollingThunder said:


> In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation.



Prove that.  Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.



RollingThunder said:


> The present time *is* indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined.



Sorry guy, but that simply is not true.  The evidence that both the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global in nature and warmer than the present is overwhelming.  The only suggestion that they were not warmer is the thouroughly debunked hockey stick.  Place that one flawed paper against the work of more than 950 scientists representing more than 550 research institutions that say that the MWP and the RWP you don't come out very credible.  Aside from that, the observed evidence contradicts you as well.

Here is the vostok ice core data.  Look at the past 10,000 years.  I count at least 13 times during the past 10,000 years that are warmer than the present and see nothing about the present that appears unprecedented.








RollingThunder said:


> CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century.



Sorry guy, but such properties have never been documented.  The emission spectra of CO2 is preciesly the opposite of the absorption spectra proving beyond question that any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted.  No energy is captured.




RollingThunder said:


> The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades.



Actually, most of the rise in the past century occurred in the early part of the 20th century but even that would be hard to prove beyond question.  You are talking about a fraction of one degree.  Can you point to any study that claims to report temperatures over the past century in which the claimed temperature rise is greater than the margin of error in the data?  When the claimed change is not even as large as the margin of error, you don't have reliable data.




RollingThunder said:


> Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.



Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that.  As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists".  When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past.  Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.



RollingThunder said:


> Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.



Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  You have been hoodwinked.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.
> ...



Prove it.  Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.




RollingThunder said:


> In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation.



Prove that.  Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.



Sorry guy, but that simply is not true.  The evidence that both the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global in nature and warmer than the present is overwhelming.  The only suggestion that they were not warmer is the thouroughly debunked hockey stick.  Place that one flawed paper against the work of more than 950 scientists representing more than 550 research institutions that say that the MWP and the RWP you don't come out very credible.  Aside from that, the observed evidence contradicts you as well.

Here is the vostok ice core data.  Look at the past 10,000 years.  I count at least 13 times during the past 10,000 years that are warmer than the present and see nothing about the present that appears unprecedented.








Sorry guy, but such properties have never been documented.  The emission spectra of CO2 is preciesly the opposite of the absorption spectra proving beyond question that any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted.  No energy is captured.




RollingThunder said:


> The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades.



Actually, most of the rise in the past century occurred in the early part of the 20th century but even that would be hard to prove beyond question.  You are talking about a fraction of one degree.  Can you point to any study that claims to report temperatures over the past century in which the claimed temperature rise is greater than the margin of error in the data?  When the claimed change is not even as large as the margin of error, you don't have reliable data.




RollingThunder said:


> Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.



Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that.  As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists".  When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past.  Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.



RollingThunder said:


> Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.



Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  You have been hoodwinked.[/QUOTE]


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

westwall said:


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


[/QUOTE]




Indeed. The New Zealand scientists in charge of the historical temperature record were caught falsifying the record to make it cooler. For 9 months New Zealand had no official record till they could sort it out. Look up NIWA hearings on youtube and you can see the parliamentary debates they held where the scientists were reamed. The same behavior has been discovered in Australia.


----------



## Yurt (May 18, 2011)

chris blames bush for the last ice age


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Once again you imagine that the weather in your backyard means anything about global averages. You say "_20 degrees below normal for temperature *as are many areas of the world*_" but that is just more of your deluded bullshit.

*State of the Climate
Global Analysis - April 2011
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center*

    *  The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.

    * The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record.

    * The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)&#8212;the 6th warmest on record.






westwall said:


> Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims.  Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.


No, you flaming dimwit, I cited two sources and one was an Associated Press article from National Geographic News and the other was a science blog with accurate information that you can't refute. Want more?


_*Climate changes shift springtime
A Europe-wide study has provided "conclusive proof" that the seasons are changing, with spring arriving earlier each year, researchers say.*_
25 August 2006
(excerpts)

_*Scientists from 17 nations examined 125,000 studies involving 561 species. Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago, the researchers said. In regions such as Spain, which saw the greatest increases in temperatures, the season began up to two weeks earlier. The findings were based on what was described as the world's largest study of changes in recurring natural events, such as when plants flowered. The team of researchers also found that the onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period. The study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, shows changes to the continent's climate were shifting the timing of the seasons, the scientists said. *_


*Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere*

   1. MARK D. SCHWARTZ1,
   2. REIN AHAS2,
   3. ANTO AASA2

Journal - Global Change Biology
Volume 12, Issue 2, pages 343&#8211;351, February 2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01097.x

View Full Article (HTML) 
Get PDF (449K)

*Abstract

...Here, we show that a suite of modeled and derived measures (produced from daily maximum&#8211;minimum temperatures) linking plant development (phenology) with its basic climatic drivers provide a reliable and spatially extensive method for monitoring general impacts of global warming on the start of the growing season. Results are consistent with prior smaller area studies, confirming a nearly universal quicker onset of early spring warmth (spring indices (SI) first leaf date, &#8722;1.2 days decade&#8722;1), late spring warmth (SI first bloom date, &#8722;1.0 days decade&#8722;1; last spring day below 5°C, &#8722;1.4 days decade&#8722;1), and last spring freeze date (&#8722;1.5 days decade&#8722;1) across most temperate NH land regions over the 1955&#8211;2002 period.
*
***

More...
^ Schwartz, M. D.; Ahas, R.; Aasa, A. (2006). *"Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere"*. Global Change Biology 12 (2): 343&#8211;351. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01097.x. *"SI first leaf dates, measuring change in the start of &#8216;early spring&#8217; (roughly the time of shrub budburst and lawn first greening), are getting earlier in nearly all parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The average rate of change over the 1955&#8211;2002 period is approximately -1.2 days per decade.".*

^ Miller-rushing, A.J.; Katsuki, T.; Primack, R.B.; Ishii, Y.; Lee, S.D.; Higuchi, H. (2007). *"Impact of global warming on a group of related species and their hybrids: cherry tree (Rosaceae) flowering at Mt. Takao, Japan"*. American Journal of Botany 94 (9): 1470. doi:10.3732/ajb.94.9.1470. *Impact of global warming on a group of related species and their hybrids: cherry tree (Rosaceae) flowering at Mt. Takao, Japan*. Retrieved 2007-12-29. *"We examined a 25-yr record (1981&#8211;2005) of flowering times for 97 trees, representing 17 species and hybrids of cherry (Cerasus sp. or Prunus sp.) grown at Mt. Takao, in Tokyo, Japan. The cherry trees flowered earlier over time, by an average of 5.5 d over the 25-yr study."*.

^ Cleland, E.E.; Chuine, I.; Menzel, A.; Mooney, H.A.; Schwartz, M.D. (2007). *"Shifting plant phenology in response to global change"*. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (7): 357&#8211;365. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.04.003. PMID 17478009. http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41015195.pdf. Retrieved 2007-12-29. *"The longest and best known phenological records come from the Far East and Europe, including ... the 1300+-year Kyoto cherry blossom time series [37]... These longterm historical records can serve as proxies for temperature where thermometer data are unavailable.".* 

^ >Abu-asab, M.S.; Peterson, P.M.; Shetler, S.G.; Orli, S.S. (2001). *"Earlier plant flowering in spring as a response to global warming in the Washington, DC, area"*. Biodiversity and Conservation 10 (4): 597&#8211;612. doi:10.1023/A:1016667125469. http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/3371/1/Abu-Asab_et_al_2001_early_flowering.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-27. 

^ Peterson, Paul M.; Stanwyn G. Shetler, Mones S. Abu-Asab, Sylvia S. Orli (2005). *"Chapter 8 Global Climate Change: The Spring Temperate Flora"*. In Krupnick, Gary A; W. John Kress. Plant conservation: a natural history approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 192. ISBN 0-226-45513-0. *"Finally, there is the Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, DC, each spring. On average the two principal species, Prunus serrulata (Kwanzan cherry and other varieties) and P. X yedoensis ( Yoshino cherry), bloom six and nine days earlier, respectively, than they did in 1970."* 

^ Richardson, A.D.; Bailey, A.S.; Denny, E.G.; Martin, C.W.; O'Keefe, J. (2006). *"Phenology of a northern hardwood forest canopy"*. Global Change Biology 12 (7): 1174&#8211;1188. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01164.x. *"...significant trends (P&#8804;0.05) towards an earlier spring (e.g. sugar maple, rate of change=0.18 days earlier/yr), consistent with other studies documenting measurable climate change effects on the onset of spring in both North America and Europe. Our results also suggest that green canopy duration has increased by about 10 days (e.g. sugar maple, rate of change=0.21 days longer/yr) over the period of study.".* 

^ a b Linderholm, H.W. (2006). *"Growing season changes in the last century"*. Agricultural and forest meteorology 137 (1-2): 1&#8211;14. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071. http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Linderholm_2006_AFM.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-27. *"The evidence points to a lengthening of the growing season of ca. 10&#8211;20 days in the last few decades, where an earlier onset of the start is most prominent. This extension of the growing season has been associated with recent global warming."*. 

^ Smith, Virginia A. (2007-04-07). *"Out on a limb: Gardeners excited by the early warmth &#8212; call it "season creep" - are experimenting with earlier planting and new varieties."*. The Philadelphia Inquirer. *Out on a limb: Gardeners excited by the early warmth - call it "season creep" - are experimenting with earlier planting and new varieties.* - The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA) | HighBeam Research. Retrieved 2007-12-23. *"...earlier springs &#8212; an idea known as "season creep" &#8212; may or may not be related to long-term warming trends. Yet the reality of year-to-year weather weirdness recently, coupled with the ever-present impulse to outsmart Mother Nature, has prompted more than a few gardeners to shun conventional horticultural wisdom."* 

^ Williams, Brad (2007-04-08). *"Dogwoods to frogs, tulips to snow, Knox shows signs of warming"*. Knoxville News Sentinel. Dogwoods to frogs, tulips to snow, Knox shows signs of warming » Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-12-23. *"Knoxville is now in hardiness Zone 7, a zone where more southern trees and shrubs flourish. The zone shift can be seen all across the northern half of the state. It effectively means plants that once had difficulty growing here are now finding it easier to thrive, said Lisa Stanley, master gardener at Stanley's Greenhouses"*










westwall said:


> The claim of GW spreading malaria and Dengue fever to the US is laughable.  The link is to the CDC and it has a brief history of malaria as you can see it was rampant throughout the south.  Malaria dates back to the beginning of time in the southern US with many conquistadores contracting it when adventuring in the New World.  You grasp of history is, like your grasp of science, pathetic.
> 
> The link below that is to the Dengue Fever map and as you can see in the map (also from the Center for Diesease Control) *the two cases in Florida were brought to the US via air travel*.


LOLOLOLOL....you challenging anyone in the areas of science and history is very much like a one legged man challenging everyone in the bar to an ass kicking contest.....LOL.

Rising temperatures will allow the mosquitoes that carry malaria and dengue fever to live and breed at higher latitudes. Currently, neither disease is established in America. The cases that occur now are almost all brought into this country from elsewhere. The scientific projections indicate that the mosquitoes breeding areas will spread farther and farther north into areas of North America that are currently too cold in the winter for the diseases to get established as self perpetuating areas of infection. As one of these reports says: "*In these regions, a temperature increase can convert areas that are malaria-free into areas that experience seasonal epidemics. In many cases, the affected populations will have little or no immunity, so that epidemics could be characterized by high levels of sickness and death.*"

_*MALARIA AND DENGUE FEVER IN NORTH AMERICA*_
(excerpt)

_*MALARIA and DENGUE fever are not currently established in the US although they are introduced regularly and have been established there previously. Travellers returning from endemic regions frequently introduce these diseases into areas with competent vectors. Between 1 977 and 1 994, 2,248 suspected cases of imported DENGUE fever were reported in the US. Legal immigrants, refugees and illegal immigrants and migrant workers are two possible sources of introduction of these diseases into the US in amounts sufficient to promote their establishment. DENGUE fever and MALARIA are endemic in areas that are important sources of immigration to the US such as South East Asia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Central/South America. Competent vectors of MALARIA and DENGUE fever are established in the US. Even though MALARIA was eradicated from the US previously, if it were to re-establish itself, resistance of the vector to pesticides would make present-day control more difficult. According to Health Canada there were 483 reported cases of MALARIA in Canada in 1 993, and approximately 431 in 1994. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States received reports of 910 cases of MALARIA in 1 992 and seven of those cases were acquired there. In 1 970, reported MALARIA cases in the U.S. were 4,247 with more than 4,000 of the total being U.S. military personnel.*
_

_*Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease*_
(excerpts)

_*Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael, 1996; McMichael et al., 1996; Epstein et al., 1998; Epstein, 1999). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis. Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in poorer regions where treatment and prevention measures may be inadequate.

Mosquitoes in particular are highly sensitive to temperature. The mosquitoes that can carry malaria (Anopheline spp.) generally do not develop or breed below about 16° C, and the variety that transmits dengue fever (Aedes aegypti) is limited by winter temperatures below 10° C. Mosquito survival also drops at their upper temperature threshold, about 40° C. With sufficient moisture, warmer temperatures will generally cause an increase in mosquito abundance, biting rates, and activity level, and will accelerate the incubation of the parasites and viruses within them.

Warmer global temperatures will allow an expansion of the geographic range within which both the mosquito and parasite could survive with sufficient abundance for sustained transmission. Model predictions indicate that a 3° C global temperature rise by 2100 could increase the number of annual malaria cases by 50-80 million (not considering factors such as local control measures or health services) (Martens et al., 1995). The largest changes will occur in areas adjacent to current risk areas, at both higher altitudes and latitudes. In these regions, a temperature increase can convert areas that are malaria-free into areas that experience seasonal epidemics. In many cases, the affected populations will have little or no immunity, so that epidemics could be characterized by high levels of sickness and death.

Recent disease outbreaks are consistent with model projections that warmer, wetter conditions will lead to greater transmission potential at higher altitudes and elevations. Mosquito-borne diseases are now reported at higher elevations than in the past at sites in Asia, Central Africa, and Latin America (Epstein et al., 1998). This is coincident with growing evidence for significant warming at high altitude sites in tropical latitudes, as indicated for example by retreating glaciers (e.g., Fitzharris, 1996) and a 150 meter upward shift in the elevation of the freezing level (0° C isotherm) (Diaz and Graham, 1996). In New York City, an encephalitis outbreak in summer 1999 claimed three lives and prompted widespread pesticide spraying. The Centers for Disease Control have identified the West Nile virus as being responsible for this outbreak, a virus transmitted by mosquitoes that feed on infected birds (CDC, 1999a). The disease, which had not been previously documented in the Western Hemisphere, occurs primarily in the late summer or early fall in temperate regions, but can occur year round in milder climates (CDC, 1999b).
*_


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.
> ...


Sorry guy, but you're a clueless retard. This nonsense here is so typical of your usual lies and misinformation that debunking it is about all I can be bothered with.

1934 was the warmest year on record all right but *only* in the continental United States. That's a fact that you can't refute, nitwit. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record *globally*. That's also a fact that you can't refute. No "_data manipulation has been exposed_", that's just one of your idiotic, denier cult myths that has itself been exposed as just propaganda. The Earth has indeed been warming just as the models predicted and the rate of warming is increasing.







RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.
> ...



Still plagued by those pesky comprehension problems, I see, but I guess that's not too surprising in a retarded and very ignorant fool like you, wireup&bentover. No little retard, nobody said that '_warming makes it get colder_', that's just your stupidity speaking. Global warming is warming the oceans and increasing evaporation and the moisture content of the atmosphere. More water in the air means more rainfall and snowfall. Basic physics. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled and duped but you're far too brainwashed and stupid for any coffee to help.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 19, 2011)

On a related note, which is clear to everyone anti-glowbull wurming here, the topic is more or less a conspiracy theory.

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday and he made a salient point on one of his conspiracy days with his guest.  It was pointed out that when talking with conspiracy nuts, they often have TONS of "science", motive and evidence.  As your discussion with them continues though, you realize quickly that it is not about the science to them.  It's about justifying an emotion they have.  For instance, truthers who bite the 'it was an inside job' apple, have an inherent hatred for America and are looking for an excuse and line of reasoning to justify what is in essence a worldview that is hypocritical and at odds with everything (at least for Americans) that makes their lives as good as it is.

Now why do I bring up such insanity?  Because it is right here in the AGW debate.  I've seen so much competing 'proof, evidence and science' to know that everyone (no offense Polar and Westwall) is cherry picking their sources to fit their beliefs.  Nobody gives a fuck about the evidence save that which fits the underlying emotion they have and/or political desires.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now.  They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves.  They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think.  It is an excuse.

Rush said it first "(Glowbull Wurming) is a solution in search of a problem (how to institute global collectivist tyranny)."

I say it better:

"Glowbull Wurming is to global fascism as nacho chips are to guacamole.  It is a delivery method."

On the other hand, that dogma is anathema to the anti-glowbull wurming crowd.  This group HATES, and rightfully so, the idea of do-gooder liberalism and collective government control over their lives.  They believe that they are their own best judge of what is right and how to live their lives, not some bureaucrat ivory tower fucktard who has nothing better to do with their lives.

This is also the essence of why this the topic is a religious/political/ethical debate...

Not scientific.

That is only set dressing.

And to prove the point, any of you glowbull warming chicken little fucktards propose ONE private sector solution to your problem without including government, the law, or mandates on a local, regional, national or international level that involves free choice.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 19, 2011)

Yurt said:


> chris blames bush for the last ice age



Well, that's what MSNBC reported, so it must be true. Dubya caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, too!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> On a related note, which is clear to everyone...


...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.





Big Fitz said:


> Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now.  They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves.  They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think.  It is an excuse.


LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2011)

I think my hair is starting to thin, too.

Can I blame Man Made Global Warming?

There may be precedent. 

algore is *really* going fucking bald.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > On a related note, which is clear to everyone...
> ...



Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons


----------



## Oddball (May 19, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Oh, that "science" thingy strikes again!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Pos Rep your way for being one of the 6 percenters


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2011)

Somebody is forgetting the dead dinosaurs of Titan....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

_*Formation of Petroleum*_
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)




----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>



LOLOLOL....I see you're once again demonstrating that you're a clueless retard with a cartoon mentality.

Since you like cartoons so much, here's one that captures the position you and the other denier cultists take on AGW.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)

*LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................*

According to RealClearScience today..................

The extinction nuts use phoney math models!!!! What a shocker!!!!

Estimates of extinction due to habitat loss use the wrong math


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







In the case of coal you are of course correct.  However there is a counter theory that oil is abiotic and a well was drilled in the middle of a continental craton to find out if the theory held water.  For those who don't know they drilled through solid rock and did indeed find a small amount of oil....in the middle of an igneous body....something the current theory of oil formation says is impossible.

The discovery of methane and other hydrocarbons on planetary bodies reinforces the need to rethink the oil formation theories.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................*
> 
> According to RealClearScience today..................
> 
> ...






Well you know math is not a strong point of the alarmist nutballs.  Simple math seems to be beyond their ability.   Must be a genetic thing.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................*
> 
> According to RealClearScience today..................
> 
> ...



In the first place, the topic of this thread is the dramatic thinning of the Arctic ice so what does this post of yours have to do with that, kooker?

In the second place, you're citing an article (which you obviously didn't actually read) about one study (which you also obviously didn't actually read) of extinction rates and the article itself says:

*Does that mean we can all breathe a sigh of relief? Not really. Although habitat loss may not drive species to extinction as quickly as we once thought, it can certainly still do so. And, although the concept of extinction debt isn't supported by the mismatch of estimated and actual extinction rates, it may still be a very real phenomenon. As the authors put it, "There is no doubt whatsoever that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment1 has correctly identified habitat loss as the primary threat to conserving the Earths biodiversity, and the sixth mass extinction might already be upon us or imminent."*


The study was published in Nature and here's part of an article about the study in Nature News that indicates that some scientists working in that field disagree with the conclusions of the study.

*Hidden assumption hypes species-loss predictions*
(excerpts)

*But Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, says that Hubbell and He's paper is simply wrong. The authors, he says, make an inexcusable mistake: categorically claiming that all extinction rates using speciesarea relationships are overestimates, even though some papers using the method have been accurate.

In 1995, Pimm wrote a paper estimating extinction rates of birds in eastern North America due to historical deforestation3. Pimm says their method predicted that 4.5 species would be lost  and today, four have been lost and one teeters on the edge of extinction. "Our paper nailed the number on the head," he says. Hubbell and He overlooked dozens of other examples of studies that have successfully used speciesarea curves to predict extinction rates, he says.

Research using speciesarea relationships did result in overestimates 30 years ago, but many contemporary attempts vary the method to achieve accurate predictions, says Pimm. For example, researchers can look at how many species would survive in an area after it becomes isolated  rather than how many species occur in an intact area, as Hubbell and He do. The predictions of such papers show a very close calibration with what is observed, he says. "There's not one speciesarea curve; there are lots of speciesarea curves," Pimm adds.*


And finally.....so what? SO FUCKING WHAT, YOU SILLY RETARD???  The Earth is still warming rapidly, climate patterns are still changing, sea levels are still rising, Arctic ice is still thinning, ice caps and glaciers are still melting rapidly and the human driven 6th mass extinction still continues although perhaps not quite so fast as some previous estimates. It is all still happening.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyedretard, to find some discredited theory to promote.

*Abiogenic petroleum origin*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Abiogenic petroleum origin is a discredited hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it went largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells.[1]

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]*

*Abiogenic origin hypothesis*
*The thermodynamic synthesis routes necessary to carry abiogenic source material into subsurface oil are not established, observation of organic markers in kerogen and oil is not explained, and no oil deposits have been located by this hypothesis.[23]*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *LAUGH MY BALLS OFF.................*
> ...




Then why is your side getting decimated??

http://www.good.is/post/cap-and-trade-is-dead-now-what/


Like I said s0n...............the k00ks dont get it. #'s are gay...........its like group navel contemplation.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







Yes, please note the reason for it falling out of disfavor...they weren't able to figure out a way to predict where large oil deposits could be found.  They found oil, just not enough.  That would be an interesting area of research though, to see if technology could be developed that would allow you to predict where oil could be found.  Instead you clowns divert money to studying whale farts.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I'm curious, walleyedretard, about just when you picked up this depraved love of beating dead horses to mush that you're constantly displaying. Perhaps you tortured small animals as a child?

In any case, there were obviously several reasons for this theory being discredited and for most geologists to consider it "scientifically unsupported", as the material I quoted made clear to everyone but you. Backers of this optimistic theory were unable to explain away the organic markers from the plant sources that are found in petroleum. They couldn't come up with any viable physical mechanisms in the crustal dynamics that would move the supposed abiogenic oil to the subsurface areas where oil has been found. Petroleum geologists using biogenic models of oil sources have been successful in predicting where oil deposits can be found but the abiogenic theory could not duplicate that success. They never found any oil that could definitely be determined to be of abiogenic origin.


----------



## wirebender (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No "_data manipulation has been exposed_", that's just one of your idiotic, denier cult myths that has itself been exposed as just propaganda. The Earth has indeed been warming just as the models predicted and the rate of warming is increasing.




Are you kidding?  The cases of climate scientists being caught manipulating data, omitting data, and plain making it up are nearly endless.  Hell, practically every peer reviewed piece of crap published claiming AGW is chock full of manipulated or fraudulent data.  

Here are a few examples:






The alterations to the data are quite obvious.  Make the past cooler and warm the present.

The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale) | Watts Up With That?






Again, adjusting down the past temperatures in order to create unprecedented warming in the present.

GISS Vs NCDC Using The Same Baseline | Real Science

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e60ebfc83970c-pi

NASA  Heating Up Antarctica | Real Science






Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?






One of the more blatant examples of fraudulent data in an effort to create the illusion of more warming.  Whatever it takes to keep those research dollars coming in.

ICECAP






Yet more evidence of altering the temperature record.

ICECAP






More evidence of adjusting the past downward and the present upward.

Cooking The Books At USHCN | Real Science






And example of blatant omission of data in an effort to create the illusion of unprecedented changes in the present.

Hide the Decline: Sciencemag # 3 « Climate Audit






This is a good one.  Hansen wants to impress you with the increase in ocean heat content so he shows you a graph; but wait you say, the records go back to the middle 1500's so why establish a cut off date of 1980?  When you look at the record going back to the 1500's it becomes abundantly clear why he would cut the record off at 1980.  When you look at the entire record it is clear that nothing unprecedented at all is going on today.  You guys love to establish cut off dates in an effort to make the present look unprecedented.  That is fraud as well my friend.






C3: Fabricating Climate Science The Old-Fashioned NASA Way: It's 2011 And Hansen Still Pulls This Bullsh^t






Here is a good one.  Lets create the illusion that Hawaii is burning up.  Of course when you look at the actual data, the illusion dries up.







I can go on and on with this.  How much more would you like to see.  The fact is that at present, the record has been so manipulated and tampered with by climate scientists trying to prove a lie that it simply can no longer be trusted.


----------



## wirebender (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> _*Formation of Petroleum*_
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Then how about you provide an explanation as to how dead organic matter turns to oil.  I am sure that scientists would love to hear it as at present, none of them have a clue.  What is known though is that hydrocarbons are being formed near the mantle of the earth and there is no organic material there.  So lets hear it smart guy.  How does dead organic material turn to oil.  Be specific please, as I am very interested to learn how it happens.  Describe the chemical process.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2011)

I know Old Rocks refuses to comment on data manipulation but perhaps RollingThunder will.

Hansens lastest paper admits that the GCMs dont do a very good job. did that make you any less certain of the reliability of the models or the IPCC projections built from them, RollingThunder? likewise for Trenberth's admission that the projected error bars for the models will certainly get larger once they add additional factors like ENSO and other ocean multidecadal systems?

is anyone on the CAGW side having second thoughts about the stated climate sensitivity for CO2 now that more and more studies are showing that it must be less that IPCC projections?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2011)

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult. 

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> 
> You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.
> 
> And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?



actually data manipulation has always been the sticking point with the skeptical side. you are doing it now. ice melts when it gets warmer but that is in no way evidence that man is the cause.


----------



## wirebender (May 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> 
> You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.
> 
> And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?



No actual rebuttal other than to discount the blatant evidence before your eyes.  Typical and entirely unsurprising.

As to the ice, it has been melting for 14,000 years now.  Once more, what do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt?  When might you get a clue that proof of an event does not even begin to rise to the level of evidence of what caused the event? 

Rather than bloviate endlessly about this happening or that happening or this or that may or might happen, how about you provide some actual hard evidence of what is causing this or that to happen.  Since you want to change the way the entire world lives (except the third world), the onus lies upon your shoulders to provide evidence of cause and alas, there is none.  That is what makes the rampant data manipulation, omission, and fabrication necessary for your priests.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 20, 2011)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Tis why I have him on ignore.  His psychosis is nothing short of mental leprosy.  If you handle it too much, you could catch it.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 20, 2011)

I reitertate, since the flurry of activity of competing science.....

It's an emotional issue more akin to religion than science for the Chicken Littles.

My challenge for a non-governmental solution to a non-existent crisis continues untouched.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So Saturn's Moon Titan, which clocks in at -290F must have had lots of this "warm nutrient-rich environments" to make its lakes of hydrocarbons too, right?

Also, can you show me one single time where decomposed animals turned into stuff other than methane?

We have labs that can add the heat and pressure necessary, can you show me one time when animal carcasses were turned into light, sweet crude oil?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> 
> You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.
> 
> And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?






Who cares what you think s0n? What matters is what the public thinks


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> 
> You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.
> 
> And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?






Explain the thousands of feet of ice added to the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet and the dozens of advancing glaciers worldwide.

Come on I dare you!


----------



## RWatt (May 21, 2011)

> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RWatt said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> ...



Thousands of feet of added ice? Damn, that is a whopper, even for you, Walleyes. Grace satellite data shows that Anarctica is losing ice by the tens of cubic miles per year now, and that loss is accelerating. 

Sure, you can show a couple of dozen glaciers that are growing, or at least surging, but USGS counts the rest worldwide, thousands, that are in rapid retreat.

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

USGS Release: Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report (10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM)

Global glacier retreat

http://www.uregina.ca/geology/People/Dale/Student presentations/Meegan Glacial.ppt

Almost all the glaciers, worldwide are retreating, both Anarctica and Greenland are losing ice at an accelerating rate, and none of your line and misdirection will change any of that.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 21, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> ...


if that's the case, we should still be believing that eels spawn from rivermud, flies from rotted meat, baths cause 'the flux', bleeding heals disease, the earth is flat, witches cause drought, famine and 'dry' cows, and other old wives tale science.

But in this age of weather phrenology... we're beyond such hoaxes.

Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2011)

hahaha, exactly. Old Rocks wants us to save the world by pre-emptively adopting the same shitty conditions that may or may not happen in the future. its kinda like the cults who commit mass suicide to escape th2 end of the world.

the world will go on. conditions will change no matter what we do. warmer conditions and moreCO2 just mean we can feed the billions of people here now. just wait until the next ice age comes, and it will, and you'll see conditions that we cant adapt to.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.
> ...


Gee, BigFritz, I thought that you anti-science denier cultists still believed all that stuff.


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

RWatt said:


> I would think man could cause changes that are nevertheless not unprecedented in Earth's history. I don't think a forest arsonist in court would get away with the crime with the defense that he can't be to blame because the fire wasn't unprecedented in Earth's history!
> 
> In fact isn't it more plausible that human changes would be comparable or lower in magnitude to the biggest changes in Earth's history? If man can warm the climate by 2 degree C for example that would have past precedent and yet it would be a human caused warming nevertheless.



We might dance this dance indefinately and neither of us would  gain an advantage.  While it passes the time, I really don't have the time to spare so I will move forward an infinite numbr of steps and gain an insurmountable advantage and simply put the issue to bed.  

Show me some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate.  Unequivocal is defined as - not equivocal;  unambiguous; clear; *having only one possible meaning or interpretation*

The warmist side claims man is responsible and prescribes incredible alterations in the way a very many people live thier lives; changes that would cause inestimable damage to world economies.  The onus, therefore lies with the warmists to prove the case.  Lets see the hard, unequivocal evidence that demands the change.



RWatt said:


> I am rather convinced of the greenhouse effect as the atmosphere operating as a sort of insulating blanket. The Earth's average surface temperature is a lot warmer than it should be given the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs alone, so some an additional source of energy is needed to explain why the surface is so warm and there is a significant amount of measured radiation emitted by the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth's surface.



There is blatant evidence available before your eyes that your estimation is incorrect.  The atmosphere does act as a blanket of sorts, but clearly it doesn't behave as you believe.

First, the earth's average temperature is a result of the blanket effect.  During the daytime, the surface of the earth is far cooler than it would be were there not an atmosphere.  Look at the daytime temperature of the surface of the moon which recieves roughly the same amount of radiation per square meter from the sun as the earth.  The surface temperature there is over 200 degrees F.  Clearly, the atmosphere is keeping the earth cool in the face of the sun, not warmer as your blanket hypothesis suggests.

It is when the surface turns away from the sun that the blanket effect takes hold.  The atmosphere slows the escape of heat absorbed by the earth during the daylight hours; and like a blanket, the atmosphere can not provide additional heat as is claimed by the greenhouse hypothesis.  The vast bulk of the "blanket" effect is provided by water vapor.  

This may be readily observed by choosing two points on a map at the same lattitude and roughly the same altitude.  One coastal, and one desert.  The coastal area will be considerably cooler than the desert during the day due to the presence of more water vapor.  The cooling effect is undeniable.  When night comes on, the coastal area will lose heat far more slowly than the desert.  Again due to more humidity.  The "blanket" effect is striking in the difference in heat loss overnight.  Note that the night time temperatures in the coastal area are never higher during the night than they are during the day even though the "blanket" effect is easily observed.  Like a blanket, the atmosphere can not create heat, only slow its escape.



RWatt said:


> Other examples in the solar system, venus is far warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. The only difference is the composition of the atmosphere and the expected greenhouse effect on Venus.



I really can't believe you just made that comparison.   Mercury has almost no atmospheric pressure while the atmospheric pressure on venus is over 1300 psi.  If you want to discover the difference between the two, you need not look any further than that.  The atmosphere on venus is over 90 times more dense than that of the earth so no comparison may be drawn between earth, venus and mercury with regard to the compositiosition of their resepective atmospheres and temperatures.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Can you show us one, single, scientific laboratory experiment where a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of things you allege?  If not, why not?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > I would think man could cause changes that are nevertheless not unprecedented in Earth's history. I don't think a forest arsonist in court would get away with the crime with the defense that he can't be to blame because the fire wasn't unprecedented in Earth's history!
> ...



*At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.

However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.*


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2*



I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.




Old Rocks said:


> *All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.*



You doofus.  Are you referrring to the Atacama Desert?  In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information that would prevent a rational person from arguing in the first place.  Clearly, you are completely unaware of the Humbolt current that runs just off shore of the land.  The presence of this current prevents clouds from making landfall and thus creates the desert in the first place.  The Humbolt current is as obvious a barrier to the normal coastal humidity as the miles of land one might encounter between most coastal areas and inland deserts.  Observe 

Aso, I clearly stated that one should pick a coastal area and a desert area in the same lattitude and roughly the same ALTITUDE.  I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet.  Had you a hint of geography, you would have known that the land assends almost immediately into high mountains.  Mountain areas almost universally have less humidity than lowlands.  

Geez guy, learn something and you won't be subject to nearly so much public humiliation.



Old Rocks said:


> *At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.*


*

So tell me what you believe the maximum atmospheric pressure to have been during this time of a "considerably" denser atmosphere?  

And the Permian extinction happened during a time of catastrophic volcanic activity.  I suppose if you get volcanoes the likes of which we have never seen to go unabated for a few thousand years,  and were somehow able to bring most of the continents into a single land mass agin along with the accompanying sluggish ocean currents, and the low atmospheric oxygen content of the time, you might get the same sort of extinction as during the permian, but then again, man wouldn't be responsible.



Old Rocks said:



			However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.
		
Click to expand...

*
There is no rapid change in weather patterns.  Neither the weather nor the climate is in any way exceptional nor unprecedented when viewed in the context of the climate for the relatively recent past.  Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe.  You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on.  A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about.  Cold kills far more than warm.


----------



## konradv (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.



You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.
> ...



if a rockslide blocks a river do you think the water just stays uphill? or does it find a new route?


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> (...)Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.



Beyond what sounds like your own strawman above, who here (or from within any legitimate scientific journal) has made any statement that even approximates what you have stated above?

Not that there aren't whack-a-doodles on all sides of just about any issue of significance (and most that aren't), but I haven't yet run across this particular species of Loon. If you can point out such instances, however, I will join you in rejecting and refuting their exaggerated idiocy.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > (...)Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.
> ...



Al Gore,s An Inconvenient Truth

edit- which wasnt scorned by the climate science community and in fact was allowed to gain so much fame that it produced both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> ...Show me some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate.  Unequivocal is defined as - not equivocal;  unambiguous; clear; *having only one possible meaning or interpretation*...



Evidences that support and demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios are of anthropogenic origins:

"Greenhouse Gasses: Evidence for Atmospheric Changes and Anthropogenic Causes" - Greenhouse: planning for climate change - Google Books 

"Oceanic uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 evidence" - http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/kcasciotti/2006/11/Quay1992_15383.pdf

"Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide" - Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

Evidences that support and demonstrate that Greenhouse gases are climate forcing factors:

The American Institute of Physics' hypertext explanation - "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index" - 2006TellB..58..614H Page 614

"Earths Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

More available upon request.


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

Is anyone still discussing the original thread topic or has the thread gone irretrievably into OT ditch?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2011)

ditch


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Gore is irrelevent, but the few minor corrections/qualifications that his presentation required to bring it fully into line with mainstream climate science understandings, were reviewed and publically commented upon:

"Another look at An Inconvenient Truth" - SpringerLink - GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1

"An Inconvenient Truth: the scientific argument" - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists" - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/an_inconvenient_truth_2007.pdf


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> ditch



Ah! Thank-you, I'll remove it from my list.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2*
> ...


LOL...."_Your near complete ignorance of the actual science_"...talking to yourself again, eh wiredup&bentover. 

CO2 molecules in our atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that is being emitted by the Earth after the Earth has been warmed by solar radiation. Some of that higher energy level in the CO2 molecule is transferred through conduction to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases, warming the atmosphere, and most is re-radiated in all directions with approximately half going down and half going up towards space, being absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some portion of the energy reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Nobody is saying that the CO2 molecule "_traps_" energy inside itself permanently. The IR drives it to a higher energy state but it immediately loses that energy through re-radiation and conduction. The overall effect though is indeed to "_retain or trap energy_" inside Earth's atmosphere, warming the air, the ground and the oceans. This is exactly what has been observed by scientists as CO2 levels have gone up by 40% as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and deforestation practices.






wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.*
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are always good for a laugh! And you're so fearless about that old public humiliation thingie.....even though you subject yourself to so much of it....LOL...

*"In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information..."
"I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet."*

The highest mountain peak in South America is Aconcagua in Argentina at *22,841 ft*. 
*List of mountains*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atacama Desert of Chile actually has an average elevation of about *13,000 feet*.
*New World Encyclopedia*

Actually, wired&bent, you were a lot closer to being accurate about something with this error than you usually are with your totally mistaken and very half-assed, nonsensical claims. Too bad you're so clueless and retarded.






wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.
> ...


"Catastrophic volcanic activity" was only the trigger. Those eruptions released vast quantities of CO2 which warmed the Earth and caused the methane clathrates on the ocean floor to destabilize which caused an even greater warming. It was the higher temperatures and the ocean acidification that produced the Permian mass extinction and mankind is producing those factors now without the aid of "_volcanoes_" or "_sluggish ocean currents_".





wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.
> ...


So, you're in denial....we knew that....it is humorously demented but quite expected of a clueless denier cult fanatic like you. Your delusional claims are belied by the testimony of the world's climate scientists who have stated unequivocally that the rising temperatures are outside the bounds of natural variability and that the climate patterns are changing in response to that global warming. They have a great deal of evidence to back them up and all you've got are denier cult myths and half-witted misinformation and lies.

*Abrupt climate shifts since 1976*






wirebender said:


> Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe.


Hysterically denying the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world's climate scientists and general science community is not going to alter the observable facts regarding rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc., or prevent the very real and fast developing climate change catastrophe from kicking your dumb ass to the curb.





wirebender said:


> You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on.  A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about.  Cold kills far more than warm.


LOLOLOL....soooo delusional...

If there was a "_cooling trend_" perhaps someone would be concerned about it but since that is just one of your demented delusions, no problem. Since 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for the last 150 years and the last decade was the warmest decade on record, as was each preceding decade in turn going back to the 1970's, just where do you imagine you see a "_cooling trend_"? LOLOLOL....you are truly retarded, wired&bent and very funny in your dementia.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Is anyone still discussing the original thread topic or has the thread gone irretrievably into OT ditch?



Trying to keep the denier cultists on topic is like trying to herd cats. Every time one of their sacred myths gets debunked, they have to change the subject.

Nevertheless, some of us still do occasionally get a chance to post something on topic.

For example.

_*Arctic ice volume: Definitely not good news*_
May 11th, 2011
(excerpts)





_*This graph shows Arctic sea ice volume (not area, not extent) by month, over the course of the satellite record, with the vertical axis units being km3.

The month with the lowest volume, September, has declined from roughly 18,000 km3 to around 4,000 km3. Ill leave it up to you, dear readers, to conjure up your own way to visualize the volume or weight of that missing 14,000 km3 of ice. (Remember that 1 km3 of ice weighs 1 billion metric tons.) Presumably there are two main factors at work here: Increasing warming due to our continued, non-stop efforts to aerosolize every last gram of carbon we can rip or pump out of the ground, plus Arctic amplification, a.k.a. albedo flip, in which open sea water absorbs much more heat from the sun than would snow and ice.*_


***


----------



## Trakar (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The month with the lowest volume, September, has declined from roughly 18,000 km3 to around 4,000 km3. Ill leave it up to you, dear readers, to conjure up your own way to visualize the volume or weight of that missing 14,000 km3 of ice. (Remember that 1 km3 of ice weighs 1 billion metric tons.) Presumably there are two main factors at work here: Increasing warming due to our continued, non-stop efforts to aerosolize every last gram of carbon we can rip or pump out of the ground, plus Arctic amplification, a.k.a. albedo flip, in which open sea water absorbs much more heat from the sun than would snow and ice.[/B][/I]
> 
> 
> ***



While the de-icing of the Arctic sea will continue to exasperate the warming of the arctic region, with an eye more toward global conditions, I actually am more concerned about the loss of land-ice in the form of thawing permafrosts in Canada, Alaska and SIberia.


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!



Again, you are claiming free energy.  An amount of energy greater than that provided by the sun.  You are claiming that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat.  Perpetual motion.  

If what you claim were actually possible, don't you think it could be demonstrated in a lab?  Don't you think that someone might have developed a means of multiplying energy if such a thing were possible?


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Evidences that support and demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios are of anthropogenic origins:
> 
> "Greenhouse Gasses: Evidence for Atmospheric Changes and Anthropogenic Causes" - Greenhouse: planning for climate change - Google Books
> 
> ...



First, all your "evidences" are not evidences at all.  At their foundation, they are built on nothing more than an assumption that the "greenhouse effect" is scientific fact.  It is not.  The greenhouse effect is a poorly stated hypothesis with no basis in scientific fact of any sort.  There is no credible experimental evidence that proves the greenhouse effect and certainly none that proves that CO2 has any capacity to absorb and retain heat.

Just for giggles, I read your "evidences".  Feel free to point to page and paragraph of any section that you believe constitutes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate and then point to the observed, repeatable scientific basis upon which the claim is made.  Simply making claims based on assumptions does not constitute science and it certainly does not represent any sort of unequivocal proof.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!
> ...


No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "_free energy_", no "_perpetual motion_", no "_passively warmed object warming its source of heat_" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CO2 molecules in our atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that is being emitted by the Earth after the Earth has been warmed by solar radiation. Some of that higher energy level in the CO2 molecule is transferred through conduction to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases, warming the atmosphere, and most is re-radiated in all directions with approximately half going down and half going up towards space, being absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some portion of the energy reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Nobody is saying that the CO2 molecule "_traps_" energy inside itself permanently. The IR drives it to a higher energy state but it immediately loses that energy through re-radiation and conduction. The overall effect though is indeed to "_retain or trap energy_" inside Earth's atmosphere, warming the air, the ground and the oceans. This is exactly what has been observed by scientists as CO2 levels have gone up by 40% as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and deforestation practices.



Again the claim of free energy.  The atmosphere somehow multiplying the energy recieved from the sun.  I am sure that you will never understand this basic fact, but the earth and oceans warm the atmosphere.  The atmosphere does not warm the earth and oceans.  




RollingThunder said:


> "Catastrophic volcanic activity" was only the trigger. Those eruptions released vast quantities of CO2 which warmed the Earth and caused the methane clathrates on the ocean floor to destabilize which caused an even greater warming. It was the higher temperatures and the ocean acidification that produced the Permian mass extinction and mankind is producing those factors now without the aid of "_volcanoes_" or "_sluggish ocean currents_".



CO2 can not warm the earth.  You failed before you even got started.  Feel free to show some experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can warm the earth.




RollingThunder said:


> Hysterically denying the scientific evidence and the testimony of the world's climate scientists and general science community is not going to alter the observable facts regarding rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc., or prevent the very real and fast developing climate change catastrophe from kicking your dumb ass to the curb.



The bulk of your "raising" temperatures are the result of data manipulaion on the part of corrupt climate scientists.  Any remaining warming is the result of a natural process that began some 14,000 years ago and is in no way outside the bounds of natural variability.  Hell, it isn't even close to the bounds.


----------



## wirebender (May 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "_free energy_", no "_perpetual motion_", no "_passively warmed object warming its source of heat_" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.



Sorry guy, but the claim is that the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system.  Here are a couple of warmist versions of the earth's energy budget:






Note the 323 at the far right of the illustration labled as backradiation.  That graphic is clearly indicating that radiation is being emitted back to the earth and is being absorbed by the earth and this energy that is supposedly being absorbed is in turn, increasing the amount of energy the earth is radiating.  There is X amount of energy absorbed from the sun and the graph is indicating X+ energy that is being reabsorbed via back radiation is then being emitted by the earth.  That + is the free energy that you claim does not exist and that no one is claiming exists.  The graphic clearly illustrates that more energy is being radiated from the earth than it is getting from the sun.






Again, the graphic clearly shows the earth radiating X + the amount of energy being absorbed via back radiation.  A net energy increase with no input of work.  More energy being radiated from the earth than it absorbs from the sun.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English. The source of the energy is the sun, not the Earth, moron. It is the sun's energy that the Earth is radiating and that the atmosphere is holding in like a blanket. No "_free energy_", no "_perpetual motion_", no "_passively warmed object warming its source of heat_" - that's all just your very own non-comprehension of the science and free-range insanity.
> ...


No wiredbent, you're just expressing your own ignorance and non-comprehension of the facts again. No one is claiming that "_the downward emitted radiation is adding additional energy to the system_". All of the energy in the 'system' comes from the sun which heats the Earth which then radiates towards outer space some of that energy as long wave radiation which is then repeatedly absorbed by the greenhouse gases and re-radiated in all directions as it works its way up through the levels of atmosphere until some of the energy escapes into space and out of the 'system'. Still just the same energy that originally came from the sun, no "_additional energy added_".

*Earth's Radiation Budget Facts
NASA*


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> *Earth's Radiation Budget Facts
> NASA*



Though graphic visualizations can help those interested in understanding processes, what is occurring, whe dealing with those who are looking for any means possible to distort and confuse the information, it is probably better to stick to words and numbers that are more precisely defined and less prone to imaginative re-interpretation, and the above reference is a good one!

Here are a few more:

This one from 1968 is pretty cool, because while it also discusses considerations of a potentially cooling climate change, it lays out the growing concerns about humanity's CO2 emissions and the warming impact this will have on the planet's climate if actions aren't taken switch to other sources of energy. The numbers are a bit less refined than more current ones but it demonstrates the evolution of understanding and considerations over the last 50 years:

"A global climatic model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system" - http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay/Courses/ATOC530/Sellers.JAM.1969.pdf

This is a nice little PowerPoint from one of Dr. Ellen Martin's Paleoceanography/Paleoclimatology classes at the University of Florida - "Earth's Energy Budget" -http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/eemartin/GLY6075F10/lectures/2_energy_budget.ppt

I'm sure I've got a few more knocking around my home database, remind me this next weekend when I get back to the house and I'll post a few more.


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2011)




----------



## wirebender (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English.



From your own link:

"The longwave energy emitted from the surface of the Earth and absorbed by the atmosphere results in an increase in the ambient temperature (i.e., the greenhouse effect). This absorbed energy is then emitted both to space and back towards the Earth's surface."

That energy emitted back towards the earth's surface is then claimed to be absorbed thus increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the surface which then increases the amount of energy emitted by the surface thus causing warming.  If the energy emitted towards the surface is absorbed, then the amount of energy absorbed by the surface is the amount of energy absorbed from the sun plus the amount of energy absorbed via backradiation and the total energy emitted by the surface realizes an increase over what it absorbs by the sun.  

You can't get around the fact that you are claiming that a passively warmed object can further warm its heat source.  Free energy.  Sorry you don't understand your own scripture, but that is the claim.


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > No dimwit, nobody is claiming that. You're just too stupid to understand simple English.
> ...



That's not it at all.  If you want a simple explanation, it's like putting a lid on a pot to trap heat.  Nothing is further warmed, as you claim.  Rather, already added heat has its escape slowed.  If you then continue to heat the pot, things WILL get warmer.


----------



## wirebender (May 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!



Statistically?  Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth?  Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere.  The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions?  What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth).  Once again, that would constitute free energy.  Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work.  Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen.  If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets.  Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun.  That is all of the energy you have.  Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done.  You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > you're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by co2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of co2 and other ghgs since the advent of the industrial revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!
> ...


damn you second law of thermodynamics!!!! Daaaaammmn youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Don't know what you're crowing about, Fitz, except perhaps your woeful lack of knowledge of the 2nd Law.  You don't even have to quote it to prove wirebender's analysis is false.  CO2 acts like the lid on a pot, keeping heat in.  That's the WHOLE DEAL.  There is no "greater energy input".  Some energy is retained as the sun keeps pouring in more, resulting in increased temps.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


And if this was the case we would have burned up millions of years ago because the CO2 has been higher than now, and you're talking massive changes happening in mere years.  Millions of years of absorbed energy... everything should be a molten smoking ball.

I deride the importance you place both on absorbed energy AND CO2's power, let alone man's production of it.

And will continue to do so, because it's fun and stays crunchy in milk.


----------



## konradv (May 24, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That's what I thought.  No real knowledge, just FAITH.  I think I'll stick with the majority of scientists, thank you.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!
> ...


Your visualization of the situation is based on your ignorance, not reality. From space, Earth is a huge sphere, 8000 miles in diameter, with an atmosphere that's relatively about the thickness of the skin of an apple. The atmosphere is effectively only about a hundred miles thick, with 3/4 of it within 7 miles of the Earth's surface. In relation to the greenhouse effect, it's all happening in about the lowest ten miles of atmosphere. So, From the perspective of a single molecule of CO2, the Earth looks pretty flat.






wirebender said:


> Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions?  What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?


LOL. And "_what percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to_" *outer space*, "_considering the number of molecules between itself and the_" *effective 'top' of the atmosphere*. It works both ways, dumbass.






wirebender said:


> Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm *its heat source (the earth)*.  Once again, that would constitute free energy.  Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work.  Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen.  If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets.  Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.


This has been explained to you at least a half a dozen times but I guess you're just too much of flaming retard to get it. Why do you keep trying to claim that the "_heat source_" is "_(the earth)_"? The Earth doesn't produce any radiated heat. The Earth is heated by the sun. Greenhouse gases trap some of the sun's energy that the Earth has absorbed and is then re-radiating. That's it. NO "_free energy_", that's just your stupidity and ignorance talking.






wirebender said:


> The heat source is the sun.  That is all of the energy you have.


That's what everybody has been telling you so why do you persist in insisting, as you just did in the previous paragraph, that the "_heat source_" is "_(the earth)_". All of your rather lame-brained 'reasoning' is based on faulty assumptions, ignorance and rank stupidity.





wirebender said:


> Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done.


No, dimwit, it is not "_done_". The Earth absorbs the sun's radiation and emits infrared radiation which then has to make it's way up through the atmosphere. On its way to outer space the radiation is absorbed and re-emitted multiple times by the greenhouse gas molecules in a process that retains more of the heat energy in the lower atmosphere and on the Earth's surface than would be the case if the atmosphere were totally transparent to IR radiation. In the absence of any greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would be about 33 degrees C cooler than it is currently.




wirebender said:


> You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.


No you can't but then no one is saying that is how it works. That's just another of your 'straw-man' arguments, apparently based only on your ignorance and stupidity. 

Here's a more detailed explanation of the processes.

_*Greenhouse effect

Basic mechanism

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.





The solar radiation spectrum for direct light 
at both the top of the Earth's atmosphere 
and at sea level  (enlarge)

This highly simplified picture of the basic mechanism needs to be qualified in a number of ways, none of which affect the fundamental process.

    * The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.24 &#956;m, corresponding to the Sun's radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[11] Almost half the radiation is in the form of "visible" light, which our eyes are adapted to use.[12]

* About 50% of the Sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into spacelargely by cloudsdoes not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.

* The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.

* Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4100 &#956;m.[11] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[11] Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[7]

* Greenhouse gasesincluding most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atomsare able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituentsN2, O2, and Arare not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.

* The simple picture assumes equilibrium. In the real world there is the diurnal cycle as well as seasonal cycles and weather. Solar heating only applies during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low, and during the day the atmosphere warms. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere.*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Statistically?  Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth?  Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere.  The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.
> 
> Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions?  What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?



Which is perfectly in accord with how radiation transfer physics calculations are done. How large a sphere, and how high are you suspending it?

If you are trying to work your way toward a calculation of what percentage of absorbed and re-emitted longwave (IR) radiation is returned on average to the Earth by GHGs, the most important factor revolves around my second question. When the source is quite close to the earth the figure approaches 50% if the sphere is within the mean-free path in our atmosphere or the re-absorption radius, as you move the sphere further away the rate drops till at the upper atmosphere it is approximately (1/4*0.7 or about 0.175) 18% since the Earth is a sphere). Of course, to complicate the process further we have to bring in a bit more advanced mathematics and calculate all of the other absorptions and re-emissions of those long-wave IR photons. Ultimately all of this IR escapes the Earth, but while it is bouncing around it creates an ambient/latent heat in our atmosphere.



> Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth).  Once again, that would constitute free energy.



What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?



> The heat source is the sun.  That is all of the energy you have.  Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done.  You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.



The sun is a source of photons. The earth, itself, emits long-wave IR as the heat from its formation and radioactive decay slowly dissipates through the crust, but, yes, the Sun's radiated energy is the primary source of energy in our biome. most of the Sun's energy is emitted in the visible light range. Conveniently, our atmosphere is largely transparent in the visible light ranges so most of the energy from the Sun zips right through our atmosphere and is absorbed as it impacts the surface (albedo considerations cover the reflected %). The absorption of this energy creates thermal energy in the surface and the surface re-emits this energy in the form of IR photons. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, Ozone, etc.,) are particularly opaque to IR radiation. They absorb and then re-emit this long wave radiation,...which takes us back to where we were.


----------



## wirebender (May 24, 2011)

Trakar said:


> What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?



Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius&#8217; formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33

Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature - Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Technische Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, 1953, p.68

It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation.  The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position.  The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.  






Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:

_If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the &#8220;scientific consensus&#8221; states._

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point.  Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted.  Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it.  Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat.  It's simple logic, really!!!
> ...



Sorry, Bentwire, but Joseph Fourier demonstrated that your little theory is totally without merit in 1820. The GHGs in the atmosphere do absorb heat and re-emit it. Just because you are willfully ignorant does not mean that others are.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?
> ...



What is mythical is your belief that you are demonstrating any logic. Of course the sun is our source of heat. And the balance between that which is absorbed or reflected is what we are speaking of. The sun in the last few decades has not demonstrated any increase in TSI at all, in fact, the last solar cycle has the lowest number of sunspots in about a century, and the TSI has been lower as well. 

In fact, in 2008, the TSI was at a minimum, hardly a sunspot all year, and a strong La Nina, yet 2008 was at least the tenth warmest year on record. So how does that fit in your silly theory?


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



how far back do the records go?  do they have any idea about temperatures prior to when they started keeping records?


----------



## Trakar (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?
> ...



This isn't an issue of transmitting "warmth," this is a matter of an IR photon being absorbed by an electron in the atom of some surface material. If the first electron the photon approaches is in a high energy state and cannot accept the photon, it will simply keep going until it reaches a electron in a low energy state and is absorbed. 99.9% of these IR photons will be absorbed in the top few centimeters of soil, rock or water (or any incident biological matter)



> It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation.  The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position.  The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.



pretty pictures only tell a very generalized story, and shouldn't be relied upon as complete or detailed renditions of the data.

NASA understandings fully incorporate backradiation components.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/ceres/images/ceres_brochure.pdf
(for those that like pretty pictures)

Climate and Earth&rsquo;s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
(a bit more literary)


> ...When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.
> 
> Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earths surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earths surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.
> 
> ...





wirebender said:


> Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.



cite or reference?



wirebender said:


> Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:
> 
> _If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the scientific consensus states._
> 
> When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.



Cite or reference?

Dr. Spencer's reputation and gravitas are not very high in either academic circles or mainstream science currently, but I'd be interested in seeing both the information he is somewhat cryptically referring to and his full and unedited considerations concerning that information.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2*
> ...



*So you say. But that is not what the scientists are telling us. And what the scientist to say has far more weight than an ignorant anamous poster on a message board has. *


----------



## RWatt (May 25, 2011)

wirebender said:


> The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position.  The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.



The existence of backradiation is a directly observed fact. All you do is point an IR measuring device (a pyrometer) at the sky to see it. Not only is it theoretically impossible for the atmosphere to not be emitting infrared, but unsurprisingly it's directly observed to be doing so.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2011)

*Warmers Credibility Thins Dramatically!!*

Still unable to reproduce their results in a lab, the Warmers are making Cold fusion look like a realistic energy source.  

Moreover, if the ice is melting, where is it going? How come Micronesia isn't under water?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?
> ...


You quote Dr. Roy Spencer in this post. If you believe him enough to quote him, why don't don't you believe him when he says this:

*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.






wirebender said:


> Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.


LOLOL....you are such a loon, wiredbent. Just where did these supposed "_recent published studies_" appear and just when? LOL. Svensmark's cosmic ray theories were pretty thoroughly refuted by the rest of the climate science community years ago and they still don't hold water, but even if they did, the studies show that any cosmic ray effect would have had a cooling effect over the past 20 years, just the opposite of what actually happened.

*Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?*
(excerpt)

*Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality.*


*Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions*
(very small excerpt - much, much more on the website)

*"While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes." Dr. Rasmus Benestad, Norwegian Meteorological Institute*







wirebender said:


> When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.


Well, at least the myth of you having a functional brain has finally been put to bed.


----------



## wirebender (May 25, 2011)

Trakar said:


> _The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earths surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on averagemore than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didnt have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earths surface responds to the extra (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature._



This statement cuts to the heart of the issue, and it is a lie.  The greenhouse is a story concocted in an attempt to tie together two facts.  They are, number one, is that our atmosphere is much warmer than radiant energy calculations predict; and number two, our atmosphere contains certain gasses that react to infrared.  It is an assumption that the two must be connected and to date, no empirical evidence exists that proves a connection.  A great deal of empirical evidence exists, however, that proves that they need not be connected.

I haven't spoken to you very much but you strike me as a smart enough person.  Smart enough to read and regurgitate published information anyway.  I wonder though, if you are smart enough to look at evidence that proves that the story you have been told about the way things are isn't necessarily the way they are at all.

I don't have time to build a host of charts and graphs to illustrate what I am going to point out, but will gladly give you all the numbers you care to crunch and give them to you from a credible source.  Nearly every number and fact I am going to mention can be found here at NASA's planetary fact sheet.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is a story pieced together in an attempt to tie together two things that are not necessarily connected.  To see proof that they need not be necessarily connected and, in fact, are not connected in the planets in our solar system with enough atmosphere to manage 1 bar of atmospheric pressure all one need do is look around the local neighborhood of the Earth.  

Specifically, I mention Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.  All of these have atmospheres dense enough to reach at least 1 bar of atmospheric pressure and here are some not highly advertised facts about these planets.  Feel free to put them into any sort of graph form you like if it makes absorbing them any easier.  

Naturally each of these planets recieves a different amount of energy from the sun.  Respectively they receive, in terms of Watts per square meter: Venus 2613.9, Earth 1368, Jupiter 50.5, Saturn 14.9, Uranus 3.71, and Neptune 1.51.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is an attempt to explain why the atmosphere of the earth is considerably warmer than radiant energy (black body) calculations predict.  According to the black body model, the temperatures of the planets I mention should be, respectively (in Kelvin); Venus 231.7K, Earth 254.3K, Jupiter 110K, Uranus 58.2K, and Neptune 46.6K.

I mentioned that these all have an atmospheric pressure of at least 1 bar so that we can be sure that we are comparing apples to apples.  At the depth within the atmospheres of the mentioned planets in which the atmospheric pressure reaches 1 bar, the temperatures of the atmosphere's of the planets is, respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 350K, Earth 288K, Jupiter 165K, Saturn 134K, Uranus 76K, and Neptune 72K.  

On the same planets at a point in the atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is 0.1 bar the atmospheric temperatures of the planets is respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 250K, Earth 220K, Jupiter 112K, Saturn 84K, Uranus 53K, and Neptune 55K.

From 0.1 bar of pressure to 1.0 bar of pressure, the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus rises 100 C.  On Earth it rises 68C.  On Jupiter it rises 53 C.  On Saturn it rises 50 C.  On Uranus it rises 23 C, and on Neptune it rises 17 C.

Note that on Neptune, even though the planet receives less than 2 Wm2 of energy from the sun, at 1 bar of pressure, the temperature is 54% greater than a black body calculation predicts, and the atmosphere of the planet is 99% hydrogen and helium; neither of which is a "greenhouse" gas.

Uranus, which receives less than 4 Wm2 of solar energy at 1 bar of pressure is 17% greater than a black body calculation predicts and again the atmosphere is nearly 98% hydrogen and helium.  Saturn sees a 65.2% increase in atmospheric temperature at 1 bar above that predicted by a black body calculation and again, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium.  

The atmospheric temperature on jupiter at 1 bar of pressure is 50% higher than that predicted by a black body calculation and once more, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium, not greenhouse gasses.

Earth, which receives a far greater amount of solar radiation has an atmospheric temperature at 1 bar of pressure of only 13% greater than a black body calculation predicts.  

Looking at these figures, it is more than obvious that the black body calculations are not adequate to the task they claim to perform.  A black body calculation only calculates for radiant energy and completely misses any thermal effect that comes along with having an atmosphere.  

How this heating happens is open to any number of interpretations that don't require the mythical back radiation that other planets don't seem to need in order to see atmospheric temperature increases far greater than earth with less solar radiation present.  Personally, I subscribe to the hypothesis that the difference between atmospheric expansion on the sun side of the planet in combination with atmospheric contraction on the dark side of the planet causes a "pumping" type effect that sets convection currents into motion which would result in cool desending air to come under greater atmospheric pressure and thus aquire a higher temperature; the natural effect of putting a gas under greater pressure.

The how in this case, however isn't as important as the what; and the what is that atmospheric pressure due to gravity will generate heat even when the amount of solar energy being recieved is less than 2 Wm2.  Perhaps if no solar energy is present at all.  The evidence scattered throughout our solar system clearly indicates that something as far fetched as backradiation is not necessary to explain the fact that our atmosphere is warmer than black body calculations predict.

Backradiation and it's evil accomplice CO2 are a fabrication put forward to satisfy political machinations and have little, if anything to do with actual science.

So there are the numbers and the fact that all of the planets in our system that have atmospheres sufficiently dense to achieve 1 bar of pressure is warmer than blackbody calculations would predict and some of these a large percentage higher than earth when backradiation could not possibly be the culprit.  

The question is, can you be convinced to alter your thinking when presented with a set of facts that call your present belief into question?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 25, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I suggest you scrutinize what you're pimping a bit closer.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2011)

Be nice if ol' Fritz would ever consider learning anything at all.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > _The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth&#8217;s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average&#8212;more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn&#8217;t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called &#8220;back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth&#8217;s surface responds to the &#8220;extra&#8221; (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature._
> ...



This is simply incorrect 



> The greenhouse is a story concocted in an attempt to tie together two facts.  They are, number one, is that our atmosphere is much warmer than radiant energy calculations predict; and number two, our atmosphere contains certain gasses that react to infrared.  It is an assumption that the two must be connected and to date, no empirical evidence exists that proves a connection.  A great deal of empirical evidence exists, however, that proves that they need not be connected.



I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

We can start with Joseph Fourier's work in the 1820s. Most scientists prior to this had a vague understanding that there were gases in the atmosphere that somehow interacted with energy from the sun to produce warming but is was very uncertain and imprecise. Until Fourier focussed on the issue, and published the results of his studies in his 1824 paper "Remarques Générales sur les Températures Du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planétaires." . He is the first to have compared the Earth's atmosphere to that of a glass box with regrads to its ability to trap solar radiations and convert them to heat. Of course, his was an over simple and somewant improper model and it was largely left to others to refine, but he is credited with discovering the later named "atmospheric greenhouse effect."

Pouillet, Claude (1838) "Memoir on Solar Heat, the Radiative Effects of the Atmosphere, and the Temperature of Space."

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..."

Tyndall, John (1863). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere." 

Tyndall, John (1863). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor."

Croll, James (1864). "On the Physical Cause of the Change of Climate During Geological Epochs."

Tyndall, John (1873). "Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat."

Tyndall, John (1873). "Further Researches on the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter"

Croll, James (1875). Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations. A Theory of Secular Changes of the Earth's Climate. 

then we have the multiple works of Svante Arrhenius who refined and defined the actual components and mechnanicsm by which this process actually worked in "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground" (1896). This is also the first work to calculate variation in temp die to variation in CO2 %, calculate the ERB (to include measuring back radiation), and postulate that humanity's CO2 emissions from the combustion of coal would lead to a warming climate. 

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on Theory of the Greenhouse." 

(and this is just the high points of the 1800s)



> I haven't spoken to you very much but you strike me as a smart enough person.  Smart enough to read and regurgitate published information anyway.
> I wonder though, if you are smart enough to look at evidence that proves that the story you have been told about the way things are isn't necessarily the way they are at all.



My impressions, and questions, regarding you, are nearly identical



> I don't have time to build a host of charts and graphs to illustrate what I am going to point out, but will gladly give you all the numbers you care to crunch and give them to you from a credible source.  Nearly every number and fact I am going to mention can be found here at NASA's planetary fact sheet.
> 
> As I said, the greenhouse effect is a story pieced together in an attempt to tie together two things that are not necessarily connected.  To see proof that they need not be necessarily connected and, in fact, are not connected in the planets in our solar system with enough atmosphere to manage 1 bar of atmospheric pressure all one need do is look around the local neighborhood of the Earth.
> 
> ...



Actually, the effects and understandings of the mechanisms are not arbitrarily attributed but rather directly measured and tested, as demonstrated particularly in the works of Tyndall and Arrhenius above.



> According to the black body model, the temperatures of the planets I mention should be, respectively (in Kelvin); Venus 231.7K, Earth 254.3K, Jupiter 110K, Uranus 58.2K, and Neptune 46.6K.
> 
> I mentioned that these all have an atmospheric pressure of at least 1 bar so that we can be sure that we are comparing apples to apples.



Well, at the least crab-apples to grapefruit, pumpkin, cantelope and honeydew mellon as all of the heavenly bodies you mention have massively in excess of the Earth normal 1 Bar atmosphere. In this same vein, I have to wonder why you are omitting Titan (~1.45 Bar)? 



> At the depth within the atmospheres of the mentioned planets in which the atmospheric pressure reaches 1 bar, the temperatures of the atmosphere's of the planets is, respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 350K, Earth 288K, Jupiter 165K, Saturn 134K, Uranus 76K, and Neptune 72K.
> 
> On the same planets at a point in the atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is 0.1 bar the atmospheric temperatures of the planets is respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 250K, Earth 220K, Jupiter 112K, Saturn 84K, Uranus 53K, and Neptune 55K.
> 
> ...



And none of this includes the immense thermal stores these supermassive planets are still trying to shed from the collisional processes of their formation and gravitational compression. All of these planets still radiate much more thermal energy than they receive from the sun [edit - all of the major outer system giants,...except Uranus, which actually emits slightly less than it receives from the Sun - end edit] and this is quite simply demonstrated and calculated and yet I see no discussion of this aspect at all in your considerations? But this does provide me with a clue as to why you have omitted Titan, as it is a small cold body without the formation heat to generate the temps your speculations indicate it should.



> Earth, which receives a far greater amount of solar radiation has an atmospheric temperature at 1 bar of pressure of only 13% greater than a black body calculation predicts.
> 
> 
> Looking at these figures, it is more than obvious that the black body calculations are not adequate to the task they claim to perform.  A black body calculation only calculates for radiant energy and completely misses any thermal effect that comes along with having an atmosphere.
> ...



Speculations that are contradicted by compelling evidences, ignore significant factors and lack even any experimentally demonstrable supportive mechanisms or understandings, are not science, and certainly aren't rationally compelling. It is good to muse and explore possibilitiies and if you can make the time to properly organize, research and support your musings, some good science may eventually be derived from your efforts, it is unlikely to overturn the science you seem to think it negates, but there are certainly some science related concepts in aspects of your considerations. If you focus on addressing the issues I've raised so far, it will go a long ways to helping you to develop a more comprehensive understanding of these issues.



> ...The question is, can you be convinced to alter your thinking when presented with a set of facts that call your present belief into question?



As an original, and active member of CSICOP (now called CSI), I have no problems with critical thinking and challenging my own beliefs as well as those of others. On the issue of AGW, I, myself, was originally and truly skeptical of some of the claims and assertions I had heard. At that point I did what a true Skeptic does, I dove into the science to see for myself what the data indicated. My original intentions and perceptions were that I'd spend a weekend or so digging, reading and comparing, find the flaws or machinations and then confirm my suspicions and move on to more interesting and important issues. After about 2 weeks my former suspicions began to seem almost completely without foundation (and this was at a time when the supportive evidences for AGW were much more scarce and tentative in nature). After about six months I felt the evidence I understood was compelling enough that I began accepting the reality of AGW. Of course, I've got a strong academic and professional background in math and the physical sciences which probably made my acceptance easier than for people who really lack such a background and must rely upon other means to make their personal evaluations of the evidences. But I'm only speaking for myself, and as I stated before, I'm not here to convince or win-over anyone, I just come by to take note of the opinions, perspectives and comments of others and to share my opinions, perspectives and understandings with anyone who is interested in them.


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:



Can you provide any compelling empirical evidences that prove atmospheric greenhouse effects?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:
> ...


Of course they can't.  Fuzzy data maybe.  empirical repeatable experiments, no. They're proving the existence of sasquatch here and as we all know, till something is proven to exist in science... it doesn't.  No proof it exists, only circumstantial evidence that the climate fluctuates on it's own.

The real non-starter is proof that mankind has anything to do with it.  There is no possible way for them to conclusively prove that it is man's fault.

ergo:  religion.


----------



## konradv (May 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



The REAL non-starter is the fact that you wouldn't accept any data as proof, regardless of the source, because it doesn't fit your POLITICAL bias.  The science, despite all the treatises, doesn't really mean much to the deniers, except as a way to throw out big words and BS the subject(see wirebender).

ergo: hypocrisy


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere. You people have been given multiple sites, from real scientific sites, that verify these factors. Yet you come back with the same nonsense time after time. Some of you even claim a scientific background. Then proceed disrespect all the efforts of the scientists from many nations and political systems that all come to the same conclusions. 

That AGW is real, and we are already seeing effects that are destructive to our present society.

You made this into a political football, and it is  going to come back and bite you big time.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:
> ...



The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence. 

In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly  3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.  

There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

konradv said:


> The REAL non-starter is the fact that you wouldn't accept any data as proof, regardless of the source, because it doesn't fit your POLITICAL bias.  The science, despite all the treatises, doesn't really mean much to the deniers, except as a way to throw out big words and BS the subject(see wirebender).



To date, you can provide no proof at all and your "data" is no more than the output of notoriously bad computer models.  You can't provide one whit of proof that the present climate is in any way unprecedented or even close to the boundrys of natural deviation, much less begin to prove that man is in any way responsible.


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere.



No gas (other than water vapor) has the capacity to retain heat.


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.



It is a compelling bit of evidence that certain molecules absorb and emit Ir but it doesn't even begin to support the hypothesis of backradiation or the greenhouse hypothesis in any way.



Trakar said:


> In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly  3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.



That does not constitute evidence of the greenhouse effect.



Trakar said:


> There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.



Actually, there is no more.  Because you have remained civil, I am going to try one more time with you to demonstrate your error in the simplest terms I can manage.  If you don't mind, I would like to do this step by step and have a bit of conversation between rounds to be sure that we are in agreement before proceeding or hash out any disagreement.

An object can become warm via the absorption of electromagnetic radiation.  I believe we are both in agreement with that basic fact.  Where we split though is at the idea that an object being passively warmed can warm its source of heat.    I say that it can't and will try once more to convince you of this fact.

First, if an object that is being passively warmed could warm its source of heat, energy could be multiplied simply by placing objects that radiate IR in proximity to each other and let them mutually radiate IR and collect the excess.  This is impossible, however, because the mutually exchanged IR cancels, it does not multiply as suggested by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Let me make a quick illustration and ask a question or two and I will stop for the evening and await your response.

Before I begin, pardon the graphics.  If I were a graphic designer, I wouldn't be doing the work that I presently do.

To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero.  Now we will add object "B" into the picture.  It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.






I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.

At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat.  At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.

We still together?

Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A".  Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B".  Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".

Is that your contention?  Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone. 

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago. 

What is it in the makeup of people like yourself that you think that generations of real scientists have been totally wrong and you are so brilliant that you have figured out everything the missed. Fellow, if you are so sure of your science on this subject, how about a submission to a real peer reviewed scientific journal?


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
> As  for balance the south pole  ice caps are growing.
> Dont tell Chris.



If I grok this accurately, the displacement of water by ice not altering the sea level when it melts claim is true, but only for un-anchored ice.  In short, if the ice floats, you are 100% correct.

However, if the ice goes all the way down and gets anchored to the floor, then it only displaces the volume it actually occupies.  And when it melts, that additional water WILL have to naturally get added to the sea level.

Of course, I'm not an actual scientist, so maybe it's not just the water that's all wet.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

You have it right, Liability. And if the ice is on land, as is the alpine glaciers, Greenland and 
Anarctica icecaps, all of it will add to the volume of the ocean. And the ice on Anarctica is melting in enough places that the net is minus tens of cubic miles of ice per year. The only ice that is increasing is the seasonal sea ice around the edge of the continent. And that is increasing very slightly. Far, far less than the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice is decreasing.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere.
> ...



What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?

Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?



Experimental evidence.  It has to do with water's phases.  You can do the experiment yourself on a stove top.  Here is how it goes.

Freeze a thermometer into a block of ice. Use a tupperware container or something like it.  Put the block of ice in a large pot and put it on an eye of your stove. Turn the heat to whatever setting you choose.

Watch the thermometer in the ice. Clearly, the ice is absorbing heat from the stove but until the ice has phased to its liquid form, its temperature doesn't rise. So long as there is a sliver of ice remaining, even though it is immersed in boiling water, the temperature of the ice will remain at 32 degrees F. 

Once the ice has melted, then all of the water in the pot will begin to assume a uniform temperature and it will begin to rise. The water temperature will reach 212 degrees F (boiling) and no matter how hot you turn your stove eye, it will not go above 212 even though it it clearly absorbing heat from the stove eye. The water will remain at 212 until it turns into a gas (steam & water vapor). 

If you could contain the steam, you could continue the experiment and see that once all of the water had turned to gas, the temperature would stabalize and from that point you could superheat the water past 212 degrees.




Trakar said:


> Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?



It is the claim being made by some on this board.


----------



## wirebender (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.
> 
> Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.



Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago.  In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.
> ...



That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.
> ...



Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  



> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly  3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.
> ...



This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth. 



> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.
> ...



We haven't more than outlined the sketch and scratched the surface. There are the methods by which substances actually absorb photons all the way down to the energy state changes of electron orbitals and the relationship between such and quantum numbers and how this allows us to calculate the wavelengths of subsequently emitted photons as the electrons shift from unstable, high energy orbitals down to more stable, lower energy orbitals. Much, much, more,...but, it's best not to try and teach people how to swim by throwing them, fully clothed, off the deck of a cruise ship in 20 foot seas. 



> Because you have remained civil, I am going to try one more time with you to demonstrate your error in the simplest terms I can manage.  If you don't mind, I would like to do this step by step and have a bit of conversation between rounds to be sure that we are in agreement before proceeding or hash out any disagreement.



perfectly fine, it is often the case that people cannot learn new information until they understand how and why what they currently believe is mistaken.



> An object can become warm via the absorption of electromagnetic radiation.



Okay, exactly what do you understand "warmth" to be and in as precise and detailed a manner as possible, describe how you understand the process of how "an object" absorbs EM photons (as all EM energy is transferred via photons).



> I believe we are both in agreement with that basic fact.



we shall see.




> Where we split though is at the idea that an object being passively warmed can warm its source of heat.



several clarifications required:

How (and why) are you distinguishing "passively warmed" from actively warmed, ...or just warmed?

What are these "objects" and "sources" composed of? 

As precisely and detailed as you can, how is the energy generated, transmitted, and absorbed?

The answers to these questions are very important in quantifying what we are talking about and in clearly understanding what is actually occurring.  



> First, if an object that is being passively warmed could warm its source of heat, energy could be multiplied simply by placing objects that radiate IR in proximity to each other and let them mutually radiate IR and collect the excess.  This is impossible, however, because the mutually exchanged IR cancels, it does not multiply as suggested by the greenhouse hypothesis.



Nothing in the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory suggests, or implies, a multiplication of energy, the actual function is most similar to an insulation that retards the escape of the initially delivered solar energy. 



> Let me make a quick illustration and ask a question or two and I will stop for the evening and await your response.
> 
> Before I begin, pardon the graphics.  If I were a graphic designer, I wouldn't be doing the work that I presently do.
> 
> ...



Based on discussions so far, I'm not so sure. My primary concern is that you are making some generalized assumptions in your considerations that only approximate reality under very specialized hypothetical situations that are not consistent with real-world circumstances. 

Are these objects composed of discrete atoms? 
Are we talking about EM radiations?
How are you defining "warmed"?



> At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat.  At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.



What is the difference between the radiations of an object at 50 Kelvin and an object at 500 Kelvin?

What leads you to believe that an object must achieve equilibrium before it begins to emit any radiation?



> We still together?



That remains to be seen.



> Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A".  Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B".  Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".
> Is that your contention?  Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".



No, if the only energy in the system is the original energy, no additional energy will be created, but when object A sheds energy it loses some of that original energy, and if some of the energy that B receives and re-emits is directed at A then A will receive that returned energy that it initially emitted. (to stick within the general guidelines of your model)

When a single electron is in an unstable, high, energy state, it emits a photon and drops to a more stable, low energy state. as soon as it emits the photon and transitions to a low energy state, it is then capable of absorbing a new photon and shifting back up into an unstable, high energy state and repeating the process. As far as the electron is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the photon comes from a neighboring atom within the same object, or an atom in a distant object. 

But we can explore and discuss this further tomorrow, after I've had some time to ruminate upon the exchange and information so far and examine your responses and comments to this post.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> ...



You grok good!

The overwhelming majority of Arctic sea ice is floating, and will not raise sea levels, but the arctic sea ice is only a fraction of the high latitude arctic and subarctic 

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level

Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Glacier changes in the Siberian Altai Mountains, Ob river basin, (1952

Sorry, these are a bit dated, things have accelerated over the last 4-5 years but I'm on the road right now and don't have ready access to my database.


----------



## Trakar (May 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?
> ...



My question was referring to water vapor in the air, which is already in vapor form and thus no different from any other vaporized substance with regards to its phase state. And I was questioning why you believe water vapor has this capacity but that no other vapors possess this capability. Most, if not all, elements exhibit enthalpy of fusion and enthalpy of vaporization charcteristics. We, however, are not talking about phase transition conditions.



wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?
> ...



I see, I was concerned that you were misunderstanding something I had said.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2011)

More sources.

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

USGS P 1386-I -- Chile and Argentina - Wet Andes

Glacier Links


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.
> ...



This is incorrect, Tyndall and later Arrhenius both confirmed in open air and laboratory experiments and precisely quantified and qualified the various GHG gases and their absorption characteristics and their impacts upon (then) current climate conditions.
These experiments and measurements have been run repeatedly throughout the last century and a half or so, and are being run currently in many high schools and universites around the world.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.



The quotation marks are well placed.


----------



## wirebender (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.



Actually, it is based on your side's inability to produce any actual evidence demonstrating the existence of a greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere.  The stark, unavoidable fact is that during daylight hours, our atmosphere is what keeps the Earth from burning like the moon.  The atmosphere serves to scatter incoming energy from the moon and keep the earth considerably cooler than it would otherwise be.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities. 

Your side? Energy companies and assorted fruitcakes.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.
> ...



I have many conservative freinds just as worried about the changes we are seeing as I am. The 'Conservative' of today is a totally differant animal than the conservative of yesterday.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2011)

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.


----------



## konradv (May 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.
> ...



NO, you seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept of AGW.  Please stick to the actual facts, because this analogy makes no sense and has no relation to AGW theory.  You've introduced a model with no connection to anything I or anyone else I know would say.  GHGs work like a blanket.  There's no talk of the kind of scenario you're presenting.  Please try again with a more "real world" scenario.


----------



## wirebender (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sorry, but they haven't.  There have been some nice sideshow huxter type demonstrations, but the greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere has never been demonstrated.


----------



## konradv (May 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Why wouldn't an experimental demonstration translate to the atmosphere?  You keep making pronouncements, but provide no evidence to back up your contentions.  If there was something wrong with them, tell us.  Don't expect us to take everything you say as gospel.  Despite what some may say, this ISN'T a religion.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



But it *is* a religion for the denier cultists. That's why this point about the greenhouse effect is a dogma for wiredbent and others and why no amount of evidence or scientific testimony will ever be adequate to change their minds. They are a cult like the flat-earthers, so it isn't a rational or evidence based position, it's a belief system based mostly on political ideology and ignorance of science.


----------



## lehr (May 27, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif.  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> 
> ...



18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.


----------



## lehr (May 27, 2011)

green is a hoax


----------



## RWatt (May 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero.  Now we will add object "B" into the picture.  It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.
> 
> I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.
> 
> ...



That's definitely my contention.

Think of B like a mirror. It's "bouncing" some of the energy from object A into universe C.

So C is being fed both directly by A and also indirectly by A via B. Ie more energy from A is reaching universe C because of the presence of object B.

An important thing to realize is that only a small faction of energy from A reaches C. That's because A casts energy in all directions and most of those directions go nowhere. So we aren't creating energy from nothing by adding B, we are taking some of the bulk of energy that is otherwise lost, capturing it with B and passing some of that to C.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Don't feel bad, so are most of the "Progressives." 

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last true and strong progressives in this nation (though even he did a little backpedal to big oil), too bad there aren't any like him today. You tell people you are a progressive republican today and you can almost literally watch them go into mental conniptions. Technically, I'm an independent as of the early 90s, but my roots and most of my considerations are still oriented to their Bull Moose originations.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 27, 2011)

lehr said:


> 18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.





lehr said:


> green is a hoax


Actually, the 'hoax' is your assumption that you know anything about this issue or that you have anything meaningful to say. Your anecdotes and slogans are just more denier cult drivel and nonsense.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.
> ...



Surely you jest!?


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.
> 
> Your side? Energy companies and assorted fruitcakes.



Energy companies rely heavily upon the same mainstream science understandings everyone else does, they may fund the "fruitcakes" in order to pad their bottom line for the time being, but they no more accept or believe the nonsense some put forward than any other reasonable, intelligent and educated person does.


----------



## Trakar (May 27, 2011)

lehr said:


> 18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.



Please provide link, citation or verifiable reference that confirms these assertions.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.
> ...



The energy companies rely heavily on real science and put much money into it. Often even when the scientist is telling them that their actions are not in the best interest of mankind. For they know that scientist has only one vote, and they can hire the fruitcakes to convince people like we have on this board to believe the sun rises in the West.


----------



## Chris (May 29, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.
> 
> The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.



A young student proving global warming in a labortory setting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - &#x202a;Global Warming in a Jar&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2011)




----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.
> ...




Your young student has proved nothing related to global warming.  He has performed an experiment in a closed system which is in no way analogous to an open system.  His "proof" only applies to earth if you can demonstrate a glass layer up in the sky somewhere which prevents conduction.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.



Well, they are at the core of the story that constitutes the hoax of the greenhouse effect.



Trakar said:


> This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth.



So now you are not claiming any warming at all but only a slowed cooling?  There is a vast difference between warming and a slowing of cooling. 



Trakar said:


> We haven't more than outlined the sketch and scratched the surface. There are the methods by which substances actually absorb photons all the way down to the energy state changes of electron orbitals and the relationship between such and quantum numbers and how this allows us to calculate the wavelengths of subsequently emitted photons as the electrons shift from unstable, high energy orbitals down to more stable, lower energy orbitals. Much, much, more,...but, it's best not to try and teach people how to swim by throwing them, fully clothed, off the deck of a cruise ship in 20 foot seas.



There is a great deal of talk, but there is nothing more.



Trakar said:


> Okay, exactly what do you understand "warmth" to be and in as precise and detailed a manner as possible, describe how you understand the process of how "an object" absorbs EM photons (as all EM energy is transferred via photons).



I understand warmth, or heat to be the electromagnetic energy that moves between two bodies at different temperatures via convective or conductive transfer such that the energy balance of one is increased and the other is decreased.   This transfer of energy is heavily influenced by the relative size of the bodies that are transferring energy but the composition and density which determine heat capacity is the more important factor when calculating the capacity for energy transfer.



Trakar said:


> How (and why) are you distinguishing "passively warmed" from actively warmed, ...or just warmed?



A passively warmed object has no energy source of its own and therefore can not add to the overall energy balance in an equation.  At best, it can reflect energy but reflected energy does not add to the total amount of energy within a system.



Trakar said:


> What are these "objects" and "sources" composed of?



Irrelevant.  We are talking laws of nature, not laws of materials or laws of systems. 




Trakar said:


> As precisely and detailed as you can, how is the energy generated, transmitted, and absorbed?



The vast bulk of the energy in question is generated by the sun.  Do we really need to discuss how the sun works?  A smaller portion of the energy in question comes from within the earth itself.  Again, do we need to discuss what is going on at the core of the earth?

If you are talking about the energy being radiated from the earth to the atmosphere, then for the most part, we are talking about energy being radiated from the passively warmed surface of the earth into the atmosphere.  The bulk of the energy the earth radiates gets to the earth (not stopped by the atmosphere) because it arrives in a wave length that is invisible to the atmosphere.



Trakar said:


> Nothing in the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory suggests, or implies, a multiplication of energy, the actual function is most similar to an insulation that retards the escape of the initially delivered solar energy.



Of course it does.  If energy is being radiated back to the earth, providing additional warmth to the earth which it then radiates back into the atmosphere, then we are talking about multiplying energy.  If you are merely talking about slowing down the escape of energy into space, then we arent talking about warming at all as warming a thing, and slowing the rate at which it cools are two entirely different things.  If there is no warming, then there is no crisis.



Trakar said:


> Are these objects composed of discrete atoms? [/quote
> 
> Again, the question is meaningless as the second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, not a law of materials or systems.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2011)

Chris said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.
> ...



Epic Fail

There's a difference between 60PPM and 600,000ppm of CO2. He replicated conditions on Venus.

Warmers allege that even a 4-5 PPM increase is enough to trigger record cyclones,tornadoes and Cat 5 hurricanes


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

RWatt said:


> That's definitely my contention.



Then you are demonstrably wrong.



RWatt said:


> Think of B like a mirror. It's "bouncing" some of the energy from object A into universe C.



To prove to yourself that you are wrong, get yourself an electric heater with an output of say, 1000 watts per square meter.  Turn it on and put as many reflectors, or mirrors, or any other passively warmed objects around it that you like and see if you ever get more than 1000 watts per square meter out of the heater.  If you do, then you have found a means of extracting free energy from the ether and have effectively solved the energy problems of mankind forever



RWatt said:


> So C is being fed both directly by A and also indirectly by A via B. Ie more energy from A is reaching universe C because of the presence of object B.



B produces no energy of its own.  Object A represents the sum of the energy within the system.  There is no more.  No matter how many times you reflect the energy from object A, it's output still represents the entirety of the energy within the system.  Any increase of energy within the system, without an input of additional work is an impossibility.  It is free energy, energy from nothing, perpetual motion.  



RWatt said:


> An important thing to realize is that only a small faction of energy from A reaches C. That's because A casts energy in all directions and most of those directions go nowhere. So we aren't creating energy from nothing by adding B, we are taking some of the bulk of energy that is otherwise lost, capturing it with B and passing some of that to C.



Doesn't matter which direction it goes in.  The output of A still represents all of the available energy within the system.  You can't reflect it enough to create a single joule of excess energy beyond the output of A.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2011)

Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness. 

No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does. 

A significant part of the radiant energy recieved from the sun is reflected and reradiated back into space. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, less energy is reflected or reradiated into space, more is absorbed and reradiated back to the earth, warming the atmosphere, land, and water.

By our burning of fossil fuels, we have significantly raised the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. And, as a result, significantly increased the amount of heat retained here on Earth. Which has consequences that we can see in our temperatures, glaciers, and ice caps. And, from periods like the Younger Dryas, can see the dangers to our agriculture when the climate hits a tipping point and there is a rapid change as there was at that time, and a number of previous similiar times.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



This is simply incorrect.

(and BTW, the vaccuum of space is a much better insulator against "conduction" than glass could ever be, which is why sealed vaccuum thermos systems are used to insulate liquids, and why thick glass coffee mugs actually tend to cool coffee more quickly than a styrofoam cup)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.
> 
> No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does.
> 
> ...



And you can never show us how this works in a lab because...?


----------



## konradv (Jun 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.
> ...



... you can't create an entire environment in a lab.   That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes.  After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up.  Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow?  In my world it does.  I don't know where you're from, however.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You're spouting total horseshit. If you can't show that you've eliminated all the variables except for the faintest wips of CO2 what you have is not even a theory; its a hunch, it's wishful thinking no matter how many other Warmer Cultists agree with you

I think the increase in CO2 come from Dark Matter and the "melting Glaciers" are caused by either cosmic rays or Dark Energy or Cold Fusion.

Sure, my theory sucks and can't be proven in a lab either, but if I throw government funding at enough people I can come to "Consensus" and have my "Science" declared Settled.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Prove evolution in the lab

Prove the big bang in the lab

Prove the dinosaurs existed...in the lab

good luck!

(ps, science isn't all done by fellers in white coats in labs)


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
> ...



No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.  



wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth.
> ...



Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.  



> I understand warmth, or heat to be the electromagnetic energy that moves between two bodies at different temperatures via convective or conductive transfer such that the energy balance of one is increased and the other is decreased.



You do understand that photons are the carriers of EM energy, don't you?

It is very easy to confuse issues of heat, so perhaps we need to invoke some standardized definitions to make sure that we are both distinguishing and and clearly speaking of the same things:

Heat - a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.

Conduction(or heat conduction) - is the transfer of thermal energy between neighboring molecules in a substance due to a temperature gradient. 

Convection - The transmission of heat in a fluid or gas by the circulation of currents. In general, warm fluids and gases are less dense - due to greater molecular motion, and cooler fluids and gases are more dense - due to less molecular motion.

Radiation(or EM radiation) - the transference of energy via the emission or absorption of photons.

Using these simple definitions we can explore the manners in which heat energy can be transferred and manipulated.

In a hot cup of coffee, the various molecules that make up hot coffee are constantly bouncing into and transferring their thermal energy into the container holding the coffee. If the container is made out of a dense, rigid structure thermally conductive substance, the coffee conducts its energy to the cup (which radiates the energy into the environment) fairly rapidly, if the cup is made out of a low-density, porous stricture that is not a very good thermal conductor, the cuppa will stay hot a lot longer. - Conduction transfers

In a true, glass-predominant envelope, greenhouse, convection is the primary issue. The transparent envelope allows the solar energy (visible light) to warm the surfaces inside which then transfer that energy to the boundary air in contact with those surfaces. This warmed and less dense air then tries to rise. Absent the greenhouse envelope this air would quickly rise and mix with the rest of the atmosphere, but the structure of the greenhouse prevents this convection process allowing the gradual build up of heat within the convectively insulated structure during the day when heat builds up faster than it can be emitted. - Convection transfers

When we look at radiative-transfers is when we get into the realm that is predominantely involved in atmospheric GHG issues. This involves the absorption of visible light by the surface of the planet which then emits IR photons that are absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric ghgs. The concentration of ghgs determines the mean free path of travel of IR photons before they are re-absorbed and re-emitted by other ghg molecules. The higher the concentration of ghgs, the shorter the mean free path and the longer it takes that energy to be transmitted to the top of our atmosphere and out of our planetary environment. The longer the mean free path from surface emission to TOA emission, the quicker the exit of the energy from our system. The shorter the free mean path the more the ambient energy builds up in our system. - Radiative transfers   



> This transfer of energy is heavily influenced by the relative size of the bodies that are transferring energy but the composition and density which determine heat capacity is the more important factor when calculating the capacity for energy transfer.



Actually, with regards to radiative transfer issues (which is the primary issue of concern with regards to atmospheric greenhouse effects), size and density of of the radiating/absorbing bodies really aren't of primary concern. What is important, is the amount and manner of energy being transferred, the absorption and emission characteristics of the various surfaces and substances doing the absorption and emission, and the mean free paths of the various frequencies of emitted radiations in a given system.  



> A passively warmed object has no energy source of its own and therefore can not add to the overall energy balance in an equation.  At best, it can reflect energy but reflected energy does not add to the total amount of energy within a system.



every substance that is above absolute zero emits thermal energy. Some substances emit more energy than they absorb and are thus considered heat sources. Some substances absorb more heat than they emit and are thus considered heat sinks. Energy is never created or destroyed, merely shifted around, or altered in form. 



> Irrelevant.  We are talking laws of nature, not laws of materials or laws of systems.



Actually, it is highly relevent, in many, if not most instances, of translating the idealized and highly qualified generalizations of established physical theory (laws) it is important to look at the details and specific interactions to properly understand what is actually occurring as these interactions are translated from theory into practical expression. In this sense the sun is not one homogenous object radiating energy. Neither is the surface of the Earth nor the gas envelope that makes up our atmosphere. When you looking at practical applications of these theories to actual physical substances, we have to take into acount where and how the energy interacts with the discrete elements that make up real world objects in order to get an accurate understainding of what is happening.



> The vast bulk of the energy in question is generated by the sun.  Do we really need to discuss how the sun works?



evidently, we do (back to that "scratching the surface"). The energy isn't transformed from potential to actual in the outer layers of the Sun. The potential energy realized and released from fusion, occurs in the core of the Sun and are absorbed and re-emitted in the various layers of the Sun over a period of 100,000 years or so until it is finally emitted by the outermost layers of the Sun and then spends about 8 minutes zipping from the surface of the sun to the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed by the surface and re-emitted as an IR photon.



> A smaller portion of the energy in question comes from within the earth itself.  Again, do we need to discuss what is going on at the core of the earth?



I'm not sure, at least you seem to be able to distinguish between the core of the Earth and the surface where such energies are eventually emitted into our atmosphere, and after an additional period of atmospheric absorption and re-emission, eventually emitted into the voids beyond our atmosphere. 



> If you are talking about the energy being radiated from the earth to the atmosphere, then for the most part, we are talking about energy being radiated from the passively warmed surface of the earth into the atmosphere.  The bulk of the energy the earth radiates gets to the earth (not stopped by the atmosphere) because it arrives in a wave length that is invisible to the atmosphere.



No, the energy from the core of the earth is radiated in the same infrared wavelengths that the surface emits from absorbing the visible light emitted from the Sun. To the materials of the surface it matters not whether the energy they absorb comes from materials deeper in the crust of our planet, infrared backradiation from the atmospheric emissions of GHGs or the visible light emitted by the Sun. These surface materials absorb a broad range of wavelengths (visible and invisible), but they emit predominantly within a few fairly narrow ranges of the IR spectrum.



> Of course it does.  If energy is being radiated back to the earth, providing additional warmth to the earth which it then radiates back into the atmosphere, then we are talking about multiplying energy.



no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.



> If you are merely talking about slowing down the escape of energy into space, then we arent talking about warming at all as warming a thing, and slowing the rate at which it cools are two entirely different things.  If there is no warming, then there is no crisis.



Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> This is simply incorrect.



No experiment related to global warming that is performed within a closed system proves anything with regard to the open system that is our atmosphere.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> ... you can't create an entire environment in a lab.   That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes.  After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up.  Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow?  In my world it does.  I don't know where you're from, however.



Isn't it convenient that it isn't possible to prove your faith?  CO2 is not a driver of the climate and the fact remains that you can not prove that it is.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.



Which of those experiments might be analogous to an open system such as our atmosphere?  Experiments performed under glass are meaningless as related to the atmosphere as they eliminate both convection and conduction.



Trakar said:


> Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.



A trace gas extremely opaque?  CO2 does little more than scatter IR radiation whereas water vapor, a much more abundant gas actually has the capacity to absorb and hold heat.  CO2 is meaningless within the climate system but since it would serve no purpose to demonize water vapor, CO2 gets to be the villan.



Trakar said:


> You do understand that photons are the carriers of EM energy, don't you?



Yes.



Trakar said:


> Heat - a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.



Isn't that what I said?  



Trakar said:


> In a hot cup of coffee, the various molecules that make up hot coffee are constantly bouncing into and transferring their thermal energy into the container holding the coffee. If the container is made out of a dense, rigid structure thermally conductive substance, the coffee conducts its energy to the cup (which radiates the energy into the environment) fairly rapidly, if the cup is made out of a low-density, porous stricture that is not a very good thermal conductor, the cuppa will stay hot a lot longer. - Conduction transfers



And no matter how good the insulator, the temperature is always dropping.  No additional warmth can be added to the system without the input of some form of work.



Trakar said:


> The concentration of ghgs determines the mean free path of travel of IR photons before they are re-absorbed and re-emitted by other ghg molecules.



Actually, the concentration of "ghgs" other than water vapor determine the degree to which the IR emitted by the earth is scattered. 



Trakar said:


> Actually, it is highly relevent, in many, if not most instances, of translating the idealized and highly qualified generalizations of established physical theory (laws) it is important to look at the details and specific interactions to properly understand what is actually occurring as these interactions are translated from theory into practical expression. In this sense the sun is not one homogenous object radiating energy. Neither is the surface of the Earth nor the gas envelope that makes up our atmosphere. When you looking at practical applications of these theories to actual physical substances, we have to take into acount where and how the energy interacts with the discrete elements that make up real world objects in order to get an accurate understainding of what is happening.



Again, the laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of materials or systems.  They apply down to the atomic level.



Trakar said:


> no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.



Again, CO2 is meaningless in the context of the greater abundance of water vapor which actually can absorb and retain heat.  CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses only serve to scatter the energy, not concentrate it.



Trakar said:


> Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.



No, our climate is warming due to forces we, as of yet, do not understand.  The idea that a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere is causing warming is at best, an indefensible hypothesis.  A recently published article in  the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics titled Shortwave forcing of the Earth&#8217;s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun&#8217;s irradiance and the Earth&#8217;s reflectance suggests strongly that the albedo decrease could very well be responsible for a forcing of about 7 Wm2.  Compare that to the claim that ghg forcing for the past 120 years is about 2.4 Wm2.   It is this sort of findings by actual scientists that will drive CO2 back to the position of unimportance it deserves.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > This is simply incorrect.
> ...



This assertion is unsupported.

If you wish to point out the differences in a laboratory experiment and discuss why these specific differences make the laboratory experiment  inaccurate or unreliable in principle application to the atmosphere you might be making a more accurate and compelling argument.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 1, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



I thought it was obvious.  Experiments "under glass" eliminate conduction and in turn convection.  They use a material that is not part of the atmosphere to hold in energy to a degree that isn't even closely approximated in the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

That is about as definitive of an experiment as you can get.

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present | Proceedings - SPIE Digital Library


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.
> ...


All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate. 


wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.
> ...


opaque to the IR energy
Opaque - A physical description of a material which attenuates electromagnetic radiation. - Glossary of Satellite Meteorolgy Terms
(and from same source  Attenuation - Any process in which the intensity of radiation decreases due to scattering or absorption.)


wirebender said:


> CO2 does little more than scatter IR radiation whereas water vapor, a much more abundant gas actually has the capacity to absorb and hold heat.  CO2 is meaningless within the climate system but since it would serve no purpose to demonize water vapor, CO2 gets to be the villan.


Water vapor is strongly included as the proportionally largest volume of the ghg gases, responsible for around 75W/m2(CO2 is currently responsible for less than ½ this amount of ambient energy increase at around 32W/m2). However, due to water vapors low persistence in the atmosphere (on average, about a week) water acts as a feedback, rather than a forcing element. Water vapor is very sensitive to temperature and pressure.  As temperature and/or pressure varies within the normal ranges for the Earths thermosphere, a given volume of atmosphere will not be able to maintain stable levels of water vapor as the water vapor condenses out of air that cools and/or rarifies, and surface moistures evaporate into the atmosphere as the air warms and/or becomes denser. This is the mechanism of forming a thunderhead. As warm, moisture-laden air rises, cools, and expands through an overlying cold, dry air mass, we can witness the condensation of that air masss water vapor as it comes out of the warm moist air forming the storm clouds and raining back down onto the surface.  Water vapor simply doesnt stay in the atmosphere long enough to drive climate change on its own, though it is a very important positive feedback, in that the warmer the average atmospheric temperature gets, the more water the atmosphere can hold.  Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 7% per degree warming of the lower atmosphere. The combination of CO2forcing (and strongly related CH4 forcing which is currently very small) and the various positive feedbacks directly connected to CO2 forcing are the problems that make rising CO2 levels so dramatic in their impacts upon our climate. CO2 is not the only agency involved, but it is the primary forcing factor and its influence is what triggers the other positive, reinforcing feedback factors to their various levels of participation and interaction.   



wirebender said:


> And no matter how good the insulator, the temperature is always dropping.  No additional warmth can be added to the system without the input of some form of work.


The sun shines upon one half of the planet 24/7, the hemisphere facing the Sun is receiving steady input of additional energy. 


> Again, the laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of materials or systems.  They apply down to the atomic level.


Your asserted distinctions are without meaning or bearing on the issues being explained and described.


wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.
> ...


As demonstrated through direct open-air measurement, water vapor content is responsible for the greatest percentage of all GHG forced warming at current STP (a little more than twice  CO2s direct warming), however, the largest single determinant of atmospheric content of H2O is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. 
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf 
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf 


wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.
> ...


I realize from the discussion some of you do not understand. Mainstream climate science, however, has a pretty good and comprehensive understanding of the primary big issues and factors and how they interact to produce the results we observe and measure. I am trying to help you to at least understand what the science indicates. Im not expressing personal musings, I am explaining what is taught in all major variants of science classes from grade school through post-doc.


> The idea that a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere is causing warming is at best, an indefensible hypothesis.  A recently published article in  the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics titled Shortwave forcing of the Earths climate: Modern and historical variations in the Suns irradiance and the Earths reflectance suggests strongly that the albedo decrease could very well be responsible for a forcing of about 7 Wm2.  Compare that to the claim that ghg forcing for the past 120 years is about 2.4 Wm2.   It is this sort of findings by actual scientists that will drive CO2 back to the position of unimportance it deserves.



This assertions are a confused mixture of misunderstanding and error.

You appear to be referring to this paper?

http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007.pdf

if, however, you continue to follow these same authors, in 2009 (largely due to the challenges and findings discovered through the subsequent-to-publication peer-review interactions) revisited their earlier researches and produced:
Inter-annual variations in Earth's reflectance 1999-2007 - http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf 



> The overall reflectance of sunlight from Earth is a fundamental parameter for climate studies. Recently, measurements of earthshine were used to find large decadal variability in Earth's reflectance of sunlight. However, the results did not seem consistent with contemporaneous independent albedo measurements from the low Earth orbit satellite, Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES), which showed a weak, opposing trend. Now more data for both are available, all sets have been either reanalyzed (earthshine) or recalibrated (CERES), and they present consistent results. Albedo data are also available from the recently released International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project flux data (FD) product. Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth's reflectance from the outset of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid-2000. After that and to date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal-scale changes in Earth's reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable and are caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry.



In case you dont recognize it, thats how field prominent scientists say Ooops!

But hey, Im not trying to reveal to you that which God Hisself writ in the stone with his own fiery digit, merely, the best, most thoroughly tested and robustly supported understandings that science has at this point. The human signal is only strongly and significantly detected and measured in the last half century, but it is growing rapidly in strength. Beyond this, however, mainstream climate science recognizes and acknowledges the solar contributions to earth temperature variation during the past 1150 years. Until about the mid-1950s the solar variation component accounted for more than half of all external forcing factors for most of the preceding history of the planet, with the occasional episode of extraordinary event adding their contribution (excessive basaltic volcanism,  major impact event, or biologic event). The problem right now isnt the Suns (largely negative) contribution, but a biologic event causing an atmospheric composition change.
How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

As referenced in other threads here are a few online climate science textbooks used by major universities around the world for those who would like to improve their understandings of the actual science involved I urge you to explore. You dont have to give up your political beliefs to understand the science. Most people who have seriously explored and sought to understand the science support and agree with the science regardless of their political persuasion.(unfortunately the draft copy of Pierrehumberts text on planetary climates which really nicely lays out the processes is no longer freely available online but I encourage others to seek it out in their libraries or local booksellers) 

AMS Climate Studies Textbook
Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modelling - Welcome Page 
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
Environmental Geoscience: Environmental Science in the 21st Century


----------



## wirebender (Jun 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.



Yeah, I have seen those "measurements" posted by your side.  One graph that makes a comparison to nothing, claiming to prove a reduction in olr.  But when you look at the graphs that your graph supposedly compares itself to, you see that there is no difference at all and the report itself talks about massaging the modern numbers while the original numbers must have been feeling fine as they needed no massaging at all.



Old Rocks said:


> That is about as definitive of an experiment as you can get.



Well, it is about as definitive example of pseudoscientific fraud as one might find.  If you would like to see all the graphs, I will happily oblidge.  You look at them and tell me where you see the claimed changes in OLR.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions. 






The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers.  The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.











Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.
> ...



The Warmers respond:


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present | Proceedings - SPIE Digital Library

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present 
Proc. SPIE 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

Conference Date: Monday 02 August 2004 
Conference Location: Denver, CO, USA 
Conference Title: Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII 
Conference Chairs: Marija Strojnik 





  Alerts  
 Alert Me When Cited  Alert Me When Corrected   Tools  
 Download Citation  Add to MyScitation  Blog This Article  Print-Friendly  Research Toolkit   Share   
 Email Abstract   Connotea   CiteULike   del.icio.us   BibSonomy  Tweet this Article Add to Facebook Abstract Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries 
Imperial College London (United Kingdom)

Measurements of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation allows signatures of many aspects of greenhouse warming to be distinguished without the need to amalgamate information from multiple measurements, allowing direct interpretation of the error characteristics. Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

*A blog with links to the original papers.*

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". 

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect


----------



## wirebender (Jun 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. /QUOTE]
> 
> Correction.  What they found was that the simulations predicted such a drop.  I have provided you the graphs from the 70's and the more modern era.  Point out to me where there is an actual decrease in OLR as opposed to a simulated prediction of OLR.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 2, 2011)

Trakar said:


> All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.




I am going to have to get to this a piece at a time due to time constraints but this being the most important, I will touch on it first.  Off the bat, let me state emphatically that I am not a "math" guy.  Even though I took a great deal of it in college, it never became like a "language" to me.  I can do it but it takes a concentrated effort on my part. 

Open aire measurements of absorption and emission spectra.  I am guessing you mean the decades worth of measurements taken by agencies such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement climate research facility (ARM Climate Research Facility) that claim to demonstrate downdwelling radiation resulting from greenhouse gasses.

They point an infrared radiometer at the sky and make measurements.  The question is what are they measuring and does it prove the greenhouse hypothesis in any manner?  What is actually happening when you point that instrument at the sky?

An infrared radiometer pointed at the sky will measure the frequency of any incoming "light" and makes a calculation based on Wien's displacement law to determine the temperature of the "light" emitter or source of the radiation.    Then using Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4, suggests a downdwelling IR "flux" from the atmosphere.  

Based on this, climate "scientists" claim to be able to prove the effects of "greenhouse" gasses.  The question is, are they?  I don't believe they are and here is why.

Do you think it is proper to use Stefan-Boltzman in the form of Q = sigma T^4 in an attempt to measure downdwelling IR from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?  Stefan-Boltzman describes the radiant energy from a blackbody into a surrounding space at zero degrees Kelvin.  The problem lies in the fact that the surface of the earth is not at zero degrees Kelvin and not only that, is warmer than the emitting source of the radiation.  

Stefan-Boltzman is being misused and misinterpreted in an attempt to prove a thing that simply is not happening.  

Beyond that, even if the infrared radiometer were using the correct calculations, the emission spectra from CO2 and H20, and all the other so called greenhouse gasses are line spectra, not continuous as blackbody spectra are.

I am telling you that the whole greenhouse effect is a scam.  It is unscientific and fraudulent and it's damned unfortunate that so many people have been taken in by it.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## wirebender (Jun 2, 2011)

Trakar said:


> The eyes are the worst piece of equipment to analyze such graphs, only the mathematical comparison analyses of the datasets are going to tell you the actual story of what has happened, particularly at the scale these graphs appear to be drawn at.





Print the graphs and overlay them then tell me that the changes claimed are so minute that they remain undetectable, then tell me that if they are so minute that they remain undetectable that they even approach the margin of error involved in such measurements.  Far from being proof of AGW, they seem to represent a bullet to the head of the whole hypothesis of AGW.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.
> ...



Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion. I'm a bit short of time today, myself, but will try to put together a more comprehensive response this evening. There do seem to be some scams being perpetrated by both private and governmental representatives, but as far as I can tell by the available empiric evidences, these scams have nothing to do with the viability or verifabilty of mainstream science and climate science.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 2, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.



What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science.  What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.  What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and 
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science.  My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.
> ...



ROTFLMAO.......your delusions about climate science make 'flat-earthers' look sane.

Your delusion that your beliefs are "_rational_" is just plain hilarious.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.
> ...



So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation. 

In case you have not noticed, Bentwired, both socialism and capitialism are social tools, to be used where they work the best for all the citizens. When one tool is failing in a significant way, such as capitalism in Healthcare, time to try the other tool. But there are always the fools that will insist on using a wrench when they need a screwdriver.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> ROTFLMAO.......your delusions about climate science make 'flat-earthers' look sane.
> 
> Your delusion that your beliefs are "_rational_" is just plain hilarious.



And yet, you remain completely unable to provide any actual observed evidence from the "science" you so fervently believe in to support the claims being made.  The open air measurements referenced by Trakar are the closest thing I have seen from your side to actual observations that might support the claims but as you can see, they are not measurements of downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of AGW) at all.

So instead of laughing like a monkey in a tree, how about you provide some actual observed evdience that provides an unequivocal link betweeen the activities of man and the changing global climate.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.



So tell me rocks, do you believe the radiometers that are giving readings based on Wien's displacement law and Stefan-Boltzmann's law are actuall measuring downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the hypothesis of AGW) when Stefan-Boltzmann's law clearly describes the radiant energy from a blackbody radiating into a surrounding space at zero degrees kelvin and the measurements are being taken from the surface of the planet which is warmer than the blackbody the instruments are supposed to be reading?

If your climate scientists are as brilliant as you believe, why has this issue not been addressed?  Or has it been addressed and simply swept under the carpet in an effort to continue the hoax and keep the money rolling in?  

Do you believe the "scientists" when they tell you that they are measuring downdwelling radiation?



Old Rocks said:


> Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.



Socialism as a viable governmental system rocks.  And if you will, please show me a single example of a socialist government that has delivered on the promises of socialism.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 3, 2011)

Why do the real scientists fudge data??


----------



## wirebender (Jun 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Why do the real scientists fudge data??



The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging.  It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment.  In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Why do the real scientists fudge data??



They don't.

Why are you and wiredbent such fudge packers?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging.  It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment.  In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....riiiiight, wiredbent, you know better than all of those professional scientists.....I guess one of the mental illnesses that the doctors are treating you for must be 'megalomania with paranoid delusions'.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2011)

Warmers are Flat Earthers because their "Science" can only be "Believed", the laboratory is a cruel Mistress to Flat Earthers and Warmers


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2011)

> All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.
> 
> I am going to have to get to this a piece at a time due to time constraints but this being the most important, I will touch on it first. Off the bat, let me state emphatically that I am not a "math" guy. Even though I took a great deal of it in college, it never became like a "language" to me. I can do it but it takes a concentrated effort on my part.
> 
> Open aire measurements of absorption and emission spectra. I am guessing you mean the decades worth of measurements taken by agencies such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement climate research facility (ARM Climate Research Facility) that claim to demonstrate downdwelling radiation resulting from greenhouse gasses



Actually, I was primarily, and initially thinking about the involved military analyses and researches from the 30s forward which have been involve in comprehensive full-depth analyses of the Earths atmosphere and its properties. This data and the understandings it has provided were necessary to the production of advanced guidance, sensor/imaging and tracking systems; spysats to sidewinders, handheld thermal-imagers to IV generation FLIR systems. These same understandings and data, provide a gold mine to atmospheric researchers and climatologists, and provide one of the major sources of new support and conformational support for more direct climate researches and studies.  

You are not questioning climate science, you are questioning extensive findings, data and understandings throughout many fields of science and scientific methodology! Did you even attempt to visit and go through any of the references presented? All of these issues of practice, procedure and general methodology are discussed in most of the individual papers and all of the general climate science textbooks I presented, I urge you to go back and brush upon on some of the basics of chemistry and physics that are really helpful in understanding what is actually happening and why.  

Regardless, I am more than happy to continue to discuss these issues with you, in whatever degree of depth and detail you are comfortable with, I am, however, trying to beat another round of freak weather here in N. California! I wanted to jot off these responses from yesterdays posts before flying out. With luck, I should be home shortly. 
Stay safe!
T.S.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static. 

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in _atmospheric CO2 levels_ that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 _in the oceans_ has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:
*A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.*​
CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "_Ocean Ph_" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "_degrees_" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

*What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry
*
*Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans havent experienced for more than 20 million years.

*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying because you Warmers are impossible to pin down an exactly what this "theory" is.

The science is "Settled" so I want to make certain I understand it

I deduce from your post that CO2 has increased lets call it 150PPM of which 40PPM gets sucked up by the ocean and 110PPM of the "deadly" CO2 stays in the air (let's forget for a second if that how it really works, OK? That's how you say it works).

Are you alleging that the 40PPM of atmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .1?

Your brother in Faith Chris linked to another "Settled Science" article claiming a drop of at least .3 Ph. That's why I have to keep asking any of you to state exactly what this "theory" of yours is. The article is very vague in allocating CO2 increase between the local vents in the ocean floor and "manMade" CO2, but trust us, this ManMade CO2 will kill all the coral.

http://news.uk.msn.com/environment/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157927333


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Scientists figure that the oceans have been absorbing about 2.3 billion metric tons a year. They've probably absorbed at least 60 or 70 gigatons since the start of the industrial revolution. Here's some information on how it all works from a European Science website, the European Project on OCean Acidification (EPOCA). The material is free to reproduce for educational purposes and is not under restrictive copyright.

_*What is ocean acidification?

The consequences of man's use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in terms of global warming has not escaped anyones attention. Ocean acidification is another, and much less known, result of the approximately 79 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere every day, not only as a result of fossilfuel burning but also of deforestation and production of cement (7). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, about one third ofthe CO2 released in the atmosphere by anthropogenic (human-caused) activities has been absorbed by the worlds oceans,which play a key role in moderating climate change (5). Without this capacity of the oceans, the CO2 content in the atmosphere would have been much higher and global warming and its consequences more dramatic. The impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems are still poorly known but one of the most likely consequences is the slower growth of organisms forming calcareous skeletons or shells, suchas corals and mollusks.

The carbon cycle

Inorder to understand ocean acidification and its possible impacts, one needs to understand the behaviour of carbon in nature. Carbon, as other elements, is circulating in different chemical forms and between different parts of the Earth system (atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans). These fluxes of carbon in inorganic (e.g. CO2) and organic forms (sugar and more complex carbohydrates in the biosphere) constitute the carbon cycle. In a very short time span, human activities use an old reservoir of carbon (fossil fuels) which took millions of years to accumulate, thus creating a new and massive flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. The oceans can mitigate this additional carbon dioxide flux and thus help moderate global warming but this is not without consequences.

The world's oceans play a fundamental role in the exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere and constitute an important sink for atmospheric CO2. Once dissolved in sea water, carbon dioxide is subject to two possible fates. It can either be used by photosynthesis or other physiological processes, or remain free in its differentdissolved forms in the water. The latter leads to ocean acidification.

The chemical process of ocean acidification

There is a constant exchange between the upper layers of the oceans and the atmosphere. Nature strives towards equilibrium, and thus for the ocean and the atmosphere to contain equal concentrations of CO2. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere therefore dissolves in the surfacewaters of the oceans in order to establish a concentration inequilibrium with that of the atmosphere. As CO2 dissolves in the ocean it generates dramatic changes in sea water chemistry. CO2 reacts with water molecules (H2O) and forms the weak acid H2CO3 (carbonic acid). Most of this acid dissociates into hydrogen ions (H+) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). The increase in H+ ions reduces pH (measure of acidity) and the oceans acidify, that is they become more acidic or rather less alkaline since although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of water with a neutral pH). The average pH of today's surface waters is 8.1, which is approximately 0.1 pH units less than the estimated pre-industrial value 200 years ago (2,3).

Projections of future changes

Modeling demonstrates that if CO2 continues to be released on current trends, ocean average pH will reach 7.8 by the end of this century, corresponding to 0.5 units below the pre-industrial level, a pH level that has not been experienced for several millions of years (1). A change of 0.5 units might not sound as a very big change, but the pH scale is logaritmic meaning that such achange is equivalent to a three fold increase in H+ concentration. All this is happening at a speed 100 times greater than has ever been observed during the geological past. Several marine species, communities and ecosystems might not have the time to acclimate or adapt to these fast changes in ocean chemistry.

Possible consequences on marine organisms

The dissolution of carbon dioxide in sea water not only provokes an increase in hydrogen ions and thus a decline in pH, but also a decreasein a very important form of inorganic carbon: the carbonate ion (CO32-). Numerous marine organisms such as corals, mollusks, crustaceans and seaurchins rely on carbonate ions to form their calcareous shells or skeletons in a process known as calcification. The concentration of carbonate ions in the ocean largely determines whether there is dissolution or precipitation of aragonite and calcite, the two natural polymorphs of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), secreted in the form of shells or skeletons by these organisms. Today, surface waters are super saturated with respect to aragonite and calcite, meaning that carbonate ions are abundant. This super saturation is essential, not only for calcifying organisms to produce their skeletons or shells, but also to keep these structures intact. Existing shells and skeletons might dissolve if pH reach lower values, and the oceans turn corrosive for these organisms. Consequently, the results ofthe decrease in carbonate ions might be catastrophic for calcifying organisms which play an important role in the food chain and form diverse habitats helping the maintenance of biodiversity.

The magnitude of ocean acidification can be predicted with a high level of confidence since the ocean chemistry is well known. But the impacts of the acidification on marine organisms and their ecosystems is much less predictable. Not only calcifying organisms are potentially affected by ocean acidification. Other main physiological processes such as reproduction, growth and photosynthesis are susceptible to be impacted, possibly resulting in an important loss in marine biodiversity. But it is also possible that some species, like seagrasses that uses CO2 for photosynthesis, are positively influenced by ocean acidification. Ocean acidification research is still in its infancy and more studies are required to answer the numerous questions related to its biological and biogeochemical consequences.

References:
1) Caldeira, K., Wickett, M.E., 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425 (6956): 365365.
2) Key, R.M.; Kozyr, A.; Sabine, C.L.; Lee, K.; Wanninkhof, R.; Bullister, J.; Feely, R.A.; Millero, F.; Mordy, C. and Peng, T.-H. (2004). "A global ocean carbon climatology: Results from GLODAP". Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18
3) Orr J. C., Fabry V. J., Aumont O., Bopp L., Doney S. C., Feely R. A. et al. 2005. "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact oncalcifying organisms". Nature 437 (7059): 681686.
4) Raven, J. A. et al. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Royal Society, London, UK.
5) Sabine C. L. et al., 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367-371.
6) Martin S. et al. 2008. Ocean acidification and its consequences. French ESSP Newsletter 21: 5-16.
7) IPCC 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers.

For more information on ocean acidification, carbonate chemistry and the carbon cycle, see the key documents and web resources.

Glossary

Acclimate - To accustom or become accustomed to a new environment or situation.

Aragonite - An orthorhombic (system of crystallization characterized by three unequal axes at right angles to each other) mineral form of crystalline calcium carbonate, dimorphous with calcite

Biosphere  The living organisms and their environment

Calcite - A common crystalline form of natural calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that is the basic constituent of limestone, marble, and chalk. Also called calcspar.

Inorganic - Involving neither organic life nor the products of organic life

Ocean acidification  The process by which carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, giving rise to a decrease in pH and other changes in ocean carbonate chemistry

Organic - Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms

pH  Measure of acidity (pH= -log[H+])

Photosynthesis - The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.

Phytoplankton - Minute, free-floating aquatic plants (algae, protists, and cyanobacteria).

Polymorph  Chemistry: A specific crystalline form of a compound that can crystallize in different forms.*_

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


----------



## RWatt (Jun 4, 2011)

Arctic ice seems to be tracking at or slightly below 2010 at the moment:


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2011)

Greenland is part of the Arctic ice that is being lost to global warming. Here's some new research, using some new techniques, that highlights the continuing and accelerating ice mass loss from Greenland that is helping to raise sea levels.

*2 Greenland Glaciers Lose Enough Ice to Fill Lake Erie*

ScienceNewsLine
Published: May 25, 2011
Ohio State University
(excerpts)

*COLUMBUS, Ohio  A new study aimed at refining the way scientists measure ice loss in Greenland is providing a high-definition picture of climate-caused changes on the island. And the picture isnt pretty. In the last decade, two of the largest three glaciers draining that frozen landscape have lost enough ice that, if melted, could have filled Lake Erie. Jakobshavn alone drains somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of all the ice flowing outward from inland to the sea, explained Ian Howat, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. His study appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As the second largest holder of ice on the planet, and the site of hundreds of glaciers, Greenland is a natural laboratory for studying how climate change has affected these ice fields. Researchers focus on the mass balance of glaciers, the rate of new ice being formed as snow falls versus the flow of ice out into the sea. Kangerdlugssuaq would have to stop flowing and accumulate snowfall for seven years to regain the ice it has lost, said Howat, also a member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.

The real value of the research, however, is the confirmation that the new techniques Howat and his colleagues developed will provide scientists a more accurate idea of exactly how much ice is being lost. Past estimates, he said, have been merely snapshots of what was going on at these glaciers in terms of mass loss. We really need to sample them very frequently or else we wont really know how much change has occurred. This new research pumps up the resolution and gives us a kind of high-definition picture of ice loss, he said. To get this longer-timeframe image, Howat and colleagues drew on data sets provided by at least seven orbiting satellites and airplanes, as well as other sources.*

© 2011 ScienceNewsline

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


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Frank old boy, you are one stupid ass. The article did not claim the drop was 0.3. The article stated that the seeps created a localized effect that in places was down to 7.7, which killed the reefs. 

It then went on to state that the predicted ph for the ocean in 2100 is 7.8. Which is right on the edge of extinction for most corals. As the title of the article states.*

Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' -  Environment | MSN News - MSN UK

Coral reefs around the world could be teetering on the brink of extinction by the end of the century as the oceans become more acidic, scientists have warned.

New evidence from volcanic seeps - fissures in the ocean floor that leak gases and minerals - suggests a bleak future for the reefs that harbour the world's richest marine ecosystems.

Three natural carbon dioxide (CO2) seeps in Papua New Guinea have given scientists a snapshot of how coral reefs may look in 100 years.

Like man-made sources of carbon dioxide, the seeps are making the water around them more acidic.

The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Actually, I was primarily, and initially thinking about the involved military analyses and researches from the 30s forward which have been involve in comprehensive full-depth analyses of the Earths atmosphere and its properties. This data and the understandings it has provided were necessary to the production of advanced guidance, sensor/imaging and tracking systems; spysats to sidewinders, handheld thermal-imagers to IV generation FLIR systems.



None of those analyses provide evidence of downdwelling radiation or a greenhouse effect.  The instrumentation used for military use was cooled to a temperature of -4 degrees F or thereabouts so that the recieving instrument would not be warmer than the emitter.  Same issue as before except the recieving station was artifically cooled.  In either case, no evidence of backradiation or a greenhouse effect was produced.



Trakar said:


> These same understandings and data, provide a gold mine to atmospheric researchers and climatologists, and provide one of the major sources of new support and conformational support for more direct climate researches and studies.



No understanding at all is being realized when the Stefan-Boltzman equations are being misinterpreted and misused. 



Trakar said:


> You are not questioning climate science, you are questioning extensive findings, data and understandings throughout many fields of science and scientific methodology!



As noted, the "findings" don't apply to climate science.  



Trakar said:


> Did you even attempt to visit and go through any of the references presented? All of these issues of practice, procedure and general methodology are discussed in most of the individual papers and all of the general climate science textbooks I presented,



Actually, none of the issues I brought up were covered anywhere I could find.  Of course, that isn't surprising since the hoax must be continued.




Trakar said:


> I urge you to go back and brush upon on some of the basics of chemistry and physics that are really helpful in understanding what is actually happening and why.



Interesting.  You believe I should brush up on the basics when it is you who has been taken in by a hoax.  You want some basics.  Here is a basic that disproves greenhouse theory as it is described.  The testing had nothing to do with climate science and was not performed by climate scientists.  Perhaps that is how the data managed to make it to the mainstream unmassaged.

Some time back, some students at BYU did some experimentation with an easy to fabricate solar oven for use in third world countries.  The location and description of the oven as well as plans for fabrication  a description of the experiment and some tasty recipes can be found here and here.

The third section from the bottom is what particularly interests me.  Here is a clip from the page:

"The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky.  During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky. [11] For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. [8] So the heat should be radiated outward.  Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.[7]  The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel.  The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately   -20 °C. [2] So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere."

The oven could even be used to make ICE when the ambient temperature was 47.5 degrees F.

If downdwelling radiation exists and the resulting greenhoues effect claimed, then explain how the solar oven could produce ice when according to the hypothesis, downdwelling radiation from greenhouse gasses is available day or night.  For that matter, explain how cooling could be achieved during the day when downdwelling radiation could not be escaped.

Which law of physics do you believe supports the notion that greenhouse gasses radiate IR from the earth back towards the earth and at the same time would allow the formation of ice at 47.5 degrees F?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Why do the real scientists fudge data??
> ...



Of course they do and the evidence has been presented to you repeatedly.  The fact that showing you such evidence results in you clapping your hands over your ears, shuttting your eyes, and yelling LA LA LA at the top of your lungs doesn't alter the fact that climate science routinely manipulates the data in whatever way they feel necessary to perpetuate the hoax.

Here are a few examples:






The alterations to the data are quite obvious.  Make the past cooler and warm the present.

The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale) | Watts Up With That?






Again, adjusting down the past temperatures in order to create unprecedented warming in the present.

GISS Vs NCDC Using The Same Baseline | Real Science

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e60ebfc83970c-pi

NASA  Heating Up Antarctica | Real Science






Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?






One of the more blatant examples of fraudulent data in an effort to create the illusion of more warming.  Whatever it takes to keep those research dollars coming in.

ICECAP






Yet more evidence of altering the temperature record.

ICECAP






More evidence of adjusting the past downward and the present upward.

Cooking The Books At USHCN | Real Science






And example of blatant omission of data in an effort to create the illusion of unprecedented changes in the present.

Hide the Decline: Sciencemag # 3 « Climate Audit






This is a good one.  Hansen wants to impress you with the increase in ocean heat content so he shows you a graph; but wait you say, the records go back to the middle 1500's so why establish a cut off date of 1980?  When you look at the record going back to the 1500's it becomes abundantly clear why he would cut the record off at 1980.  When you look at the entire record it is clear that nothing unprecedented at all is going on today.  You guys love to establish cut off dates in an effort to make the present look unprecedented.  That is fraud as well my friend.






C3: Fabricating Climate Science The Old-Fashioned NASA Way: It's 2011 And Hansen Still Pulls This Bullsh^t






Here is a good one.  Lets create the illusion that Hawaii is burning up.  Of course when you look at the actual data, the illusion dries up.







I can go on and on with this.  How much more would you like to see.  The fact is that at present, the record has been so manipulated and tampered with by climate scientists trying to prove a lie that it simply can no longer be trusted.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging.  It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment.  In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.
> ...



No actual answer I see.  Just the usual impotent insult.  Feel free to prove that the claim I made was false and that Stefan-Boltzman does not calculate for a blackbody radiating into a space maintaining 0 degrees Kelvin.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 5, 2011)

What are the chances that this year breaks the record for the lowest sea ice in recorded history in the arctic?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> The alterations to the data are quite obvious.  Make the past cooler and warm the present.



Alterations to such data are to be expected. For example the UAH satellite record run by Roy Spencer has been adjusted upwards much more than that record above. When errors are found they must be corrected, irregardless of whether that alters the record. It would be rather odd if Hansen was the only scientist not to have to make corrections or adjustments to records.



> Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.



The same argument as above goes. What I wanted to mention here is as a point of interest the caption is slightly wrong. Temperature data is not input into climate models, the climate models don't work by extrapolating past temperature changes.



> C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first two graphs are GISTEMP land stations only. The last graph is GISTEMP land+ocean. And that's why they look so different in the positions marked, not because they've been altered. (another reason the first two look so different is that the y-axis scaling is very different on each)

Here for example is the GISTEMP 1980 graph overlaid on a GISTEMP 2010 graph. Pretty much identical considering GISTEMP didn't really exist in 1980 and that graph is actually a prototype for what would become GISTEMP.





And if we do the same with the 1987 GISTEMP graph again it lines up very well:





See this for details:
Climate WTF: GISTEMP attacked again


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



That's science?  Measuring effect near a deep ocean vent and extrapolating ocean wide is what's science?

I predict you will never post a lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 does any of the crap you claim.

Using the same "Science" if you measured temperature near an erupting volcano we predict that Earth will become a planet of molten lava with a surface temperature of 500 degrees.

Moron


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.
> ...



But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


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



LOLOLOL....yeah but the problem is....your so-called "_evidence_" is just more pseudo-science and ignorant nonsense from a bunch of idiotic, anti-science denier cult blogs, like 'Wattsupmybutt', Steven Goddard's 'Real (Phony) Science', Steve McIntrye's 'Climate Audinut', Exxon sponsored 'ICECAP' or anonymous nutjob blog 'C3'. You're gullible enough and certainly scientifically ignorant enough to fall for that bullshit but real scientists just laugh at it. As would most everybody with any knowledge of the history of climate science and even a basic understanding of the evidence and how much research has gone into this field of study and how often early estimates get refined based on better data or better analysis. It's how science works but you're too generally ignorant about science to grasp that fact. And that's why your "_evidence_" only shows up on propaganda blogs aimed at ignorant, paranoid, moronic fucks like you instead of being published in a real science journal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

RWatt said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No. Because that's how science is done. Can show us how you eliminated all variables except for (5, 60, 100 PPM) increase in CO2? No!

That's why Global Warming is not even a theory because theories get tested. It's a hunch or some stupid notion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2011)

Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Do you realize that it's not possible to test the entire atmosphere in a lab? It can't be scaled down to fit into a lab in order to experiment on eliminating variables.

Given it's not possible would you conclude science is powerless to ever understand weather and climate? Or do you suspect there might be some other way of figuring these things out?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.



I reject it because it fails the most basic requirements of scientific testing, or rather when subject to testing your "theory" fails. 

You can only resuscitate it by keeping it out of the lab.

You can only show that a 60% CO2 atmosphere has some slight effect on temperature, you fail when you test it on the order of magnitude you claim


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

RWatt said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RWatt said:
> ...



If you can't eliminate variables, how can you claim you've limited the "warming" to CO2?

Moreover, why can't you show *ANY* of the effect you allege in a lab given a 100PPM increase in CO2.  Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 5, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.
> ...



I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other. If they're far apart like on mars they make very little heat much alike our thermalsphere can be thousands of degree's and if you could feel the air it wouldn't feel hot. Earth's Atmosphere doesn't have the thickness of Venuses, so part of the 900+ f the surface of that planet is partly because of that and the 20 million miles closer to the sun, but a increase in co2 "if" co2 on earth where to increase to 10, 20, 50, 70 or 90 percent would have a very real effect on the surface temperature of our planet. 

Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.

I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

RWatt said:


> I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege", but given the atmosphere can't be simulated in a lab then I wonder how you know "Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege" to be the case in the actual atmosphere, unless you accept some other type of evidence than lab experiments?



This is like saying you can't predict planetary orbits because we can't put a planet in a lab.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> What are the chances that this year breaks the record for the lowest sea ice in recorded history in the arctic?



Considering the fact that the ice has been melting back for some 14,000 years now, and the fact that for the bulk of earth history, there has been no ice at one, or both of the poles, I would say that the chances are very high of records being broken, or not as that is the natural tendency of the climate system.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

RWatt said:


> But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?



I just posted an experiment, and the directions for building the equipment yourself that proves quite convincingly that the greenhouse effect as described by warmists is simply not happening.  

Or perhaps you might like to tell me how, if the phenomenon of downdwelling IR exists, how one might aim a solar oven at the nightime sky and get ice with an ambient temperature of nearly 48 degrees or realize a cooling during the day light hours.  Describe that observed evidence in the context of a hypothesis that suggests that IR emitted by the earth is being backradiated 24 hours a day to the extent that the earth is warming.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other.



Are you making the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are going to raise the atmospheric pressure of the earth 90+ times and bring about a venus like climate on earth?  



Matthew said:


> but a increase in co2 "if" co2 on earth where to increase to 10, 20, 50, 70 or 90 percent would have a very real effect on the surface temperature of our planet.



No it wouldn't.   CO2 is not driving the climate.



Matthew said:


> Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.



Look at earth history.  Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine.  CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate.  Certainly not a driver.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other.
> ...



60, 100, 500 million years ago the sun put out less energy and was dimmer to. Maybe that co2 helped make the planet warm enough for life to flourish? Water vapor on earth of course is a much more important driver of climate and will remain so for another 4 billion years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



In fact, in Al Gore's Peer Reviewed Bible on the subject "Earth in the Balance" he blames Water vapor for any increases in temperature


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

God, Franky, will you ever stop being a dumb ass? Water vapor is a feedback from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level...  Basic    Intermediate    
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming  


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere &#8212; making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further&#8212;a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> God, Franky, will you ever stop being a dumb ass? Water vapor is a feedback from CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
> 
> ...



Are we measuring daily micro fluctuations in H2O in PPM like we monitor CO2?

Even in you example you describe a LOCAL effect at In Salah in southern Algeria, how is that GLOBAL?

Again, your phony "Science" presumes that CO2 is the cause of the warming and increase in H2O are caused by CO2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.
> ...



You're the one that keeps asking why things can't be shown in a lab.  Given your earlier posts that EXACTLY what YOU'RE saying!!!  Are you flip-flopping on us, Frank?  Were you for lab experiments before you were against them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.



That's not the issue, Buckwheat.

Can you please state what your "Theory" is? I don't believe you've ever answered that


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RWatt said:
> ...



I can't believe that you may actually be as stupid as your post indicates.  I was being glib, facetious, sarcastic. I was not suggesting we put the planet Mars in a laboratory to study planetary trajectories.

You see that now, right?


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 6, 2011)

Maybe the engine from Al Gore LearJet is melting the ice?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus. [/B]



CO2 isn't the driver on venus either, pressure is.  If venus had an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere much like earth with the pressure found on venus, it would still be an oven.



Matthew said:


> Still green house gas and we can see with Venus that is so at high enough levels. Not sure about 60 or 130 ppm of course.[/B]



Greenhouse gas is a misnomer and a hoax. 

Look at earth history.  Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine.  CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate.  Certainly not a driver.[/QUOTE]



Matthew said:


> 60, 100, 500 million years ago the sun put out less energy and was dimmer to. Maybe that co2 helped make the planet warm enough for life to flourish? Water vapor on earth of course is a much more important driver of climate and will remain so for another 4 billion years.





Since CO2 can not make the earth warmer, it doesn't matter what concentration existed.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.
> 
> Methane catastrophe
> 
> Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.





As usual, you are wrong.  Do try and extract some corelation between extinction events and spikes in atmospheric CO2 levels.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.



I provided you with an experiment you can perform in your own back yard that proves beyond doubt that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the idea of downdwelling radiation is little more than a steaming pile of excrement.  Feel free to try the experiment.  It won't cost you much and will show you that downdwelling radiation does not exist and downdwelling radiation is the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Several times the GHGs in the atmosphere spiked in geological history. And several times the temperature spiked, and there was a major extinction event.
> 
> Methane catastrophe
> 
> Just because we are the source of the GHGs does not change the physics of the atmosphere. And, yes, Frank, that is your laboratory experiment. It has been done, and the results weren't pretty.



Was there a point in that?


----------



## konradv (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Present some real science that states that CO2 is not a GHG.
> ...



We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?!  Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light.  Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > I am saying a lab experiment is not possible. It cannot be done. A scale model of the atmosphere cannot be made to work. This goes for both weather and climate.
> ...



You are the one who insisted that stuff must be proved in a lab to be science.

Interestingly you now allow an exception for planetary orbits. So I am no longer sure what you are arguing.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, Just pointing out that co2 has a very real effect at high enough levels and not that the earth is going to see anything even a thousandth of one percent of venus. [/B]
> ...



Pressure doesn't create heat. You can't create a canister of pressurized gas and use it as an infinite heat source to heat a house for example.

The act of pressurizing a gas creates heat, but it then dissipates. You'd have to be forever squeezing a gas to higher and higher pressure to generate more heat. 

If there was no greenhouse effect on Venus the planet would cool down significantly to a level in balance with incoming sunlight, and as it cooled the pressure of the atmosphere would drop too.



> Look at earth history.  Atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM and oddly enough, it was at such high levels during periods when life flourished to a degree that we can only imagine.  CO2 is, at best a bit player in our climate.  Certainly not a driver.



Yes look at Earth's history. Atmospheric CO2 was thousands of PPM and kept Earth warm despite a fainter sun.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?
> ...



Solar ice makers work by heating a gas up into liquid form, and then letting it evaporate later to create a refrigeration effect.

Given the cold part relies soley on a liquid evaporating it has no relevance to whether IR is coming from the atmosphere or not.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

konradv said:


> We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?!  Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light.  Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?



Actually, I never said any such thing, but do feel free to provide a post of me making such a claim if you like.

Of course, I gave the link already.  It was the results of experiments performed by a physics professor and a bunch of students at BYU.  If you aren't able to go back and find the link, I will post it again. 

As I said, I provided the instructions for you to do the experiment yourself.  I doubt that the total cost would be more than 10 or 15 dollars.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Solar ice makers work by heating a gas up into liquid form, and then letting it evaporate later to create a refrigeration effect.
> 
> Given the cold part relies soley on a liquid evaporating it has no relevance to whether IR is coming from the atmosphere or not.



If you had read the links I provided, you would see that the cooling was achieved with a solar oven, not a solar ice maker and evaporation was not part of the experiment.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > We're supposed to take the word of someone who got on this board and said that H2CO3 isn't an acid?!?!  Your rather fluid knowledge of science puts anything you have to say on this subject in a bad light.  Got a cite where someone other than you did this experiment?
> ...




Look at this asshole "we are supposed to take the word of someone who said H2CO3 is not an acid...!!!"

This dimwit still doesn`t get it ...
I must have explained that to him half a dozen times by now that
[H+] + [HCO3-] is an acid but not tyhe undissociated form [H2CO3]

*This moron simply can`t comprehend that acidity is the -decade log of the number of [H+] ions and not the number of un-dissociated molecules as in H2CO3...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

If the Hydrogen +ION is not dissociated from any given  molecule ,* then that part of the molecule is not part of the acid.*..the [H+] Ions are the acid, and nothing else... else all acids would have the same pH value.
Fuck there is no way this moron could have passed basic Hi-school science, if he still doensn`t understand that



Here it is again...:
pH= -log( ([H+]) and the pKa= log ([H+]/[HA])
where HA is H2CO3 or HCl or H2SO4 or whatever...there is no special climate quackology equation in REAL SCIENCE which says that CO2 does not
have to obey the laws of Physisc & Chemistry....as is the case in this "Glow Screw-Ball Science"
*But You simply can`t educate a retard,....

*Every Chemist & Chemical engineer takes it for granted, that you can store pure Hydrochloric acid in an oridinary steel cylinder because the HCl is not dissociated to [H+] + [Cl-]

Add any amount of H2O which then allows  HCl to dissociate to produce [H+] then it is an acid strong enough to eat through steel...

The same thing goes for H2SO4...
*Nobody ever claimed that H2SO4, HCl etc are not "acids" as this fucking moron twists it..*.I explained it over and over again where he figured that a few ppm CO2 can acidify an entire ocean and where this retard said that ocean water at a pH of ~8.2 was "acid"..."acidified etc...in other words here we have a moron who did at that time not even know that there is no such thing as an "acid" at pH levels above 7 and he is coming back with the same garbage over and over again...because he simply can`t comprehend the whole concept of acids and bases 

*It`s something all these REAL science deniers climate quacks  have in common...*
they haven`t got a fucking clue about science...no math no chem, no physics...just their freak out web page buzzword terminology which they copy and paste into forums like this one...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

So, we are supposed to take the word of some dip on a message board over that of scientists that study the ocean?

NAS Ocean Acid Report

Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the 

Challenges of a Changing Ocean 

Committee on the Development of an Integrated 

Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, 

Research, and Impacts Assessment; National Research

Council


Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books from the

 National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of 

Medicine, and the National Research Council:

&#57344; 

Download hundreds of free books in PDF 

&#57344; 

Read thousands of books online, free 

&#57344; 

Sign up to be notified when new books are published 

&#57344; 

Purchase printed books 

&#57344; 

Purchase PDFs 

&#57344; 

Explore with our innovative research tools 

Thank you for downloading this free PDF. If you have comments, questions or just want 

more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, you may 

contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or

 send an email toc o m m e n t s @ n a p .e d u.

 This free book plus thousands more books are available ath t t p : / / w w w . n a p . e d u .

 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. Permission is granted for this material to be 

shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the 

reproduced materials, the Web address of the online, full authoritative version is retained, 

and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written 

permission from the National Academies Press. 

ISBN: 0-309-15360-3, 175 pages, 6 x 9, (2010) 

This free PDF was downloaded from: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12904.htm


----------



## polarbear (Jun 8, 2011)

RWatt said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Fuck, unbelievable how dumb and ignorant you are...
"Pressure does not "create" heat...".....?????????????


Really....?

And you argue your "point" that 


> You can't *create *a canister of pressurized gas and use it as *an infinite heat source* to heat a house for example.


So tell us how do you "*create* energy"...?

Are you God or something...
there is no way to CREATE ENERGY you moron...
Even a high school kid knows that...

But pressure does "create" heat, just as long as you have the energy to supply the pressure..
So how are houses heated then...which "infinite heat source" are you using...???

And all of the physics equations which show how heat relates to pressure don`t apply in quackology...well that`s no surprise...

So why do`nt you explain it to us with your qauckology why gas gets hotter the more you compress it, you fucking moron...
Then you must be one of these retards who would look for spark-plugs on a Diesel engine unless someone gives you a Wikipedia reference to Diesel Engines and how they work
Somebody should hold down your faggy hands against the cylinder of a running compressor and ask you to repeat your retard statement..:
"Pressure does not create heat"

By the way there are heating systems that do heat houses exactly like that,....they are called "heat-pumps" look it up


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

LOL, BiPolar calling anyone else a moron.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 8, 2011)

Based on measurements of air pressure differences, another way of measuring La Niña besides sea-surface temperatures,* this La Niña in February was the most intense on record. *Accurate measurements go back to 1950.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL, BiPolar calling anyone else a moron.



And still, you remain unable to rebutt a single thing he says.  If he is a moron, and you are unable to form a coherent rebuttal to anything he says, how abysmally stupid does that make you?

Only a genuine idiot calls someone who is clearly his intellectual superior a moron.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 8, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Fuck, unbelievable how dumb and ignorant you are...
> "Pressure does not "create" heat...".....?????????????



It doesn't. 

Heat is only produced during the act of compressing a gas. Once it's compressed, if you just leave it in that state it won't produce any more heat. You'd have to be compressing it more and more to get more heat.

Obviously Venus is not compressing more and more, hence it's very high temperature cannot be explained by the pressure of it's atmosphere. Nor can it be explained by the amount of Sunlight it aborbs (which is less than mercury aborbs yet venus is hotter).

The reason Venus is so warm is because it has a strong greenhouse effect. If it's atmosphere was pure nitrogen, a non-greenhouse gas, it would be far colder.



> So why do`nt you explain it to us with your qauckology why gas gets hotter the more you compress it, you fucking moron...



It doesn't _stay_ hot though does it? No-one buys a canister of compressed gas planning to drop it in the middle of their living room to act as a source of heat.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 8, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Obviously Venus is not compressing more and more, hence it's very high temperature cannot be explained by the pressure of it's atmosphere. Nor can it be explained by the amount of Sunlight it aborbs (which is less than mercury aborbs yet venus is hotter).



Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what is going on in the atmosphere of venus and have even less of an idea of how it relates to earth.  Here is a cut and paste of a bare bones, fairly easy to understand lesson on venus, its atmosphere, and PV=nRT.  I will give you the link so that you can read the whole thing and look at the graphs if you like.

_If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.

Because we have a sun providing energy to the periphery of the atmospheric system, the atmosphere circulates vertically and horizontally to maintain equilibrium. Falling air moves to regions of higher pressure, compresses and warms. The greater the pressure, the greater the warming. Rising air moves to regions of lower pressure, expands, and cools. The amount of warming (or cooling) per unit distance is described as the lapse rate. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C.

It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition. Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.

dT = -10 * dh     where T is temperature and h is height.

With a constant lapse rate, an atmosphere twice as thick would be twice as warm. Three times as thick would be three times as warm. etc. Now lets do some experiments using this information.

Experiment # 1  Atmospheric pressure on Venus surface is 92 times larger than earth, because the atmosphere is much thicker and thus weighs more.  Now suppose that we could instantly change the molecular composition of Venus atmosphere to match that of Earth. Because the lapse rate of Earths atmosphere is very similar to that of Venus, we would see little change in Venus temperature.

Experiment #2  Now, lets keep the atmospheric composition of Venus constant, but instead remove almost 91/92 of it  to make the mass and thickness of Venus atmosphere similar to earth. Because lapse rates are similar between the two planets, temperatures would become similar to those on earth.

Experiment #3  Lets take Earths atmosphere and replace the composition with that of Venus. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would not change very much.

Experiment #4  Lets keep the composition of Earths atmosphere fixed, but increase the amount of gas in the atmosphere by 92X. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would become very hot, like Venus._

Venus Envy | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2011)

So saith an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and Bentwire falls at his feet in worship.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So saith an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and Bentwire falls at his feet in worship.



And still nothing even approaching a coherent statement from old rocks.  Do you dispute any of what I posted regarding venus or the property of pressure and density on temperature?  Can you provide any information that proves even the smallest part wrong?

Lets see the science rocks.  Lets see the proof.

In typical fashion, you don't have a clue as to whether the information is correct or not, you just don't like the source and therfeore you disregard it.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)




----------



## RWatt (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> _Because we have a sun providing energy to the periphery of the atmospheric system, the atmosphere circulates vertically and horizontally to maintain equilibrium. Falling air moves to regions of higher pressure, compresses and warms. The greater the pressure, the greater the warming. Rising air moves to regions of lower pressure, expands, and cools._


_

The reason it is wrong is that the movement of air in this fashion does not add heat to the system, it simply moves it within the system.




			The amount of warming (or cooling) per unit distance is described as the lapse rate. On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition.
		
Click to expand...


All it tells you is the fall of temperature with height. It tells you nothing about the temperature at the surface. Evidentially, because both Earth and Venus have very different surface temperatures yet as noted above very similar lapse rates.




			Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.
		
Click to expand...


Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.

If Venus's atmosphere was transparent to infrared then all 16,000 watts per square meter of energy radiated by the 460 degree C surface would go straight into space.

What's the problem with that? Well Venus only absorbs about 65 watts per square meter of sunlight.

So if the atmosphere was completely transparent to infrared then Venus would be losing staggering amounts of energy, and hence cool. 

There is no solution to Venus's temperature if the atmosphere is transparent to infrared._


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

RWatt said:


> Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.



If the atmosphere of venus were identical to earth in every respect except retained its atmospheric pressure, the temperature of venus would still be as hot as it is right now.

Pressure is what makes venus like it is, not the chemical composition of its atmosphere.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > Venus couldn't maintain such a high temperature if it's atmosphere was transparent to infrared.
> ...



If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 9, 2011)

RWatt said:


> If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.



Lets see some science that proves such a rediculous statement.  By the way, "greenhouse" gasses don't trap infrared.  They absorb and emit precisely the same amount and the waves they emit are to long to be absorbed by another like molecule.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jun 9, 2011)

It's one thing when someone tells you the sky is falling, but it's another thing when they tell you they need your money to stop it.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.
> ...



Venus is only absorbing 65 watts per square meter of sunlight. It's surface at 460 degrees C is emitting over 10,000 watts per square meter of infrared.

If all that infrared just escaped into space (as it would if the atmosphere was transparent to infrared) Venus would be losing massive amounts of energy and would cool.



> By the way, "greenhouse" gasses don't trap infrared.  They absorb and emit precisely the same amount and the waves they emit are to long to be absorbed by another like molecule.



They emit better when they are warmer. So in an atmosphere where temperature drops with height, they do effectively trap heat because the greenhouse gases at higher levels are just as able to absorb as at lower levels, but less able to emit.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > If the atmosphere of Venus could not absorb infrared it would cool significantly and the pressure would drop.
> ...





Some of that is remitted back to the surface that adds more energy to the lower Atmosphere. Right?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2011)

RWatt said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RWatt said:
> ...




This is also my understanding of the green house effect.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 10, 2011)

According to my utility bill this year is running colder than last year and last year was a cool year for us.  It has also rained considerably more.  Colder air cannot hold as much moisture, so it makes sense it would have to shed the moisture in the form of precipitation.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2011)

Why is it the alarmist k00ks never want to discuss Antarctica??









*Oooooooooooops!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 11, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Why is it the alarmist k00ks never want to discuss Antarctica??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I often wonder about Antarctica myself, but I guess it is not warming because of the circulation patterns keep the warming out.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2011)

Accelerating ice loss from the fastest Greenland and Antarctic glaciers

Ice discharge from the fastest glaciers draining the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets &#8211; Jakobshavn Isbrae (JI) and Pine Island Glacier (PIG)&#8211; continues to increase, and is now more than double that needed to balance snowfall in their catchment basins. Velocity increase probably resulted from decreased buttressing from thinning (and, for JI, breakup) of their floating ice tongues, and from reduced basal drag as grounding lines on both glaciers retreat. JI flows directly into the ocean as it becomes afloat, and here creep rates are proportional to the cube of bed depth. Rapid thinning of the PIG ice shelf increases the likelihood of its breakup, and subsequent rapid increase in discharge velocity. Results from a simple model indicate that JI velocities should almost double to >20 km a&#8722;1 by 2015, with velocities on PIG increasing to >10 km a&#8722;1 after breakup of its ice shelf. These high velocities would probably be sustained over many decades as the glaciers retreat within their long, very deep troughs. Resulting sea-level rise would average about 1.5 mm a&#8722;1.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2011)

14,000 years ago Old Pebbles was railing against the use of Fire because the ice was starting to melt.


----------



## westwall (Jun 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Accelerating ice loss from the fastest Greenland and Antarctic glaciers
> 
> Ice discharge from the fastest glaciers draining the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets  Jakobshavn Isbrae (JI) and Pine Island Glacier (PIG) continues to increase, and is now more than double that needed to balance snowfall in their catchment basins. Velocity increase probably resulted from decreased buttressing from thinning (and, for JI, breakup) of their floating ice tongues, and from reduced basal drag as grounding lines on both glaciers retreat. JI flows directly into the ocean as it becomes afloat, and here creep rates are proportional to the cube of bed depth. Rapid thinning of the PIG ice shelf increases the likelihood of its breakup, and subsequent rapid increase in discharge velocity. Results from a simple model indicate that JI velocities should almost double to >20 km a&#8722;1 by 2015, with velocities on PIG increasing to >10 km a&#8722;1 after breakup of its ice shelf. These high velocities would probably be sustained over many decades as the glaciers retreat within their long, very deep troughs. Resulting sea-level rise would average about 1.5 mm a&#8722;1.







It seems they have left some info out.  Here's some more.


"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."


Read more: Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au





Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Accelerating ice loss from the fastest Greenland and Antarctic glaciers
> ...



Sometimes the ice increase and it gets colder during Global Warming.

Yeah.

That has to be it.

Nothing else fits our predetermine outcome


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 11, 2011)

I predict they will predict a new ice age in my lifetime.  <yawn>


----------



## Chris (Jun 11, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 11, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Antarctica is kind of cut off from the rest of the earth as a strong circulation protects it from becoming warmer. Also a "warmer" Antarctica would have more moisture=more snow. See it is so fucking cold down there that any extra moisture would fall as *SNOW.* In fact there are places in Antarctica that hardly see moisture at all, meaning, lucky to have a inch of snow per year because of how damn cold it is. Went to see more snow then warm it up=more moisture and of course more snow. You get growing glacial if you get more snow of course. hehehe


----------



## Chris (Jun 15, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2011)

*Antarctic sea ice is remaining stable or even increasing slightly. Ice on the continent of Antarctica is declining, even in East Antarctica*

BBC News - Polar ice loss quickens, raising seas

One calculates ice gain and loss through combining various types of satellite reading and data taken on the ground, for example the thickness of the ice sheet and the speed at which glaciers are moving.

The second dataset comes from Nasa's Grace mission, which uses twin satellites to measure variations in the Earth's gravitational pull. 

Ice loss causes a fractional reduction in gravity at that point on the Earth's surface.

Two years ago, this mission surprised some in the research community by showing that even the vast and frigid East Antarctic ice sheet was losing some of its mass to the oceans.


----------



## Chris (Jun 16, 2011)

Antarctica is not warming as much because there's a hole in the ozone there larger than the continent itself.

 That we created.

But the oceans have warmed up so much that the ice shelves are beginning to melt.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Accelerating ice loss from the fastest Greenland and Antarctic glaciers
> 
> Ice discharge from the fastest glaciers draining the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets  Jakobshavn Isbrae (JI) and Pine Island Glacier (PIG) continues to increase, and is now more than double that needed to balance snowfall in their catchment basins. Velocity increase probably resulted from decreased buttressing from thinning (and, for JI, breakup) of their floating ice tongues, and from reduced basal drag as grounding lines on both glaciers retreat. JI flows directly into the ocean as it becomes afloat, and here creep rates are proportional to the cube of bed depth. Rapid thinning of the PIG ice shelf increases the likelihood of its breakup, and subsequent rapid increase in discharge velocity. Results from a simple model indicate that JI velocities should almost double to >20 km a&#8722;1 by 2015, with velocities on PIG increasing to >10 km a&#8722;1 after breakup of its ice shelf. These high velocities would probably be sustained over many decades as the glaciers retreat within their long, very deep troughs. Resulting sea-level rise would average about 1.5 mm a&#8722;1.







A perfect example of the warmists selective evidence presentation....you forgot this olfraud...  I highlighted the relevent section.  The ice accretion has been measured in the THOUSANDS of feet.  But hey, don't let a little thing like science get in your way....


"Studies of under-ice lakes in Antarctica first alerted scientists to the capability of pooled melt-water to refreeze on the bottom of ice sheets and deform the upper layers. But this accretion ice was considered an anomaly "a weird thing that happened over sub-glacial lakes," not over the entire ice sheet, Antarctic geophysicist Robin E. Bell of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory told Discovery News.

But in examining bright spots found at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet, Bell and colleagues have since discovered water is interacting with over a quarter of the bottom of the ice sheet - freezing and pushing the entire ice sheet up in a way that is surprisingly similar to the lake effect. "In fact, I'd forgotten the connection until last night," she said in an interview today.

The new discovery is adding an unknown dimension to the overall layer-cake growth model for ice sheets: that ice sheets gain height one layer at a time as the amount of snow falling on the top outpaces the amount of ice melting at the bottom. Bell and her team using ice-penetrating radar atop Antarctica have just turned this idea upside down.

"In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."



Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> "In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."
> Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News



This didn't happen yesterday. She's talking about ice that's been added over millions of years. 

The concern is about ice losses in greenland and antarctica that have occurred in recent years.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

Chris said:


> Antarctica is not warming as much because there's a hole in the ozone there larger than the continent itself.
> 
> That we created.
> 
> But the oceans have warmed up so much that the ice shelves are beginning to melt.







Antarctica is not warming because it's bloody cold down there!  Oh, and your "hole that we made" BS is getting old.  I highlighted the relevent parts for the scientifically impaired.

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Quirin Schiermeier


The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.NASA/AP

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

 Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

Cl2O2 is key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl) that reacts with O3.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere  almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. This must have far-reaching consequences, Rex says. If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being. What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart, says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely, agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.

The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won't be before the end of next year, modellers must make up their minds about what to do, says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander's group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.

Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing  the free atmosphere is something else, says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. There's no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day  whether or not we completely understand the chemistry. But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don't match the observed losses. 

 Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander's group has started to study possible candidates one by one  but so far without success.

Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer  a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure  might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different  or even opposite  from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.

The new measurements raise intriguing questions, but don't compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. We're starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on. He says that he finds it extremely hard to believe that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.



Chemists poke holes in ozone theory : Nature News


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

Ozone data conflict resolved : Nature News

*Ozone data conflict resolved*

Two years after puzzling experiments threatened to shatter established models of ozone depletion in the atmosphere, Taiwanese chemists have published data that support the currently accepted theory.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

RWatt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > "In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."
> ...








I suggest you look at something either then skeptical science for your education.  There is far more out there and they are a warmist group.  There is not one unbiased article there and when you present legit articles that counter their pre-concieved notions it doesn't get printed.  "Pal review" in action.

Here are two photo's of the Antarctic ice sheet.  In the 1960's ITT built a power transmission line that used towers 115 feet tall.  Since then the ice has grown enough to engulf all but the top 30 feet of the towers.  The crane pictured is the one used to build the towers.

That's 85 feet of ice sheet depth increase in 45 years, give or take.  When those get re-exposed I'll pay attention.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I suggest that if you are going to copy stuff from iceagenow.com you post a link to it rather than giving the impression it's your own work. Here's the almost exact wording from your post: http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm

That and don't be hypocritical about sources when your source is far worse for both bias and not even allowing comments to correct their (many) mistakes.

In this case the data skepticalscience has posted is peer reviewed and you can track down those graphs to actual papers, they aren't made by skepticalscience. In the case of what you posted it's just an interpretation of a photo with the (wrong) assumption that the story behind that photo is the same across the whole of antarctica. But maybe NASA _have_ got it wrong. Instead of building, launching and operating satellites that can measure the height and mass of ice over time, they should have just stuck two transmission poles somewhere (anywhere) in antarctica.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

RWatt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RWatt said:
> ...









I have posted the link previously.  I had the pictures on my desktop.  I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers.  In other words biased and full of bad science.  There is no peer review in the climate science industry.  It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...

In other words there is no peer review in climate science.

Now please explain the 85 feet of ice detailed in the photographs.

"In 2005 Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, of Real Climate and CRU email fame, carefully explained that the process of peer review is a messy, incremental way to advance knowledge in fits and starts:

The current thinking of scientists on climate change is based on thousands of studies (Google Scholar gives 19,000 scientific articles for the full search phrase &#8220;global climate change&#8221. Any new study will be one small grain of evidence that adds to this big pile, and it will shift the thinking of scientists slightly. Science proceeds like this in a slow, incremental way. It is extremely unlikely that any new study will immediately overthrow all the past knowledge. 
They explained that even when results are published that do not stand the test of time, the process of peer review can successfully winnow out those arguments with the greatest merit:

. . . even when it initially breaks down, the process of peer-review does usually work in the end. But sometimes it can take a while.
With this perspective as background, one of the most damning aspects of the CRU emails was the behind-the-scenes efforts of the activist scientists to -- in their own words -- "redefine what the peer reviewed literature is."

Peer review as related to scientific publishing is a process in which experts are asked to judge the appropriateness of a paper for publication in a scientific journal. It is often cursory and focused on the merits of an argument, rather than a detailed replication or decomposition of the data or methods. Peer review does not mean that a result is right or will stand the test of time, but that it has met some minimal standards of acceptability for publication. The scientific community is replete with vignettes about papers that were rejected for publication in one venue only to be published elsewhere and which later turned out to be seminal. Similarly, every so often even Science and Nature find themselves in trouble with a paper that is badly wrong or even fraudulent. But despite these shortcomings in the process, peer review is widely viewed much as Winston Churchill viewed democracy: the worst possible system except for all the others.

Peer review works because over the long-term good ideas win out, and this process happens organically and through a decentralized process. Peer review takes place through many independent journals, with editing and reviewing conducted by many independent scholars from a diversity of disciplinary and experiential backgrounds, and with their own idiosyncratic biases and views. No one group or perspective owns the peer review process, and that diversity is part of its core strength. Truth -- meaning a convergence to agreement on scientific questions -- thus is a product of the peer review process over time. Of course the path to truth can be convoluted and indirect. For instance, it used to be true that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Now that is less true.

Some issues relevant to decisions are characterized by uncertainties and contested certainties making the distribution of scientific views not readily apparent simply by looking at the sprawling literature. In such situations a formal assessment can provide a useful perspective on the degree of consensus or disagreement among relevant experts on various claims. Such assessments are nothing more than a snapshot in time, as science is continuously evolving. When done well, an assessment will reflect the full range of views held by relevant experts, including minority views (see PDF), as well as the connections of scientific understandings to alternative possible courses of action.

Now back to the CRU emails. The emails show a consistent pattern of behavior among the activist scientists to redefine peer review in accordance with their own views of climate science. In doing so, they sought to turn the entire notion of peer review on its head.

The emails show a group of scientists frustrated with the peer review process, seeking to change how it is practiced. How so? The emails indicate concerted efforts to reshape the peer review process by managing and coordinating reviews of individual papers, by putting pressure on journal editors and editorial boards, by seeking to stack editorial boards with like-minded colleagues, by arranging boycotts of journals and other actions involving highly questionable ethics. But we might wonder why these scientists would take such steps to change peer review if, as Schmidt and Mann explained at Real Climate -- "peer review usually does work in the end." Why depart from a process that works? The answer is obvious: the short-term politics of climate change.

The activist scientists decided that the peer review process would work better in service of their political agenda if it used "truth" to determine whose views would be allowed to be published in the literature and reflected in assessments. In this case "truth" simply means the views deemed acceptable among the activist scientists and their close clique of colleagues. In an interview with NPR Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt defended this very backwards view of peer review:


Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen emails show that a group of scientists has decided that's not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics &#8212; including possible boycotts &#8212; to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal. 

"In any other field (a bad paper) would just be ignored," says Gavin Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "The problem is in the climate field has become extremely politicized, and every time some nonsense paper gets into a proper journal, it gets blown out of all proportion." 

Most of the papers Schmidt and his colleagues object to challenge the mainstream view of climate science. Schmidt says they may be wrong or even deceptive, but they are still picked up by politicians, pundits and businesses who are skeptical of climate change. 


So Schmidt suggests that in order to short circuit the ability of their political opponents to cherry pick and blow out of proportion studies that the activists scientists did not agree with, they saw a convenient short cut: Simply reshape the peer review system such that those papers don't ever appear or go unmentioned in scientific assessments.

The problem with this strategy, of course, is that many climate scientists (and presumably others inside and outside of the scientific establishment) are unwilling to cede ownership of the "truth" to a small clique of scientists. In fact, peer review exists in the first place because there are no short cuts to the truth, and any such short cut will inevitably fail. Consider that the efforts revealed in the CRU emails to manage the peer reviewed literature went well beyond efforts to prevent so-called "skeptical" papers from being published, but included a focus on papers that fully accepted a human influence on climate, but which offered views that differed in some degree (e.g., here) from those preferred by the activist scientists. The emails reveal activist scientists busy extolling the virtues of peer review to journalists and the public, while at the same time they were busy behind the scenes working to corrupt the peer review process in a way that favored their views on the science and politics of climate change. Here we have a case study in the politicization of climate science by climate scientists.

The clique of activist scientists sees absolutely nothing wrong in what they are doing -- they are after all justifying their actions in terms of "truth" in support of the greater good. And the issue is made even more complex because those who share the political agenda of the activist scientists are ready to join their peer review coup whereas those opposed to that political agenda are happy to try to exploit for political gain the scientists' ethical lapses and failure to appreciate their role in politicizing climate science. So much of the discussion gets wrapped up in these distractions, rather than the issue of the integrity of climate science.

The sustainability of climate science depends upon our ability to distinguish the health of the scientific enterprise from the politics of climate change. The need to respond to climate change (which I support) does not justify sacrificing standards of scientific integrity for political ends. In fact, as the events of the past week show, when standards of scientific integrity are compromised, the political consequences can be double edged."


Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Redefining Peer Review


----------



## RWatt (Jun 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> I have posted the link previously.  I had the pictures on my desktop.  I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers.  In other words biased and full of bad science.  There is no peer review in the climate science industry.  It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...



So estimating antarctic mass balance from a single photo of a transmission tower is a good science.

But taking measurements of the ice from satellites and radar is bad science.

I see. 

The claim that it's one small group of anyone controlling what gets published is very much in error. Rodger Pielkes long rant is full of over-exaggerations and omissions, including the neat trick of describing the same incident in multiple ways so it sounds like it is multiple incidents and the neat trick of not mentioning that in one of those cases a skeptical editor had waved  through a error ridden skeptical paper. If you bought what he said without question no wonder you are left thinking all the submitted papers to climate journals go through just a small group of people from the CRU. The only problem: it's not true.

Don't let me catch you in future claiming there are loads of peer reviewed papers skeptical of manmade global warming or I'll have to ask you how they all got past the gatekeepers controlling what is getting published!



> Now please explain the 85 feet of ice detailed in the photographs.



I don't see 85 feet of ice in those photos. You mean I should comment on the mere assertion about 85 feet of ice made by the site iceagenow.com? The site lies about glaciers to serve it's weirdo agenda so why should I trust it about a photo?

In this topsy turvy world you prize the mere assertion of a kooky website - without any question at all - while dismissing the published peer reviewed studies of antarctic ice measurement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

RWatt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have posted the link previously.  I had the pictures on my desktop.  I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers.  In other words biased and full of bad science.  There is no peer review in the climate science industry.  It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...
> ...






No, not at all.   But you must use ALL avenues of research.  Not just those that conform to your pre-concieved bias.  The primary argument over climatology is the poor science used.

As far as the pictures go, the towers are 115 feet tall.  There is 30 feet exposed above the ice.  The diference is 85 feet.  Expalin the difference.

The site doesn't lie about anything.  The articles on glaciers are from government websites for the most part.  So if you claim that the site is lying you are actually claiming that the governments are lying.  So far the only group that has lied provably is the IPCC.  Pechauri KNEW that the Himalyan glacier claim was bogus and had it published anyway.
That takes it out of the realm of a mistake and turns it into a lie.  the warmists are the only ones PROVEN to have lied, and on a regular basis.

I commend you for not resorting to juvenile name calling like the rest of your clones but your claims are in error.  there is no science backing up any of the claims.  CO2 is going to continue to rise and the temperature is going to continue to drop for the next 20 years.  When are you going to figure out that there is no correlation much less causation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2011)

It's worse than that West, true scientific testing begins with disproving a theory and AGW is immediately disprovable and is a textbook EPIC FAIL.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's worse than that West, true scientific testing begins with disproving a theory and AGW is immediately disprovable and is a textbook EPIC FAIL.






That is correct.  The very instant that they made the claim that GW can cause global cooling they were lost.  they know it, they're just fighting tooth and nail in the vain hope that their gravy train won't end.


----------



## mike beev (Jun 16, 2011)

Given all the hyperbole about global warming, it certainly makes it difficult for a relative newbee to know where to "get the real facts".  So, I for one look for indications about what the natural world is doing, for example: old vs. recent pictures of glaciers, frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, changing patterns in animal and pest habitat or migration.
As an asside, given the possibility of reincarnation, we can all come back next time and see what happens.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2011)

As a public service...

Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground

*It's -102 deg F in antartica right now. *

Forecast sunny and -65 degF tomorrow. Everyone in the pool... Gee what could be melting the ice? What do you need to make ice? Now back to your regular programming.. 

Chris:
 Bookmark the link above and let me know when it's CLOSE to just freezing...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 16, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> As a public service...
> 
> Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground
> 
> ...



In a slowly warming world the ice wouldn't melt within most of Antarctica as the place is so fucking cold that it hardly snows anyways within 2/3rds of the place. Warm the world up=more moisture=more snow. So yes that is how you explain the 80 feet of snow westwall. hehehe  So far your going to see advancing ice sheets in Antarctica.

Maybe the warming oceans could help warm the edges enough for melting???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2011)

Chris said:


>



You do realize Chris the rate in that graph is about 7.6% over 40 years. And fairly constant. Right?

But the bigger question is -- why pick MAY? All that implies is warmer summers. Let's look at other months before we get all whacked out..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 16, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Your right...Since 1979 the rate of change has been constant. Melting of course, but constant. I'd say if we don't get a number one within the next 2 years the trend will become flatter too. Hell if it don't get a 1 or 2 this year it sure as hell won't equal a increase at all.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

Matthew said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > As a public service...
> ...






No, warm temps=more watyer vapor= more RAIN, not more snow.  To get snow it must first be cold.  The Antarctic is classified as a desert over most of its extent.  That means it gets less then 10 inches of precip per year.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No, a warmer temperature=more moisture. If the air is -40c it only needs .1 g/kg to get to saturation, but as you raise the temperature to -10 it increases to 2 g/kg(grams/kilogram) to get to saturation. Which means as you warm the air=more moisture. The place is a desert because there is no moisture in the air. That is a fact. In you if  you raised the temperature to 0c you would have 5 gram/kg. This is why a warm tropical place holds a shit load of moisture and can get a lot of rain. I've been tracking meteorology my whole life so I have a idea what I'm talking about. 

Also as the avg temperature increases the place would be able to hold more moisture within the Atmosphere=more snow. All you need to have is for the temperature at all levels to be below freezing to have it as snow and not rain. Pretty simple really. Most rainfall within the mid to high latitudes start as snow in a process called the bergeron process(theory) of precipitation.

.1g/kg is very little moisture and explains why it is a desert. The tropics that get to 25-30c normally can "hold" 20-26.5 g/km just to get to saturation.

It takes a lot more then just simple saturation to form precipitation as the normal cloud droplet is far to light to fall from the cloud. The droplet needs to grow=have the moisture to grow in size. My area normally has 5 to 10 g/kg to get to saturation and has 30-36 inches a year of rainfall, but some area's around the mountains where the moisture is forced to raise and condense out can get much more then that, but compared to how fast it can come down within the tropics that is because they have even more moisture as I pointed out above 20-26.5 g/km for 25 to 30c.

Of course saturation normally doesn't happen right at the surface(fog is a exception), but as the air rises and cools to its dew point(point where saturation occurs). Then you can form the clouds and then if you have enough moisture the precipitation.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2011)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...







Everything you say is correct.   But, it still requires cold to make snow.  Increased water vapor does not equal less heat.  The equatorial region is awash in mild rainstorms year round do to the temperature which as you say increases the moisture content of the air.

Yes you get snow on the peaks like Kilimanjaro and Meru but that's do to the adiabatic lapse rate.


----------



## Chris (Jun 16, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2011)

Try this one...


----------



## Chris (Jun 18, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2011)

This one's closer to reality....








http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png


----------



## RWatt (Jun 18, 2011)

The 2010 drop was quite amazing but to have it beaten just a year later is astonishing


----------



## RWatt (Jun 18, 2011)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2011)

RWatt said:


> The 2010 drop was quite amazing but to have it beaten just a year later is astonishing



Yeah amazingly within the trend line.

Amazing


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 18, 2011)

RWatt said:


> The 2010 drop was quite amazing but to have it beaten just a year later is astonishing





What matters at the end of the day is 2007, which had a warm high over the arctic in the later part of the melt season to reach number one. 2010 got screwed. If 2011 has any kind of ridging then it will be number one.


----------



## Chris (Jun 18, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Jun 21, 2011)

Surface temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five-year period since record keeping began in 1880, according to a new report from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an international group within the Arctic Council that monitors the Arctic environment and provides advice on Arctic environmental protection. 

The rate of sea-ice decline has accelerated and the decline rate in the past 10 years has been higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007, the report says.

"Evidence from lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores indicates that Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years," the report says. "Previously unseen weather patterns and ocean currents have been observed, including higher inflows of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific."

Temperatures in the Arctic permafrost have risen by up to 3.5 degrees in the past two to three decades, and the southern limit of the permafrost has been moving north, with the limit having retreated by 80 miles in the past 50 years in the Canadian province of Quebec, for example, the report says.

Most Arctic glaciers and ice caps have shrunk in the past 100 years, especially in Canada and southern Alaska. Climate models predict a 10 to 30 percent drop in the mass of mountain glaciers and ice caps by the end of the century, with the melting of the Greenland ice sheet expected to accelerate.

Overall loss of snow and ice cover will likely heighten the warming trend, mainly because the white snow and ice tend to reflect heat from sun, rather than allowing the heat to be absorbed by the darker land or ocean water. Scientists now think that Arctic sea-ice cover will all but disappear in the summer by mid-century.

Arctic warming even faster than predicted, scientists say: Climate change | Alaska news at adn.com


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 21, 2011)

Junk Science


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> Junk Science



Junk reply.


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 21, 2011)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

Glaciers melting!


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Glaciers melting!



... and another!!!


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 21, 2011)

Warmers, Truthers and Birthers all have something in common. No common sense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers melting!
> ...



Feel free to show us how increasing the CO2 in Earth atmosphere by .0003% will melt that sucker next year.

That's your theory, right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> Junk Science



Your proof of this is what? Come on, Cowbuns, show us some science backing your position. Or are you just a loudmouthed four flush?

Arctic Climate Change

http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2011/02/abstracts.pdf/en

Now I could post a hundred more articles where scientists state what they have observed in the Arctic in the past decade. Where is you proof that there observations are not correct?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 22, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Now Franky boy, the numbers are 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution, and 390 ppm at present. 110 is not 0.0003% of 280. Perhaps you should take a remedial course in basic math.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> > Junk Science
> ...







Yes, please post all of them.


----------



## Chris (Jun 22, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Jun 27, 2011)

WASHINGTON, June 27, 2011  With the number of geopolitical hotspots in the world today, the Arctic is not an area that comes quickly to mind for possible defense operations. But it is a place of great national security and strategic importance that the Defense Department and services are monitoring closely.

In a report sent to Congress earlier this month, DOD officials say the Arctic is a place they and the services are paying attention to because of rapid climate change there that likely will open the area to greater human inhabitation and possible threats to U.S. interests.

The polar icecap and harsh Arctic environment have long enhanced U.S. security by acting as a northern barrier to the United States, the report says. The melting of the icecap already is causing increased human activity, such as with oil and gas exploration and tourism, that could affect U.S. interests there and raise issues about maritime travel, it says.

Navy Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, explained the level of U.S. interests in the Arctic during a June 16 Arctic seminar here. The region is extraordinarily important for our Navy, for our military, and for our nation, he said.

There is a phenomenal event taking place on the planet today, Roughead said, referring to the opening up of the Arctic Ocean from melting polar ice caps. We havent had an ocean open on this planet since the end of the Ice Age. So, if this is not a significant change that requires new, and I would submit, brave thinking on the topic, I dont know what other sort of physical event could produce that.

Defense.gov News Article: Defense Department, Services Monitor Arctic Melting


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2011)

Did I miss anything at all scientific and informative there? Or was it to be filed with the DOD Contingiency Plan on Invading France?


----------



## Chris (Jun 27, 2011)

AMSTERDAM (AP)  When a 43-foot (13-meter) gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.

On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

Reid said the last time the world witnessed such a major incursion from the Pacific was 2 million years ago, which had "a huge impact on the North Atlantic," driving some species to extinction as the newcomers dominated the competition for food.

The Associated Press: Whales, plankton migrate across Northwest Passage


----------



## Si modo (Jun 27, 2011)

Damn neanderthals and their cars...warmed up the world so much back then that the damn whales swam through the northwest.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2011)

Chris?

The ice has been melting for quite some time now.  You might want to keep on current events


----------



## konradv (Jun 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The ice has been melting for quite some time now.  You might want to keep on current events



If the ice has been melting for some time now, why were some scientists predicting a new Ice Age back in the 70s?  Why did they change their minds?  Couldn't be the money.  There's lots more of it available to the deniers.  Just doesn't seem that way because they spend their money making political points, instead of doing real science.  WHY???  Because it would show that logically and scientifically the skeptics/deniers don't have a leg to stand on.  After all, If A causes an increase in B and the level of A is rising, logic tells you that B will increase also.  Talk all you want about other factors, but that's why research still needs to be done. So that "tricks" of the statistical trade can be used to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Was CO2 higher when the North American Glacier was melting?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> If the ice has been melting for some time now, why were some scientists predicting a new Ice Age back in the 70s?



Because crisis sells. Note that these are exactly the same clowns predicting global warming now.



> Why did they change their minds?  Couldn't be the money.



Yep - grant whores pilfering the public treasury.



> There's lots more of it available to the deniers.



Are you fucking stupid?

Those who apply actual science (let's call them "scientists") rather than preaching dogma (let's call them "warmists") don't get a dime in grants. Only those 100% faithful to the AGW cult get grants.

Why do you think there is so much fraud? If you don't promote the myth of man-made warming, you don't get paid - that simple.

Obviously, the science repudiates the anthropogenic element, so those looking to make money do what they have to do, they falsify data and defraud the public. Whores like Michael Mann and proven frauds like Phil Jones are filthy rich. They didn't get that way through legitimate science, they got rich through fraud, through the creation of a hoax that serves the interests of authoritarian minded governments.

No one gets paid for exposing the fraud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And I haven't forgotten that you still haven't turned in your AGW Hypothesis assignment.  Were you this poor a student in school?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > If the ice has been melting for some time now, why were some scientists predicting a new Ice Age back in the 70s?
> ...



The Decline Hiders are the ones who get paid, the Warmers like Konrad are their mindless followers


----------



## konradv (Jun 28, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > If the ice has been melting for some time now, why were some scientists predicting a new Ice Age back in the 70s?
> ...



The only thing that's been repudiated is the Climategate hoax.  Skeptical scientists are almost without exception bought and paid for by industrial interests. That's where the TRUE fraud is coming from.  Remember, all that money the AGW proponents get is to do more research.  I'd be more concerned about the veracity of the "skeptics" who also get money,from industry, but get to stuff it right in their pockets.  Who REALLY has reason to falsify data and defraud the public?  What I can't believe is the people that swallow their BS whole.  They ARE getting paid for suppoedly exposing fraud, when the truth is they're the ones guilty of it.  When somebody constantly yells "fraud", but doesn't come with any real proof, it's usually because they're the ones committing the real fraud.


----------



## westwall (Jun 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






If CLIMATEGATE was a hoax why have the alarmists lost every major program they were trying to enact?  Hmmm?  You really are clueless konny.  AGW proponents spend money on crap (and nice houses for themselves) science to perpetuate the myth.  You are a sad example of the dumbing down of American public students.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2011)

Surface temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five-year period since record keeping began in 1880, according to a new report from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an international group within the Arctic Council that monitors the Arctic environment and provides advice on Arctic environmental protection. 

The rate of sea-ice decline has accelerated and the decline rate in the past 10 years has been higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007, the report says.

"Evidence from lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores indicates that Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years," the report says. "Previously unseen weather patterns and ocean currents have been observed, including higher inflows of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific."

Arctic warming even faster than predicted, scientists say: Climate change | Alaska news at adn.com


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 29, 2011)

konradv said:


> The only thing that's been repudiated is the Climategate hoax.



You're an idiot - your foolish cult has been exposed repeatedly. Phil Jones is a fraud - a proven one who falsified results, data and openly lied to the UN and the British and US governments. 



> Skeptical scientists are almost without exception bought and paid for by industrial interests.



ROFL

Yeah, Lindzen got a $10,000 honorarium - clearly can't trust him - bought and paid..

Michael Mann got $7.9 MILLION from the IPCC - totally unbiased...

LOL - you cultists are a hoot, stupid as a bag of hammers, but funny as hell.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> If CLIMATEGATE was a hoax why have the alarmists lost every major program they were trying to enact?



The desperation of calling the outing of fraud "a hoax" is the sign of mental illness. 

AGW is a proven fraud. Jones openly admitted to being a fraud and that the entire program is a fraud. 

Konradv is mentally retarded. Good to point and laugh at, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## IanC (Jun 29, 2011)

Chris said:


> Surface temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five-year period since record keeping began in 1880, according to a new report from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an international group within the Arctic Council that monitors the Arctic environment and provides advice on Arctic environmental protection.
> 
> The rate of sea-ice decline has accelerated and the decline rate in the past 10 years has been higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007, the report says.
> 
> ...



is that story referencing the arctic hockey stick graph by Bradley? Bradley is the B in MBH98, Mann's famous hockey stick. funny how the hockey team finds hockey sticks in everything.

I'm not sure how big a player PIOMAS is in the arctic ice games but I thought this recent change in their 'methods' and ice estimates was telling.








> Satellite sea ice concentration data are assimilated in GIOMAS using the Lindsay and Zhang (2005) assimilation procedure. The procedure is based on nudging the model estimate of ice concentration toward the observed concentration in a manner that emphasizes the ice extent and minimizes the effect of observational errors in the interior of the ice pack.


nudging the data?



> Because of the errors in the summer Gice dataset ice concentration in the interior of the pack (as well as errors in summer ice concentration based on passive microwave observations), assimilation of ice concentration is accomplished in a method that emphasizes the extent over the concentration. The observations are weighted heavily only when there is a large discrepancy between the model and the observed concentration. Each day the model estimate Cmod is nudged to a revised estimate &#264;mod with the relationship.


observations are weighted heavily only when there is a large discrepancy between the model and the observed concentration?


hahaha, business as usual in climate science. I am just shocked that they owned up to mistakes and made corrections that significantly changed the trend.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If CLIMATEGATE was a hoax why have the alarmists lost every major program they were trying to enact?
> ...





Uncensored........just want to make a slight correction here. Clinically speaking, its not a mental retardation thing. It is, however, a mental illness thing.......what is known in the field as "thought process disorder, or what I commonly refer to as k00k. Might appear flippant but clinically speaking, its actually right on target. There are alot of very smart people out there with thought processing disorders, most controlled by pharmacological aids. Your typical suspects on this board are dealing with a setting screws problem ( a phrase used by psychiatrists I work with)........most, like Chris and Old Rocks, are not at all short on intelligence. But OCD stuff can get pretty nasty and alot of people dont even realize its presence. Youve heard about the residual effects of OCD= its tough to be able to view the entire landscape of things, which is why you also typically hear of the liberal mind not being able to think on the margin. Cost/Benefit ratio's dont matter to these people because they are simply incapable of comprehending. They cant process on certain things, for example, they have alot of difficulty answering the question, "As compared to what?" in terms of assessing neccessary tradeoffs. Theres a disconnect pathology going on..........

So its not an intelligence thing.......its a thought prossessing thing. Theres a big difference. Medication cannot treat intelligence problems but can perform miracles on OCD illnesses. Why do you think the drug companies spend almost 1 billion dollar to R&D a new drug? Because the shit they make WORKS and millions of lives are signficantly changed for it!!! You see these hero's of the blogging world with their 4 billion posts/month. These poor fcukkers are miserable and I mean fcukking miserable once the PC is shut down. Theres a whole world out there for them if they were prescribed a good SSRO drug.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 29, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Uncensored........just want to make a slight correction here. Clinically speaking, its not a mental retardation thing. It is, however, a mental illness thing.......



Point taken...


But I STILL think he has an IQ of less than 68....


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If CLIMATEGATE was a hoax why have the alarmists lost every major program they were trying to enact?
> ...



Just shows how the badly denier hoax is going.  They don't have the facts, so they have to go with lies and invective.  No one admitted fraud.   Usually the ones screaming "fraud" the loudest are the real fraudsters.  Keep havingyour little funsies, but while you're at it, please explain why temps are going up during a solar minimum?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 30, 2011)

Ocean currents and underwater volcanic activity for starters.


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2011)

IanC said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Surface temperatures in the Arctic since 2005 have been higher than for any five-year period since record keeping began in 1880, according to a new report from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an international group within the Arctic Council that monitors the Arctic environment and provides advice on Arctic environmental protection.
> ...







Wink, wink, grin, grin, nudge, nudge know what I mean squire?  It's sad that the climate fraud can so eloquently be described by a fragment of a Monty Python sketch.


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2011)

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








  Sure konny sure!  The "denier" hoax is losing so badly that you guys are going to lose Kyoto next year, and there are no other international climate treaties that are now being considered.  For a supposedly thinking human beng you sure leave a lot to be desired.  But it is par for the course for a religious fanatic.


----------



## Chris (Jul 2, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 3, 2011)

Chris said:


>





You should be hoping that this year finally beats 2007 because if not the skeptics are going to laugh at you.


----------



## Chris (Jul 3, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...







Oh, we allready do.  We mock the whole bloody bunch of them.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2011)

Chris said:


>







Yep look at all that snow up there.  You guys said a few years ago that there would be none up there by now....OOOOOOOOOOPSIE!


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2011)

WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; Warming air from climate change isn't the only thing that will speed ice melting near the poles &#8212; so will the warming water beneath the ice, a new study points out.

Increased melting of ice in Greenland and parts of Antarctica has been reported as a consequence of global warming, potentially raising sea levels. But little attention has been paid to the impact of warmer water beneath the ice.

Now, Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona and colleagues report the warming water could mean polar ice melting faster than had been expected. Their report was published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

While melting floating ice won't raise sea level, ice flowing into the sea from glaciers often reaches the bottom, and grounded ice melted by warm water around it can produce added water to the sea.

"Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," Yin explained. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

In addition, Yin explained, if floating ice along the coastal areas melts it will allow the flow of glaciers to accelerate, bringing more ice into the seas.

"This mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going to melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck said in a statement.

The Associated Press: Warming ocean could melt ice faster than thought


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 4, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?





Its AP Frank..........surprised?

They print something hysterical about the environment about 2-3 times every week!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?
> ...



Click your heels together three times and say "CO2 is melting the ice caps"


----------



## Chris (Jul 4, 2011)

The state of the oceans can best be likened to a case of multiple organ failure in urgent need of intervention, suggests the most comprehensive analysis yet of the world's marine ecosystems.

Global warming, overfishing and plastic pollution are wreaking havoc at an unprecedented rate on marine life, reported scientists at a recent meeting of the International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO).

The impacts of climate change &#8212; acidifying oceans, coral bleaching and habitat loss &#8212; are the biggest cause of decline in ocean health, and the hardest to solve, some researchers told SolveClimate News in interviews.

Global warming will "swamp everything," said Tony Pitcher, a professor of fisheries from the University of British Columbia who attended the meeting. "The effects are all around &#8230; If we don't do something quickly, the oceans in 50 years won't look like they do today."

Warming, Overfishing, Plastic Pollution Destroying Ocean Life: Scientists | Reuters


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> The state of the oceans can best be likened to a case of multiple organ failure in urgent need of intervention, suggests the most comprehensive analysis yet of the world's marine ecosystems.
> 
> Global warming, overfishing and plastic pollution are wreaking havoc at an unprecedented rate on marine life, reported scientists at a recent meeting of the International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO).
> 
> ...



When the science mocks your theory, go straight to hysteria


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

There is more solid scientific evidence that Big Foot is just Gigantopithecus than there is for ManMade Global Warming.

There is more solid scientific evidence that Earth's Moon could be a hollow, artificial sphere than there is for ManMade Global Warming.


----------



## Liberty (Jul 4, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0]YouTube - &#x202a;OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Grace (Jul 4, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?



It is not a conspiracy theory. It is fact.


----------



## Liberty (Jul 4, 2011)

Grace said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?
> ...


----------



## Grace (Jul 4, 2011)

Everyone has their own opinion. Mine is global warming/climate change IS happening and 95% of it is cause by man. Pee on that.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 4, 2011)

*Warming ocean will melt ice faster than thought *

Warming liquid of any kind  will melt ice faster than thought


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 4, 2011)

If it is going to happen, its gong to happen. I will just sit back and enjoy it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON (AP)  Warming air from climate change isn't the only thing that will speed ice melting near the poles  so will the warming water beneath the ice, a new study points out.
> 
> Increased melting of ice in Greenland and parts of Antarctica has been reported as a consequence of global warming, potentially raising sea levels. But little attention has been paid to the impact of warmer water beneath the ice.
> 
> ...







I guess they missed this study huh?  Why am I not surprised....it seems up to half the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet is accreting FROM BELOW.  It's amazing what happens when scientists actually go out into the world and do real science as opposed to playing with poorly designed and thought out computer models.




An International Polar Year aerogeophysical investigation of the high interior of East Antarctica reveals widespread freeze-on that drives significant mass redistribution at the bottom of the ice sheet. While surface accumulation of snow remains the primary mechanism for ice sheet growth, beneath Dome A 24% of the base by area is frozen-on ice. In some places, up to half the ice thickness has been added from below. These ice packages result from conductive cooling of water ponded near the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountain ridges and supercooling of water forced up steep valley walls. Persistent freeze-on thickens the ice column, alters basal ice rheology and fabric and upwarps the overlying ice sheet, including the oldest atmospheric climate archive, and drives flow behavior not captured in present models. 




Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base


----------



## westwall (Jul 4, 2011)

Grace said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can we move this to "Conspiracy" section please?
> ...







Hi Grace,

I wish it were.  There is so far zero empirical evidence to support their theory...that's why they keep falsifying the records.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 4, 2011)

Grace said:


> Everyone has their own opinion. .



Exactly, so it's not a fact; it's an opinion.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 4, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone has their own opinion. .
> ...



No shit.


----------



## waltky (Jul 7, 2011)

Shark Numbers Decline By 80%...

*Why Jaws needs protecting: Bahamas bans shark fishing as THIRD of all species now face extinction*
_6th July 2011 - They're supposed to be the ultimate hunters - but it turns out they're really the hunted._


> A U.S. report has revealed shark numbers have declined by as much as 80 per cent worldwide, with a third of all species now threatened by extinction as millions are killed each year for their fins.  It comes as the Bahamas announced it has banned commercial shark fishing in its territorial waters, the latest in a long line of countries anxious to protect the ocean predator.  It turns the island chain's 243,244 square miles of territorial waters into a shark sanctuary, designed to protect the 40 species which inhabit that part of the Caribbean.
> 
> The move will also be good for the Bahamian economy. The country is one of the world's premier shark-watching destinations for divers, and the industry brings in $78million each year.  It was already a shark-friendly country - 20 years ago it banned longline fishing, stopping sharks becoming caught in fishermen's nets and allowing the predators to thrive in its waters.  Famously, the final Jaws movie was filmed on 'Jaws Beach', on the archipelago's New Providence Island.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jul 7, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover. Average ice extent fell below that for June 2007, which had the lowest minimum ice extent at the end of summer. However, ice extent this year was greater than in June 2010. The sea ice has entered a critical period of the melt season: weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.

Average ice extent for June 2011 was 11.01 million square kilometers (4.25 million square miles). This is 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in June 2010, and 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## wirebender (Jul 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover. Average ice extent fell below that for June 2007, which had the lowest minimum ice extent at the end of summer. However, ice extent this year was greater than in June 2010. The sea ice has entered a critical period of the melt season: weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.
> 
> Average ice extent for June 2011 was 11.01 million square kilometers (4.25 million square miles). This is 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in June 2010, and 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



Interesting that 1979 seems to always be the cutoff date when looking at sea ice.  Why might that be?  Here is a news article from 1926 in which a dirigible pilot reports a great deal of open water at the north pole.

Here is a photo of the USS Skate on the surface at the North Pole in March, 1959.  The ice doesn't look so thick to me.  How about you?






Here is a photo of the Skate and its sister ship, The Sea Dragon at the North Pole in August, 1962.  Again, the ice doesn't look so thick to me.






Here are 3 US subs at the North Pole in 1987.  Once more, the ice doesn't appear to be that substantial.


----------



## Chris (Jul 8, 2011)

1979 is when satellite measurements of the arctic ice began.


----------



## wirebender (Jul 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> 1979 is when satellite measurements of the arctic ice began.



And that matters why when we know that being ice free isn't that unusual for the north pole?


----------



## FactFinder (Jul 8, 2011)

Since we have been in a retreat since the last Ice Age, I damn well hope we still are.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 9, 2011)

Monster prelim tonight of -150k...huge loss! 

150 thousand km loss yesterday of sea ice. We're now going to cross 2010 as 2010 weather pattern went to shit around the second week of July. 2011 weather pattern is kicking some serious ass...If we can hold onto it we WILL DESTROY 2007. We will blow through it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 9, 2011)

Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2010 average for that day of the year.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 9, 2011)

pic of arctic right now!


----------



## wirebender (Jul 9, 2011)

I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.


----------



## Chris (Jul 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.



The arctic hasn't been ice free for at least a million years.


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.
> ...






It's not ice free now, and we don't know if your contention is correct.  There was far less sea ice at the Arctic in the 1920's and in the 1960's when the US subs visited it.  Here is the North pole today.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.
> ...



More like a Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelion years


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)

-130 thousand km for 7-9 melted. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

07,01,2011,9062813
07,02,2011,8913438
07,03,2011,8745313
07,04,2011,8669531
07,05,2011,8566563
07,06,2011,8484844
07,07,2011,8366875
07,08,2011,8221094
*07,09,2011,8090156*

compared to 2010

07,01,2010,8806563
07,02,2010,8723594
07,03,2010,8675938
07,04,2010,8592969
07,05,2010,8493438
07,06,2010,8459688
07,07,2010,8429063
07,08,2010,8395938
07,09,2010,8324844
07,10,2010,8276094
07,11,2010,8228594
07,12,2010,8169063
07,13,2010,8130938
07,14,2010,8091719
07,15,2010,8068125
07,16,2010,8025000
07,17,2010,7957031
07,18,2010,7875469
07,19,2010,7766563
07,20,2010,7657344
07,21,2010,7613438
07,22,2010,7558906

2007
07,01,2007,9288906
07,02,2007,9126875
07,03,2007,8925000
07,04,2007,8794063
07,05,2007,8704219
07,06,2007,8611094
07,07,2007,8529844
07,08,2007,8455000
07,09,2007,8369063
07,10,2007,8233906
07,11,2007,8125156
07,12,2007,8015156
07,13,2007,7881250
07,14,2007,7785000
07,15,2007,7690313
07,16,2007,7592500
07,17,2007,7498594


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)




----------



## wirebender (Jul 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> The arctic hasn't been ice free for at least a million years.



Maybe not, but the pole itself has had open water regularly wince we began observations.  And face it, for most of earth's history, the pole has been ice free.  At the north pole particularly, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.  You guys carry on as if we aren't, and haven't been exiting an ice age for the past 14K years.  You act as if melting ice were something brand new and terrifying.  As you can see from the naval photos, open water the pole isn't odd at all.  Wringing your hands over natural cycles is just silly.

As to your claim that the arctic has not been ice free for a million years; I would suggest that by your own fears of slight temperature variations rendering the arctic ice free, you should conclude that the arctic was indeed, in all likelyhood, ice free during both the roman and the medieval warm periods.  Further, the Vostok ice core data show numerous times during the past 450,000 years where the temperatures in that region of the world were considerably warmer than even the roman and medieval warm periods.    






Here are a couple of peer reviewed studies relating to the time of the MWP only in the arctic.  I don't believe your claims of a million years since the arctic was ice free stand up to the data.  And in terms of earth history, what is a million years anyway.  It is like saying the arctic hasn't been ice free for three hours or so.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nrc/cjes/2008/00000045/00000011/art00015

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379103002956


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.



Boy, Bent, you are about as dumb of a fuck as they come. First, the Arctic has not been ice free for at least 120,000 years, more than likely, not for over a million years. 

Second, the albedo of ice is such that it reflects 90% of the sunlight, open water absorbs 90%. Now I realize the concept of feedback is beyond your intellect, but for the rest of us the implications are clear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The arctic hasn't been ice free for at least a million years.
> ...



Incredibly stupid and duplicious statement. You can pick any point in the Arctic Ocean and see a short time there is open water there in the summer.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.003.png


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2011)

*Less extensive, not gone.* 

ingentaconnect Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based rec...

Abstract:

Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, &#948;13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near-surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (~156cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600-7200cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500-3000years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

*Compared to the end of the twentieth century, not the first decade of the 21st century. A very important differance.*

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2011)

*Very good article, but predates the very rapid melt of the Artic Ice that we have seen in the last eight years. And I see no claim for the Artic being ice free at all. The last sentance is particularly teling. *

Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0&#8211;180°W)*1 
Purchase
$ 35.95 


References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


D. S. Kaufman , , a, T. A. Ager b, N. J. Anderson c, P. M. Anderson d, J. T. Andrews e, P. J. Bartlein f, L. B. Brubaker g, L. L. Coats h, L. C. Cwynar i, M. L. Duvall j, A. S. Dyke k, M. E. Edwards l, W. R. Eisner m, K. Gajewski n, A. Geirsdóttir o, F. S. Hu p, A. E. Jennings e, M. R. Kaplan q, M. W. Kerwin r, A. V. Lozhkin s, G. M. MacDonald t, G. H. Miller e, C. J. Mock u, W. W. Oswald d, B. L. Otto-Bliesner v, D. F. Porinchu w, K. Rühland x, J. P. Smol x, E. J. Steig d and B. B. Wolfe y

a Departments of Geology and Environmental Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4099, USA

b US Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USA

c Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

d Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

e Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

f Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA

g College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

h Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USA

i Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada

j Department of Geology, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA

k Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada

l Institute of Geography, University of Trondheim, Norway

m Department of Geography, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

n Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

o Department of Geosciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

p Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA

q School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, UK

r Department of Geography, University of Denver, Colorado, USA

s Northeast Interdisciplinary Science Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Magadan, Russia

t Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angelas, USA

u Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

v National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

w Department of Geography, California State University, Long Beach, USA

x Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., Canada

y Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ont., Canada

Received 29 April 2003;  accepted 16 September 2003.  Available online 19 February 2004. 

Abstract
The spatio-temporal pattern of peak Holocene warmth (Holocene thermal maximum, HTM) is traced over 140 sites across the Western Hemisphere of the Arctic (0&#8211;180°W; north of 60°N). Paleoclimate inferences based on a wide variety of proxy indicators provide clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 of these sites. At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6±0.8°C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century), but the warming was time-transgressive across the western Arctic. As the precession-driven summer insolation anomaly peaked 12&#8211;10 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), warming was concentrated in northwest North America, while cool conditions lingered in the northeast. Alaska and northwest Canada experienced the HTM between ca 11 and 9 ka, about 4000 yr prior to the HTM in northeast Canada. The delayed warming in Quebec and Labrador was linked to the residual Laurentide Ice Sheet, which chilled the region through its impact on surface energy balance and ocean circulation. The lingering ice also attests to the inherent asymmetry of atmospheric and oceanic circulation that predisposes the region to glaciation and modulates the pattern of climatic change. The spatial asymmetry of warming during the HTM resembles the pattern of warming observed in the Arctic over the last several decades. Although the two warmings are described at different temporal scales, and the HTM was additionally affected by the residual Laurentide ice, the similarities suggest there might be a preferred mode of variability in the atmospheric circulation that generates a recurrent pattern of warming under positive radiative forcing. Unlike the HTM, however, future warming will not be counterbalanced by the cooling effect of a residual North American ice sheet.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 10, 2011)

C'mon........it's loss of ice in the Arctic and gain of ice in the Antarctic ( except in one little area ).

So.......what..............?

Only the k00ks get all hysterical about it.


And so what either way? Nobody is going to do dick about it even if we were 100% certain. The UN just last week admitted that going green would cost all of the nations of earth............ready for this............76 trillion dollars.


C'mon............whats the point of even deliberating on this shit???


C'mon..............if it cost 1/10 of that we couldnt afford it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> C'mon........it's loss of ice in the Arctic and gain of ice in the Antarctic ( except in one little area ).
> 
> So.......what..............?
> 
> ...



Maybe it's because I enjoy watching our planet and learning about the processes of how and why it works? I find it very interesting.


----------



## wirebender (Jul 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice.  Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free.  The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.
> ...



And still you have not even begun to prove that mankind has had any effect at all on the climate.  I have proven mathematically, using the laws of physics that the atmosphere can not warm the earth.  To date, none of you warmist, or lukewarmers have even touched my proof, much less begun to prove me wrong.

I am laughing at the lot of you rocks.

By the way, if the arctic was ice


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Wire, lets say your right and all these scientist are all wrong---You and the rest of science must then start the painstaking task of  having to find out why the planet has warmed the past 30 years came from. What is variable z--- I keep harping on? That is the why and the forcing for any warming...

What I'm saying is that the sun reached its peak in tsi in the 1950's and have slowly been sloping downwards since. You can't explain .4c of warming in 30 years after 1860-1940(80 years) only had .4c its self over a period nearly 2 1/2 times as long as 1980-2010. 

The sun was found to be only 60 percent of the Dalton to 1950 warming too. 40 percent is the "z" variable. 

You disprove something when at the same time there is forcing that's not coming from the sun then you need to find the why. It would be a mess as we would need to find what is causing the temperature to rise at the same time it supposed to be sloping downwards with the decrease of tsi. 2004-2011 is another can of fish!

That CAN of fish is the biggest single sun minimum since 1909-1915 of course. On top of China and India output of negative forcing sulfur that has been proven to have cooled the planet in the 1950-1970 period of .1 to .15c, even with the fact that most of this period layed in the highest tsi in 1,000+ years or more. Now we've got both biting away at any positive that we would have now and a slowly rising global temperature still.

So lets say your right then wth is the z? I can't disprove you wrong---I sure wish someone that could would show where you could be wrong, but if your right then there is still the z. The variable of the massive positive forcing that is causing the rising temperature against more negative forcing then the combined tsi decrease of the past 50 years+biggest solar min since 1910s+sulfur that we have proven that cooled the planet .1-.15c within the 1950-1970 period. Must be one big Z.

Yes it is important and must be answered if z turns out not to be co2.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 10, 2011)

07,10,2011,7995156

Down nearly 100,000 km for today

07,10,2011,7995938


----------



## Chris (Jul 11, 2011)

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover. Average ice extent fell below that for June 2007, which had the lowest minimum ice extent at the end of summer. However, ice extent this year was greater than in June 2010. The sea ice has entered a critical period of the melt season: weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.

Average ice extent for June 2011 was 11.01 million square kilometers (4.25 million square miles). This is 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in June 2010, and 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## wirebender (Jul 11, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Wire, lets say your right and all these scientist are all wrong---You and the rest of science must then start the painstaking task of  having to find out why the planet has warmed the past 30 years came from. What is variable z--- I keep harping on? That is the why and the forcing for any warming...



Matthew, I don't pretend to know why the earth is warming.  I don't know why the warming trend began 14,000 years ago or why it has moved forward in a warmer cooler pattern since.  I don't know why the earth decends into ice ages or what triggers the exit from the ice ages.  I don't pretend to "know" any of those things and am insulted by climate scientists who do.

What I do know is the basic science upon which the claims of AGW and greenhouse effects must rest.  The laws of physics are not compromises and they apply to all matter, not just systems.   The law of conservation of energy, for precludes a planet surface which is nothing like a perfect reflector,  which receives 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source somehow radiating nearly double that amount of energy.  It just can't happen and anyone who claims that it can is either a deliberate liar or grossly misinformed.

The why of climate change is at best, a curiosity.  We are along for the ride.  It might be nice to know in advance of long term warming trends so that we can prepare, but nothing we can do can either alter natural climactic trends nor reverse them.



Matthew said:


> You disprove something when at the same time there is forcing that's not coming from the sun then you need to find the why.



Beyond curiosity, why do you need to know the why.  The laws of physics tell you that you are not the cause.  That being the case, it is clear that there is nothing you can do to alter it.  Hell, we can't even prevent a summer shower on the company picknic, much less alter global climate.




Matthew said:


> That CAN of fish is the biggest single sun minimum since 1909-1915 of course. On top of China and India output of negative forcing sulfur that has been proven to have cooled the planet in the 1950-1970 period of .1 to .15c, even with the fact that most of this period layed in the highest tsi in 1,000+ years or more. Now we've got both biting away at any positive that we would have now and a slowly rising global temperature still.



Actually, like most climate science, no such proof of cooling exists.  It is just one more assumption.  No one can say with anything like authority that the cooling was due to coal as no one knows, all of the possible variables and permutations.



Matthew said:


> I can't disprove you wrong---I sure wish someone that could would show where you could be wrong, but if your right then there is still the z.



To date, no one has proven me wrong and I have made the same sort of arguments in many locations with people who were far above the level (in science and mathematics) of the people here.  My arguments are not my own hypotheses.  They are based on straight forward applications of the laws of physics.  There is no mumbo jumbo, or double talk, or slick sideshow pseudoexperimental evidence.  I have done the math and neither myself, nor anyone who has looked at the math can point to an error or a misapplied law of physics.

There is a reason that you have to look pretty hard to find an actual physicist or chemist who buys into either AGW or the greenhouse effect.  Those educated in the hard sciences are grilled in the basics.  The laws of physics determine what is and is not possible and anyone who looks at the hypotheses of AGW or the greenhouse effect from fundamental principles must find that both fail.



Matthew said:


> The variable of the massive posiive forcing that is causing the rising temperature against more negative forcing then the combined tsi decrease of the past 50 years+biggest solar min since 1910s+sulfur that we have proven that cooled the planet .1-.15c within the 1950-1970 period. Must be one big Z.



We have not proven that sulfur cooled the planet.  That is just one assumption among thousands that make up climate pseudoscience.  When proof doesn't exist, they simply program a computer model to provide "proof" to support their claims.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 11, 2011)

natural or man made---lets watch the sea ice.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 11, 2011)

07,11,2011,7895000


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 13, 2011)

Here is your map for 7-12


----------



## wirebender (Jul 13, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Here is your map for 7-12



Question.  What does any of this prove other than that a natural cycle is progressing?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Here is your map for 7-12
> ...



It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?


----------



## wirebender (Jul 13, 2011)

Matthew said:


> It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?



Being a natural cycle, it just seems analogous to watcing grass grow or paint dry.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 13, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?
> ...



I'm one of those people that watch weather as one of my hobbies as I been doing it since 8 years old. I like watching tropical cyclones, tornadoes, and yes snow and ice storms. yes---some times even paint dry!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2011)

7-13 update...Watching the paint dry to some is something interesting for us weather, geology, ect watchers of the earth.  Thank god for this data!!!

The northeastern passage will open within 2 weeks and the northwest within 3 weeks.


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 7-13 update...Watching the paint dry to some is something interesting for us weather, geology, ect watchers of the earth.  Thank god for this data!!!
> 
> The northeastern passage will open within 2 weeks and the northwest within 3 weeks.






You can even purchase a ride on the icebreaker that accompanies the merchant ships to maintain the "opening".  You see there's open, and then there's open...with help.

Kapitan Khlebnikov is a conventional icebreaker built to escort merchant ships through the Northeast Passage. The ship was converted to a passenger vessel in 1991. Quark's flagship is retiring as an expedition cruise ship in March 2012. The July 10 to August 6, 2011 transit of the Northeast Passage will be the ship's End of an Era voyage.

Quark Expeditions declares April 11-15, 2011 Northeast Passage Week | Clusterstock Stock Pages


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 15, 2011)

07,12,2011,7744688
07,13,2011,7639063
07,14,2011,7519375

Close to -110,000km a day

If we can keep this up for another 10 fucking days we WILL likely beat 2007. The main fire power of 2007 happened between the second week of July and the first of August. 

3,900,000 sq km is what I'm forecasting for minimum to 2007 4.20 million square kilometers. I think unless August is a complete cluster fuck we got it!!! WAHOOOO!!!


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2011)

Chris said:


>




Mark Twain has some excellent quotes that pertain to the AGW cult.


Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. 

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. 

Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. 

In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours. 

The main difference between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives. 

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. 

Mark Twain


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 15, 2011)

7-14


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2011)

So far this summer, Arctic sea ice has been melting at a record pace. Satellite data, which go back to 1979, show that ice extent is currently lower than it was at the same time in 2007, the year that went on to shatter all previous records for low ice extent in September, the end of the melt season (Figure 1). It is not yet clear if the ice will hit a new record low this September. But whether or not the ice extent sets another record, Arctic sea ice is continuing its long-term decline, a trend that researchers say is related to warming temperatures in the Arctic.

Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 15, 2011)

07,15,2011,7436719


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 15, 2011)

Hey, how's the discovery of several ACTIVE volcanoes under the Antarctic coast fitting in to your ice cap melting theories?  lol


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 15, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Hey, how's the discovery of several ACTIVE volcanoes under the Antarctic coast fitting in to your ice cap melting theories?  lol





I'm not discussing the Antarctic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 15, 2011)

Good choice.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2011)

Sea ice is not doing anything 'dramatic'. This is not a Broadway play, it is the normal course of planetary change dictated by the physics of the solar system.


----------



## gslack (Jul 15, 2011)

" And on the 8th day, the Goracle created climate science and told his people of a great flood from the Polar Icecaps, wiping away all the sin from the earth..." The Tao of Algorianism, Book of Inconveniences, Chapter 5, Verse 2.


----------



## wirebender (Jul 16, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Sea ice is not doing anything 'dramatic'. This is not a Broadway play, it is the normal course of planetary change dictated by the physics of the solar system.



Hey.  Watching ice melt in the summer is at least as dramatic as grass growing or paint drying.  One must wonder though, why watching it freeze back in the winter doesn't seem to be nearly as interesting to those who watch.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2011)

Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?


----------



## Chris (Jul 16, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Sea ice is not doing anything 'dramatic'. This is not a Broadway play, it is the normal course of planetary change dictated by the physics of the solar system.



And the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2011)

arctic ice thins dramatically- hmmmmm

back in the twenties there were newspaper articles describing drastic reduction of arctic ice yet the 'official' records dont reflect any of it. much like the medieval records that describe conditions that many 'official' reconstructions denounce. why do we believe proxies over records of first hand experience? especially when those records had no idea that they would be involved many years in the future? and when the proxies (especially treerings) would show recent cooling if instrumental measurements werent spliced on at convenient times? 

I wish climate scientists would act more like scientists and less like lawyers trying to put their client in the best possible light.


----------



## Chris (Jul 16, 2011)

IanC said:


> arctic ice thins dramatically- hmmmmm
> 
> back in the twenties there were newspaper articles describing drastic reduction of arctic ice yet the 'official' records dont reflect any of it. much like the medieval records that describe conditions that many 'official' reconstructions denounce. why do we believe proxies over records of first hand experience? especially when those records had no idea that they would be involved many years in the future? and when the proxies (especially treerings) would show recent cooling if instrumental measurements werent spliced on at convenient times?
> 
> I wish climate scientists would act more like scientists and less like lawyers trying to put their client in the best possible light.



Link?


----------



## wirebender (Jul 16, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?



We aren't seeing extremes.


----------



## wirebender (Jul 16, 2011)

Chris said:


> And the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.



Meaningless as it pertains to the climate.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2011)

Chris said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > arctic ice thins dramatically- hmmmmm
> ...








Here's the NOAA page for the November 1922 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW.
But hey, they're scientists...they don't know anything.

"The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from
fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas
about S itzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to
a radicaf change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-
of high temperatures in that part of the earth's
surface.
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Departnient of Commerce
sent an expedition to Spitzber en and Bear Island
geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose
was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the
Nqrwegian niines on those islands, take soundings of the
ad] acent waters, and niake ot-her oceanographic. investigations.
Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location
of hitherto unknown coal de osits on the eastern shores
of Advent Bay-deposits or vast extent and superior
uality.%,This is regarded as of first importance, as so
?ar most of the coal mined by the Norwegian companies
on those islands has not been of the best quality.


The oceanographic observations have, however, been
even more iiiterestinm. Ice conditions were exce tional.
In fact, so little icexas never before been note!. The
expedition all but established a record, sailing as far
north its Sl0 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest
north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
The character of the waters of the great polar basin
has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports
that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81'
north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it
could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st
parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it robable
time.
Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear
Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold
current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen
off the south ca e.
to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway
and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who
has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says
that he first noted wanner conditions in 1915, that since
that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day
the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same
re ion of 1865 to 1917.
%any old landniarks are so changed EW to be weco
nizltble. Where formerly great masses of ice were foun
there are now often moraines, accumlulations of earth and
stones."

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?
> ...








red line is observation since 1950. I will look for even longer term data.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2011)

Since 1900!!! of course this is the maximum and the one above is the min.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2011)

07,16,2011,7346563

-94,218 km decreased between 7-15 to 7-16.

This is how July looked in 2007

07,01,2007,9288906
07,02,2007,9126875  -162
07,03,2007,8925000  -202
07,04,2007,8794063  -131
07,05,2007,8704219  -90
07,06,2007,8611094  -93
07,07,2007,8529844  -81
07,08,2007,8455000  -75
07,09,2007,8369063  -76
07,10,2007,8233906 -136
07,11,2007,8125156  -88
07,12,2007,8015156 -100
07,13,2007,7881250 -134
07,14,2007,7785000  -96  
07,15,2007,7690313  -95
07,16,2007,7592500  -78
07,17,2007,7498594  -94
07,18,2007,7427188  -71
07,19,2007,7363281  -64
07,20,2007,7271094  -92
07,21,2007,7167656 -104
07,22,2007,7066406 -101
07,23,2007,6972031  -94
07,24,2007,6858125 -114
07,25,2007,6781250  -77
07,26,2007,6688594  -93
07,27,2007,6594844  -94
07,28,2007,6527969  -67
07,29,2007,6479375  -48
07,30,2007,6428125  -51
07,31,2007,6375313  -53


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Since 1900!!! of course this is the maximum and the one above is the min.








Any submarines surfacing at the Northpole yet?  Looks like that graph is a little suspect.


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2011)

I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...

Your rather suspect chart in post #1145 shows ice extent dropping drastically since 1990. IF this was the case in reality do you really think Ice Road truckers would be on the air? How about the fact that one year they report drastic ice loss and make bold scary claims, only have the year end in a completely different manner? They do not advertise their mistakes or errors and you don't believe anyone who shows them to you. See the problem?

And whats worse is most of you AGW faithful seem to work on the same twisted logic. You make an assumption that 4-5 degrees temperature change will melt the ice caps. Lets get some perspective on that shall we... Whats the average arctic temp in February? Not sure and I don't want to google it so lets just say its freaking cold and around -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure its probably colder but  I just want a simple number to work with here. So at -10 F and we lose 5 degrees of that rather abruptly making it -5 degrees Fahrenheit. So does it melt the ice? Hmm, not sure but I think we will still have the ice don't you? -10 or -5 we will still have ice maybe it won't cover out as far but its still going to be there and we will still make more on top of the old ice nearer the center of the poles.

But wait! there's more... Turns out that ice thickness has more to do with precipitation than it does with temperature. You know why? Because there has to be water to make ice. You forget that the ocean water is just part of the equation here. Ocean water freezes around 28.8 F and fresh water around 32 degrees F. So if its still -5 F it will still freeze won't it.... And you take into account the amount of snowfall in the area in a given season and bingo, you get a much clearer picture.

The problem with most of the crap coming out of the places with a vested interest in studying these types of things is they measure ice. They too often do not bother to take things like precipitation into account when they release their scary charts. You know why? Because 30 years ago no one paid attention to their work and there was little money in it. No money means fewer people going into the field, less funding for their research and no big fancy places for them gather and work out their hypothesis like Hadley. No IPCC either... Follow me? IN the last 20 years they got all kinds of press and interest and money just rolls in for their research. All they gotta do is slap a climate change badge on it and it sells. 

Rich people have consciences and need a place to put money they don't want uncle same to get. And now they get tax breaks and incentives to encourage them to invest in projects like these. Why? well uncle sams politicians aren't scientists and frankly half of them either don't care to know or haven't the time to research it. Then they are told by an expert they hire (who happens to be a climate scientist) that it would be a good idea to give incentives to people who help fund research on climate change. And of course it looks good and gets the environmentalists votes too. SO they get em their incentives. 

Dude this is a big problem that none of you guys seem to be able to realize. You all seem to put on your blinders and not look past them and see whats on the left or right. They tell you "its good for the planet" or "the ice is melting and soon florida will be gone" and you put on your activist help the planet mentality and away you go. Seriously man, do you really believe that the only proper scientists in the world worth listening to are the ones that have a vested interest in this?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?
> ...



The Missouri and Mississippi have been in flood from the heatwaters to the Gulf since May. And will remain so until mid-September, provided we don't get more rain.

Last summers drougth in Russia destroyed 40% of their grain crop. This summers flooding the Northern Plains and South will destroy a significant percentage of US crops. Throw in what the drought in Texas has done there.

Australia lost a significant portion of their agriculture when about 1/4 of that nation flooded at the beginning of this year. 

Then there is the little matter of the number and size of the tornados this year. 

Yes. some real extremes, and all in a 12 month period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...
> 
> Your rather suspect chart in post #1145 shows ice extent dropping drastically since 1990. IF this was the case in reality do you really think Ice Road truckers would be on the air? How about the fact that one year they report drastic ice loss and make bold scary claims, only have the year end in a completely different manner? They do not advertise their mistakes or errors and you don't believe anyone who shows them to you. See the problem?
> 
> ...



You are full of shit as usual. 



Detecting Climate Change in Canadian Ice Data



Abstract


The Canadian Ice Service maintains an archive of ice thickness measurements collected over the period 1947-1998. The ice measuring stations are located at various lakes, rivers, and oceans throughout Canada. The author analyzed these measurements for the purpose of detecting long-term climate trends. A Java program calculates the ice centimeter-days for each winter season. The ice archive shows that the climate of Canada became warmer during the study period, and that this warming trend has accelerated in recent years.



Introduction


The science of climatology uses various methods to recover historic records of temperatures in a region. Some of these methods involve measurements taken by humans and recorded for later use. The Canadian Ice Service has a web site at http://www.cis.ec.gc.ca/index.html that provides an on-line archive ice thickness measurements taken at numerous bodies of water in Canada. I discovered this archive on the Internet and decided to analyze it as a research project for a course in meteorology.



At this writing it is well accepted in the scientific community that the earths climate is warming up. The cause of the warming is a matter of debate; some scientists point to human activity as a major cause of global warming, while others suggest that the global increase in temperature is primarily natural. I did not expect to overturn the general scientific consensus by this project, nor to prove or disprove the human link. The purpose was to examine the data and see what it would reveal about global warming.



Climate influences both the length of a winter season and its severity (how cold it gets). Knowing this, I wanted to use a metric that would reflect both the number of winter days with ice cover, and the thickness of the ice itself.I decided to create and use the metric ice centimeter-days by multiplying the thickness by the number of days with that thickness. Ice centimeter-days are similar to degree-days.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1900!!! of course this is the maximum and the one above is the min.
> ...



Ever look at real science, Walleyes?

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Both Arctic and Anarctic sea ice in very negative territory. Both the Northwest and Northeast Passages look like they may be open by the end of this month.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...







The Mississippi flood plain is 200 miles wide.  Care to show us where in the last 50 years that expanse has been flooded?


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...







Yes, that's why I can see the graph has some problems.


----------



## IanC (Jul 17, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I googled hadley carter ice graph but it doesnt seem to have much history besides being in algore's pamphlet version of AIT. there was an interesting article on cherrypicking data though


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...
> ...



Moron do you really think what I said can be dismissed by using the same biased sources I mention being the problem? Are you really that completely incompetent?

YOU COMPLETE NINCOMPOOP! The the earths movement through its orbital path around the sun and its oscillation/wobble dictate the seasons. If the temp goes up 5 degrees it will not change the rotation or orbit you idiot. A winter season will be the same as long as the orbit is the same. Whether its warmer or colder the first or last days is a matter of current atmospheric conditions and solar output and cosmic radiation. SO at a 5 degree increase what will happen? We lose a day on the end or beginning of ice making winter? LOL gimme a break...

You just proved my point idiot. You can't post anything but what some scientists tells you is true. You don't have any ability to think. You rely on people whose job and career depends on there being a climate problem to tell you if there is a climate problem and what do you think you will get? A problem...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 17, 2011)

gs, I understand what your saying, but I enjoy watching the natural cycles. I've spent about 15 years of my life watching different things like this. Not going to stop...It is not because of global warming.

Here is a thickness chart of the sea ice


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2011)

Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.

I think it's cause is anthropogenic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2011)

*Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.*

AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover

Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
Martin C. Todd and Anson W. Mackay
Department of Geography, University College London, London, United Kingdom







Abstract 

Long-term records of winter ice duration, formation, and breakup dates (1869&#8211;1996) and maximum thickness (1950&#8211;95) on Lake Baikal are analyzed to determine the nature of temporal trends and the relationship with the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There are highly significant trends of decreasing ice duration (and thickness) over the period, associated with later ice formation and earlier breakup dates. These trends are broadly in line with those of winter air temperatures in the region. Variability in Lake Baikal ice formation date, duration, and thickness is significantly related to winter temperatures over a wide area from the Caspian Sea to the Pacific and from northern India to the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Siberia. Thus, Lake Baikal ice cover is a robust indicator of continental-scale winter climate. Correlation and composite analysis of surface and upper-atmospheric fields reveal that interannual variability in ice cover is associated with a tripolar pattern of upper-level geopotential height anomalies. In years of high (low) ice duration and thickness, significant positive (negative) 700-hPa geopotential height anomalies occur over northern Siberia and the Arctic, complemented by negative (positive) anomalies over central-eastern Asia and southern Europe. This structure induces an anomalous meridional flow regime in eastern Siberia with cold (warm) temperature advection from the northeast (southwest) in years of high (low) ice duration and thickness. Analysis of the lower-tropospheric heat budget during years of extreme early and late ice onset indicates that horizontal temperature advection is largely responsible for the observed temperature anomalies. These circulation anomalies are associated with certain recognized patterns of Northern Hemisphere climate variability, notably the Scandinavian and Arctic Oscillation patterns. Significant correlations also occur between Lake Baikal ice cover and the Pacific&#8211;North American pattern in the previous winter. The component of variability in Lake Baikal ice cover unrelated to these modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability is associated with the position and intensity of the Siberian high.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2011)

biodivcanada.ca - Ice Across Biomes

ICE ACROSS BIOMES
Lake and river ice
Greater variability from year to year, as well as overall trends toward shorter duration of lake and river ice, are closely linked to increasing spring and fall air temperatures.41-43 Ice is an important part of aquatic habitat and changes in ice cover alter a range of conditions, including length of the growing season for algae, water temperature, and levels of sediment and dissolved oxygen.44 Ice conditions also affect land animals by controlling access to the shoreline and to routes across lakes and rivers.45


----------



## sparky (Jul 17, 2011)

Liability said:


> Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.
> 
> I think it's cause is anthropogenic.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vIA06o6g6yk


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2011)

sparky said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.
> ...



Note to self:

male pattern baldness can be caused by trauma....


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.*
> 
> AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
> 
> ...



Thats it moron don't bother with the truth just keep on pretending I said something else. Yeah more of the same from you.. I would like to see you for once actually try and think for yourself. Just one time try to argue this with something other than mindless cut and paste. Do YOU think at all anymore or do you just let them tell you what you think about everything. Dude we all know you don't understand any of what you post you have shown that over and over. So please tell us what you think and why you support AGW theory. Not what they tell you or what some scientists are studying now but what you think. I bet you can't do it. I bet if you tried you would just cut and paste or take what someone else said or wrote and go with it. So come on man show us all what YOU think for once.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.*
> ...



Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways. 

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Okay matt, since you think I am being a bit unfair and perhaps one-sided or whatever. I want you to explain to me when you last saw a retraction of any data on the pro side of climate change. Can you name one time they came out and made a public correction? Surely you can't claim they have never made a mistake or had errors because well frankly we wouldn't have florida if they were infallible. 

Right now there are people who watch and study their reports and claims and point out the errors to them and they either have some excuse or they quietly put up corrections in an attachment or some other manner. Why don't they come clean and fix the errors with the same zeal they make the wild claims they base on those errors?

You wouldn't even know the Hockey stick graph was a misleading and completely useless piece of fiction if it weren't for people like those I mentioned. Why didn't they come clean? 

And BTW, your attempt to dismiss my points on the "you don't trust anybody" defense doesn't change a thing here. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO IS PROVEN FALSE SO MANY TIMES. And if you need a graph or some numbers pulled off a computer climate modeling program to tell you that they BS people about climate change, you are seriously in denial. 

They lied about the polar bears, they lied about ocean acidity, they lied about CO2 driving climate with their hockey stick graph, they lied about the oceans rising 7 meters, they lied about Greenland melting, they lied about the medieval warming period, and they did all of this using the same modelling and computer hucksterism they use today.

Seriously matt, if you are only going to believe them why ask for data from elsewhere anyway? I tried this with oldsocks once and it was a waste of time. He didn't want data from somewhere else he wanted to call all others fakes and phonies and continue his sermon.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Why should I believe either side being that you both have a bias to destroy the other and don't really went to get to the truth of the matter. Finding things out for what they were. Raw data would be nice that wasn't fucked by either side to help finding the real truth of the matter.


----------



## gslack (Jul 17, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



But see you are believing one side and not the other. If you want to get to the truth of the matter and you can't trust either side, why do you only cite from the one side? All I know for sure is climate change is now big funding money, and they have been found false many many times. As far as oil goes I don't go to them for information because I know what I will get. Why is it every scientist not on the pro-side of AGW is working for or with big oil? Doesn't sound like science to me when they have to resort to those tactics. You seem to operate on the assumption that because  they are educated scientists they are ethical and good people and wouldn't deliberately twist data to favor their side. Why are they so much better than the scientists who don't agree with AGW theory? Every time I see a person of science dare to accuse another scientist of bias because of their funding, I know dam good and well that scientist takes money from groups and people who are pro agw so why do they get a free pass?

Ethics is ethics no matter what side you are on.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 18, 2011)

There are many scientists from many countries and political systems involved in the study of the climate. Yet virtually all are stating the same thing. That the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. A rate that will affect the agriculture that we depend on for food, and the fisheries that nearly a billion people depend on for their primary source of protean.

To state that all are lying, is to state that there is a conspiracy involving the whole of the scientific community worldwide. But then, G, your posts indicate that you are tinfoil hat material in any case.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 18, 2011)

Liability said:


> Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.
> 
> I think it's cause is anthropogenic.



I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it not only statistically accurate at the 100% significance level, but worthy of massive federal funding for both research and "awareness raising".


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

07,17,2011,7242813

-104,843 km^2 melted in 24 hours

2007 had much less the 17, 18th with -94,000, but went up to over -100 for a few days this week. But after this week 2007 drops to a avg of 50-70k per day. If we can have -90 to 100k days for the next 4-5 days we will remain below 2007. 

Then it is up to August and if the volume is as low as it is and some of the satellite maps shows that the even the 3 meter sea ice is starting break up...So I think it is very possible for the above to come true. I think we could go through August with 75k avg per day melt. 

I'm forecasting 3.9 million km for the minimum!


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



BTW matt I mentioned before how editing my posts leads to confusion and allows a person to alter my meanings... So once more please do not edit or add lines into quotes from my posts. If you want to address a certain point than multi quote me but doing this is misleading and makes any rebuttal next to impossible as well as confusing my posts with your own making it hard for anyone else to follow either one.

The first time I will consider a mistake, the second time a nuisance, the third time I will consider deliberate.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2011)

The storms keep coming and scorching temperatures are still rising leaving most Americans scratching their heads questioning whether or not all the talk about global warming just might be true. There are more Americans today that believe global warming exists and is causing the recent extreme weather, increased number of deadly illnesses, and rising sea levels.

One recent study conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows most voters (59 percent) now believe in the term &#8220;global warming&#8221; and that it is a serious problem.

The report comes as the earth continues to sizzle with soaring temperatures and unprecedented drought plaguing most of the nation.

Some of the shifts in Americans' views today reflect real-world events, including the publicity in a recent report conducted by the National Academy of Sciences that revealed 97 out of 100 scientists now believe in man-made climate change.

Global Warming: Now Real to Most Americans, Christian News


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data.  I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place. 

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 18, 2011)

Chris said:


> The storms keep coming and scorching temperatures are still rising leaving most Americans scratching their heads questioning whether or not all the talk about global warming just might be true. There are more Americans today that believe global warming exists and is causing the recent extreme weather, increased number of deadly illnesses, and rising sea levels.
> 
> One recent study conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows most voters (59 percent) now believe in the term global warming and that it is a serious problem.
> 
> ...




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

Well then.......we should be seeing some significant climate legilsation coming down the pike...........and soon!!!!

I'll be looking for it.............


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

Time series of global mean heat storage (0-2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

Figure 3. Satellite images from the NASA AMSR-E sensor (large image) and MODIS (inset), show areas of low ice concentration north of Alaska. Both images were obtained on July 15, 2011. In the AMSR-E image, purple indicates areas of high sea ice concentration, while yellow and red indicates lower ice concentration. Blue shows open water and green shows land.
&#8212;Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy IUP Bremen AMSR-E (main image), NASA MODIS Rapid Response Arctic Mosaic (inset)

High-resolution image

A closer look at sea ice concentration
The sea ice extent data that NSIDC uses come from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) on U.S. Department of Defense satellites. Data from other satellites, while not as useful for studying long-term trends, can show more detail about ice cover in particular regions. Currently data from two NASA satellite


During the first half of July, a high-pressure cell persisted over the northern Beaufort Sea, as it did in June, and is linked to the above-average air temperatures over much of the Arctic Ocean. To date in July, air temperatures over the North Pole were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal, while temperatures along the coasts of the Laptev and East Siberian seas were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. By contrast, temperatures through the first half of July in the Kara Sea have been 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average.


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data.  I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.
> 
> If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.



NO DUDE YOU EDITED MY POSTS INSIDE THE QUOTE TAGS... That is not ethical and the fact you just tried to pretend it is okay tells me you either don't understand the problem with it, or you did it intentionally and just don't care about being ethical....

Want to address certain points separately fine, just multi-quote the post. Don't edit peoples posts inside the quotes. If you don't understand how quote tags work I will explain it.

(ignore the * this is to keep the browser or server from reading the tags and quoting the text.)

This is a quote tag *





> * that would start the section you want to quote.
> 
> Now to close the quote I add a / inside the brackets and before the word quote. Understand?
> 
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

07,18,2011,7155156

7/18/2011, -87,657

Here is for 2007
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92 


I'm sorry-I may of writen outside of "my bolded" words.


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data.  I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.
> 
> If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.



LIke this for example.. I quoted your post above fully, and now I want to address a certain point you raised. So I do this...



> *If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.*



Yes just a lil white lie huh... Yeah and the data is suspect because of it just like I said. But hey don't take my word for it read what one of the leaders in the field said to Discover Magazine. Don't have the link for it but I did ketp that issue of Discover around for a long time as well as keeping the quote here on the PC. If you want you can google it its his words and accurate. Also I note the issue and name of the publication in the citation. Also he has since passed on, so he is no longer one of the leaders but there are a great many who agree and follow his lead.

_*On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing butwhich means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. 

On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.*_ -Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48).

Yeah, kinda says it all doesn't it... Thanks but I think that was pretty enlightening.. BTW there are many more people at the heads of organizations who push climate change both scientists and laymen alike who think and act this very same way, I can get many more examples of this kind of talk from them if need be..


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data.  I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.
> 
> If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.





Matthew said:


> 07,18,2011,7155156
> 
> 7/18/2011, -87,657
> 
> ...



Okay now I know you aren't just unaware or new to this... This was intentional and now we can see exactly what we are dealing with. So all of your nice guy BS was just that...

If you continue this kind of nonsense be prepared to be treated with respect befitting your actions..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 18, 2011)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data.  I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.
> ...





Honestly, I sure as fuck didn't think I made a mistake, but I guess I did. I can treat you with the same, but I try to hold a higher standard with the hope for a honest debate of the data and the issue at hand as I'm not a extremist on either side of it. I wish the data would be looked at by each side honestly and we can make up our minds based on it without politics. FUCK politics. 

As for that leader that you quoted---he is very much right as some within the science are going to hype the hell out of everything, but maybe that is to get people to 'look' as most people today can't get off there mother fucking ass for ten seconds or take anything seriously theses days. These guys understand this. Do I believe it hurts the science, hell yes!!! I'd rather them stick with the facts and leave the hyping the hell out of it. Do I think some of them are left wing idiots that went to use it for their own propose, you can bet your house on it. Do I  believe that the data could be screwed with, YES! But each and every tiny bit of honest data shows a warming trend of some kind. I don't give a fuck if it is natural or man made, but I do know it is there. Do I went to shut down big oil, FUCK NO, Do I went to shut down big coal, fuck no---I'd rather the middle class and poor get cheap energy that is not taxed up the ass and those energy resources for this time are the best. I think cap and trade sucks ass! I would vote fuck no. It would hurt people. 

Not all these people are dishonest or stupid. Even Spencer at UAH will admit to a warming of earth...In and fact his satellite data shows about what the giss, noaa does. What data base or temperature data set does the skeptics have? I don't believe any. Every honest fucking data set on gods earth will show it. 

Gslack, if you believe my thinking is wrong then post up a data set that shows me other wise. Something within the past 20 years.


----------



## gslack (Jul 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Matt you tell me honestly your intentions weren't dishonest I believe you. But your cavalier manner in your previous posts kinda gave a different impression. So fair enough you didn't do it to be dishonest so be it. But seriously do try and use the quote tags instead of writing inside peoples quoted posts. It really is confusing for people to follow, and it gives a false sense of a conversation.

 To the point of twisted science, ANY alteration, wild claims, or exaggerated hypothesis in any scientific study makes the science from that study in the very least suspect and casts doubt on any further scientific study in that field especially by the same people. You cannot have scientific research using those tactics and any scientist worth his degree will say the same thing. It casts doubt on the science and the scientists who bring it.

A while ago science had the edge on religion. The edge was you could check their work and hypothesis and thereby giving them something religion could not do. You cannot ask to see God and heaven and come back to give witness to it and the ability to have your claims checked by peers. You can't video tape or have a team of scholars all confirm what happened in a meeting with the all mighty in heaven. But you can have those things in science. Unless the science starts to twist and exaggerate their findings, then they are nearly the same animal... And thats the problem with a little white lie in science.


----------



## Chris (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## LoVE (Jul 19, 2011)

Chris said:


>



hmmm.. maybe I need to get my glasses renewed but looking at that chart it looks like there has been a slight change in Ice levels in the last 4 years.. but yet the op says that the change has been drastic... is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture.?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)

LoVE said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Seeing that it took millions of years from pretty much 29 to around 1.2 million years to get into the current ice age to interglacial cycle, I'd say it is pretty drastic. I believe during the 1900-1970's minimum was around 7.8 to around 9 million km^2. Today it is around 4.2(2007), 4.8(2010) up to around 5.8 million km^2.

See the first thing that occurred was the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets...Once this was in place it started to take up more and more "co2" into its self---lowering the earths co2 percentage within the Atmosphere, even more then the India sub continent slamming into the Asian continent. Many within science believe that is what finally cooled earth down from 14-17c warmer then today to around 5-7c around 30 million years ago. What is a feed back, a sample idea of it is 1# indian sub continent slamming into asian continent; a feed back of such is of course the antarctic ice sheet developing and the lowering of the sst's or better known as the ocean temperatures. This made the oceans more able to take in co2, which lowers the percentage even more. This keeps going until you get greenland and other ice sheets shooting out of earth's backside.

The changes within earth's rotation and orbit are small, so up until a few millions of years ago those huge assed glacial that cover all of Canada and northern America, Europe couldn't happen.


----------



## LoVE (Jul 19, 2011)

well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.

CO2 has to be near 5000 ppm to be detrimental to human life.. right now it is something like 300 to 350 ppm.. I would say we are safe


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 19, 2011)

LoVE said:


> well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned(sic) with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster(sic) unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.
> 
> CO2 has to be near 5000 ppm to be detrimental to human life.. right now it is something like 300 to 350 ppm.. I would say we are safe



Just more clueless denier cult drivel and ignorant nonsense from another brainwashed dupe.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> LoVE said:
> 
> 
> > well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned(sic) with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster(sic) unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

This shows the melt even better. Interesting, there appears to be a bit of detachment of the ice pack from Northern Greenland.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## Moving to USA (Jul 19, 2011)

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

 Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)

Moving to USA said:


> Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved
> 
> Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..





Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth&#8217;s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth&#8217;s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates &#8212; published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates &#8212; are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity&#8217;s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000&#8211;200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia&#8217;s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States&#8217; Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.


----------



## Moving to USA (Jul 19, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Moving to USA said:
> 
> 
> > Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved
> ...



 Glad you pointed that out
  Did you also know that Mt St Helens lowered the earths temperature after it erupted? so since we agree that man/cars are worse offenders than volcanoes, it stands to reason that if not for the cars we would be much hotter right now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)

Moving to USA said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Moving to USA said:
> ...



"Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and  they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space."

How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects

Yes, but only for a very short *time* about -.1c. As Sulfur stays in the Atmosphere for only weeks or maybe months. 

The main gases that composite type volcanos spew are mostly "cooling" or negative forcing gas into the Atmosphere. As stated within the article above. Cars, planes, trains and heating or cooling your house produces co2, which warms the planet. 

In no if there was no cars we would be cooling right now as the tsi(solar output) has been slowly in a down slope since 1950. Hell the last decade should of cooled a few tenth of a degree C with the longest and deepest solar minimum since 1908-1912 or even the first cycle of the Dalton.


Now solar to temperature...Solar doesn't equal temperature after 1970, while before it nearly did.











But it is explainable by co2!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2011)

Moving to USA said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Moving to USA said:
> ...



No, St. Helens had minimal effect on the Earth's temperature. Very little sulphates in the ash from St. Helens, unlike Pinatubo.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)

The attachment is my attempt at showing the missing 4-5 years. black line...Which is below all models.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Moving to USA said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Way to use douchebag science their tool.. what exactly does "minimal" mean here in this context? Are we talking "minimal" as in the earths temperature warming just 1.9 degrees in the last few hundred years? Or do we mean "minimal" as in oldsocks is a tool who is a google scientist who has no idea what he's actually talking about.. "minimal" LOL What a ridiculous cop-out..


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 19, 2011)

Revisionist history, of The Algore School of thought, refuses to recognize that there was any history before FDR.  Hence the cyclic nature of Earth's climate is unknown to theml.  We can take heart, however, in that if they were forcibly made aware of it their heads would explode.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 19, 2011)

Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling  or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.


*Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice it as its lowest extent for this time of early July. The melting season for Arctic ice continues until the end of August. *
July 9, 2011
(excerpt)

*The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says sea ice in the Arctic ocean is retreating at a record pace. It's currently at it's lowest extent for early July. Previous, July 2007 was the lowest extent before this year. Back in 2007 by the end of the melting season, the melting of the Arctic sea ice was the most in recorded history. That year lost more ice in one year than in the past 28 years combined according to the NSIDC.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> Revisionist history, of The Algore School of thought, refuses to recognize that there was any history before FDR.  Hence the cyclic nature of Earth's climate is unknown to theml.  We can take heart, however, in that if they were forcibly made aware of it their heads would explode.





I'm a huge believer in the cycles that make up the warm and cool periods. Solar is the number one short term and medium term cycle maker. 

HenryBHough, co2 is just a positive within a process that has many positive and negative forcing. If you have zero forcing of either positive or negative you get a stable climate, but if one of the many processes turn strong enough positive or negative then you get climate to warm or cool. The sun is number one! Mid evil, little ice age, modern warm period.  My question is why the solar tsi and temperature has for the first time in 8,000 years has diverged outside of volcano's, meteor impact or some other short term process(nao, pdo, amo, enso, ect)? The whole debate within the past 30 years is what is causing the positive forcing. We know it is not likely the sun because it peaked in 1955.  I have to tell every global warming believer that this is also a natural cycle and because they think it is totally all co2. Truth is co2 is just a piece of the puzzle. 

I know all about cycles and what they do, but just believe that co2 is variable z.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling  or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.
> 
> 
> *Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July
> ...



Yes, yes... And things are looking rather grim for your stability as well it would seem.. According to anyone who reads your posts your grey matter is reducing its cell count leading to more hot air coming from you on global warming...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling  or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.
> ...



Unable to deal with the reality of the situation, the slackjawedidiot retreats into spewing more meaningless noise, as usual. Almost all of this silly troll's posts are just as empty of any real content as his latest response here to the facts about Arctic ice loss.


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No not at a loss, just know who I am dealing with. You and olsocks are both algorian faithful, so no point in arguing or debating with you. olsocks has proven time and again he has no problem lying or using any tactic he can to keep the illusion of his brilliance alive if even only for himself. And you are nearly his twin. Why bother debating false science with either of you. 

We all know its BS and so do the both of you. You quote the same tired old scare tactics from the same biased and known exaggerators of the science and their findings. You know they exaggerate the findings, many of them admit it. That is their standard summer melt season scare tactic they do all summer long. At the end of the season they will quietly post their corrections with no headlines. Which in the winter they will do the same regarding the lack of ice forming, which again they will correct the errors later on quietly. They do this religiously because if there is no climate threat they lose funding and no more press. You know it, I know it and more and more people realize it everyday.

You keep posting the BS and they keep making more of it and soon everyone will grow tired of it and they will run out of excuses and ways to twist whatever happens into evidence of AGW, and you and your pals are helping it along faster with every ignorant, asinine post. So please continue on your crusade and I and others will continue to entertain ourselves with it..

Tell me when the last time you had a thought that was your own on this subject. I mean a complete and coherent thought or idea that you didn't get from one of those exaggerated charts, graphs or scary headlines? Neither of you have done anything but post links to scientists and their suspect findings.  Suspect is putting it mildly, because they have no interest in anything BUT finding evidence of AGW. Everything is proof of it just look at it. Its warming its evidence, if it gets colder its still evidence, if it stays the same its evidence. LOL seriously even their mistakes are evidence. Gimme a break man no sincere man with any bit of common sense in his head could be so obtuse on this still. So I think most of you know its BS but either too afraid to stop, or have a vested interest in it somehow. Either way you two are about as sincere about this as I am, you just play along with it for some reason.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling  or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the earth continues to heat up and the polar ice cap continues to melt?

Why?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2011)

2011 starts with a record La Nina. A very inactive solar flux with a low TSI. Yet here we are with record heat all over the planet. And especially record heat in the Arctic. Right where the major potential for destabalizing the climate with a vast outpouring of CO2 and CH4 in the Permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates is located.

And still the dumb ass deniers flap yap, and denigrate the scientists that have warned us for over a hundred years about the potential of destabalizing the climate.


----------



## Chris (Jul 20, 2011)

The annual Arctic slush cup has begun to sizzle in earnest, with the worst July coverage yet reported by satellite monitoring.

Damaged by the early start to the melt season and then basked in much warmer air than normal, Arctic sea ice has shrunk so fast during the past few weeks that it&#8217;s now dipped into record minimum territory for the time of year, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

&#8220;Arctic sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace through the first half of July, and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum September extent,&#8221; the NSIDC reported in its latest sea ice update.

As of July 17, the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice had shrunk to 2.92 million square miles -- the smallest extent ever seen for mid-July since satellite monitoring began in the 1970s. It&#8217;s 865,000 square miles below the average cover for that date seen between 1979 and 2000. A frozen polar bear-and-seal habitat larger than Alaska and California combined has been transformed into mostly open water.

Arctic sea ice melting fast | Alaska Dispatch


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

Go on and stroke one anothers egos if you must boys I won't look...LOL


----------



## LoVE (Jul 20, 2011)

stroke... stroke....stroke... oh look kittens


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> Go on and stroke one anothers egos if you must boys I won't look...





LoVE said:


> stroke... stroke....stroke... oh look kittens



LOLOLOLOLOL......so typical.....on the one hand there are the realists who post actual scientific information from reputable sources...Chris, Old Rocks, Matthew and myself, among others....and on the other hand there are the cult like deniers of reality who only post empty drivel and half-witted propaganda they scraped off of some denier cult blog....and they wonder why we laugh at them and their moronic nonsense....these last two braindead responses from a couple of denier cult cretins to to some previous posts citing hard data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center about dwindling Arctic ice this season are very typical of the mindless nonsense denier cultists spew when confronted with the facts....very funny watching these clowns try to keep their heads in the sand...LOL...their obvious and poorly repressed homosexuality is pretty funny too....keep "_stroking_", guys....LOL...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Go on and stroke one anothers egos if you must boys I won't look...
> ...






Looks like its that time again.................


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 20, 2011)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






I got a far better "why" question?

If your science is so sound, why is the alarmist side losing so badly? If the evidence is so profound that we are about to fall off a cliff...............why is the prevailling conventional wisdom so counter to that view? In fact, its a rout.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL.....what you imagine is "_the prevailling(sic) conventional wisdom_" is a hallucination created by the fact that you have your head jammed so deep into the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber, where you ignorant morons reinforce one another's insanity (or 'so deep up your ass', which amounts to the same thing).

*Rasmussen Reports*
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
(excerpt)
*But most voters (59%) say global warming it at least a somewhat serious problem.  Just 37% do not think climate change is a serious issue.  These figures include 33% who say global warming is Very Serious and 16% who believe it is Not At All Serious.  A majority of voters have acknowledged climate change as a serious problem for several years now.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2011)

Slowing down to 60-70 thousand km a day melt. What you need to understand is 2007 was utterly the 1998 of sea ice melt. The pattern was perfect from late June through August. In fact there was a period that got to near or over -200 thousands a day in 2007. Strong ridging, plus tons of sun light over that sea ice. 

You people don't went to think about what caused 2007 much like 1998 to stick out. The global warming as fast it is occurring within the arctic is climate and the long term trend. 

Imagine for a second you have the same pattern in 1980, but you would only get down to 7.8 million km^2 or maybe 7.5. Today you can get down to 4.5 or maybe 4.2 million km^2 with the same. Global warming is the avg "climate" and not weather. Climate is over the year...Weather is 2007 for sea ice and enso for 1998 out of this world temperature anomalies.

It is NOT such a anomaly to get to number one or two in global temperature right now. We did twice already...One of those times under .05-.075c of negative solar forcing and half of the year was nina.

What global warming is maybe above the complexity of the normal joe on the street. This is why they simplified it, but by doing so they hurt there own cause. But they took a risk.


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



We went over this already chris... Sunspots are not the only factor in solar radiation or the heat it provides to this planet. Here is what NASA says on it.

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics


> Sunspot Cycle Predictions
> 
> 
> MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link.* Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.*



Lets try and keep up shall we?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



gslack, Your right about what you're saying as sun spots "only a minimum effect" on the earth's climate, but normally when the number of sun spots are low=low solar flux(solar winds), iradiance, ect. Those do have a impact on global climate. High solar flux normally equal a solar max, which is also going to have a lot of sun spots, but a minimum is going to mean less sun spots and lower solar winds. So christ has a point in that sun spots=solar flux, irradiance on the norm. So it is safe to use sun spots to=those.






This shows that all factors since 1975 have slowly been decreasing. NOT increasing, which you would think it would if it was the driver behind temperature. The past 5-6 years has blown away the minimums from 21, 22, 23 to.

This shows Irradiance even better for a longer period of time and with the global temperature. This is why I say 1955 time frame had the peak and a downward slope in watts/meter^2 from the sun.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2011)

To the skeptics this is going to come off as alarmism, but I'm going to be honest.

The ice sheets north of greenland are breaking!!! The northern coast green land is now opening up. This is some of the heaviest and oldest sea ice. Some of it to the north is the 5 year stuff of 5-10 meters.











In case you think I'm a chicken little and some how this occurs a lot. Here is the min in 2007. You don't see any open waters north of greenland.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Slowing down to 60-70 thousand km a day melt. What you need to understand is 2007 was utterly the 1998 of sea ice melt. The pattern was perfect from late June through August. In fact there was a period that got to near or over -200 thousands a day in 2007. Strong ridging, plus tons of sun light over that sea ice.
> 
> You people don't went to think about what caused 2007 much like 1998 to stick out. The global warming as fast it is occurring within the arctic is climate and the long term trend.
> 
> ...






Matthew, this is the philosophy of the alarmists.  They didn't take a risk, they simply lied because they wanted control.  And your money.

In the 1970's he was also one of the loudest proponents of the coming ice age.  We have seen how accurate that particular scenario was.  This is the new scenario and it too is playing out.  The new scenario is the supposed 6th "extinction event" and lack of biodiversity.  Do you get it yet?  It has zero to do with science and everything to do with politics.  It is about control and seperating your money from you.



The rate of change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems." TV interview in 1990 to Britain's Channel 4

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing butwhich means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. 


On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48).

Professor Stephen Schneider


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> To the skeptics this is going to come off as alarmism, but I'm going to be honest.
> 
> The ice sheets north of greenland are breaking!!! The northern coast green land is now opening up. This is some of the heaviest and oldest sea ice. Some of it to the north is the 5 year stuff of 5-10 meters.
> 
> ...







Yeah it's dramatic, and yet there is still no opening at the North Pole which has occured in the recent past.  Remember those pictures of the submarines in open water at the North Pole?  In the 1960's?  Remember that.  This is nothing new or exceptional.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 20, 2011)

Was always sorta curious................

If the alarmist brigades are so confident that their shit is right, why then are they always having these mental meltdown's on this forum? Ever see Rolling Thunders posts? This guy throws a hideous rant filled temper tantrum every time somebody offers up a view counter to the alarmist view. Check out the tone of EVERY post. Whats up with that anger? Why the pronounced level of being apoised if the level of certainty of your own view is 100%?

IDK....is it a caffeine thing? Backbone of a hershey bar? Small gorgan syndrome? Simple cheesedickishness? Dismay at the precipitous fall of liberal ideology?

What?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all. 

The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone. 

Partly wrong because we're in a natural cycle and much of the warming during the 1880-1940s was because of it. What can't be explained is 1980-2010. 

Believe me I have my pride as a person that supposed to understand these things and is looked up to for there weather and science within my group of friends and house hold.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > To the skeptics this is going to come off as alarmism, but I'm going to be honest.
> ...



Your delusions must be hardwired into you, walledyedretard, 'cause you sure do hold onto them like grim death no matter how many times they are debunked by the facts. Contrary to your fantasies, this Arctic melting that is opening the polar Northeast and Northwest Passages is both new and very exceptional.

*For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated
Melting ice opens up North-west and North-east passages simultaneously. Scientists warn Arctic icecap is entering a 'death spiral'*

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
The Independent
Sunday, 31 August 2008
(excerpts)

*Open water now stretches all the way round the Arctic, making it possible for the first time in human history to circumnavigate the North Pole, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. New satellite images, taken only two days ago, show that melting ice last week opened up both the fabled North-west and North-east passages, in the most important geographical landmark to date to signal the unexpectedly rapid progress of global warming.

But it is the simultaneous opening  for the first time in at least 125,000 years  of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age.

...But scientists say that such disputes will soon become irrelevant if the ice continues to melt at present rates, making it possible to sail right across the North Pole. They have long regarded the disappearance of the icecap as inevitable as global warming takes hold, though until recently it was not expected until around 2070.

Many scientists now predict that the Arctic ocean will be ice-free in summer by 2030  and a landmark study this year by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, concluded that there will be no ice between mid-July and mid-September as early as 2013. The tipping point, experts believe, was the record loss of ice last year, reaching a level not expected to occur until 2050. Sceptics then dismissed the unprecedented melting as a freak event, and it was indeed made worse by wind currents and other natural weather patterns.*


Moreover, walleyedretard, your whole "_submarines in open water at the pole in the 60's_" argument is once again based entirely on your bottomless ignorance and gullibility.              Spots of open water in the mostly ice covered Arctic ocean have always been a common occurrence in the summer months as the winds move and shift the ice. 

*Arctic Science Journeys*
2000
Arctic Ice Cap
(excerpts)

* According to University of Washington oceanographer Dr. Drew Rothrock and other scientists who study the Arctic, open water at the pole is a common occurrence.

ROTHROCK: "There's a lot of open water, a lot of cracks of this size they describe in the sea ice in the summer."

In fact, at any given time during the summer, 10 to 15 percent of the Arctic Ocean is not covered by ice, says Dr. Mark Johnson, a physical oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Johnson spends a great deal of time modeling the ever-changing dynamics of the ice cap. He says the six-mile-long opening in the icecalled a leadthat tourists saw, sounds about right for this time of year.

The reason there is open water at the North Pole is because the ice cap is not, as some people might think, a stable, unchanging sheet of ice. Far from it, says Rothrock.

ROTHROCK: "It's a big ocean up there at the North Pole. It has floating sea ice covering it, which is typically about ten feet thick. It's not like an ice sheet or glacier on land, which is the situation at the South Pole. Sea ice is pretty mobile stuff. It moves around. It cracks. It breaks. It piles up. It's always on the go."

...That seems to fit with records from about 1930 to 1960 that show sea ice in the high Arctic was thick and widespread. It also seems to mesh with data from 1960 to 1990, which shows that sea ice became 40 percent thinner overall, according to Rothrock's research.

ROTHROCK: "We've published results from submarine cruises, where they have upward-looking sonar and they are able to determine ice thickness. We took data taken from cruises in the 1990s that we had been party to and compared it to older data from the '50s, '60s and '70s and found quite a large difference."*


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Was always sorta curious................
> 
> If the alarmist brigades are so confident that their shit is right, why then are they always having these mental meltdown's on this forum? Ever see Rolling Thunders posts? This guy throws a hideous rant filled temper tantrum every time somebody offers up a view counter to the alarmist view. Check out the tone of EVERY post. Whats up with that anger? Why the pronounced level of being apoised if the level of certainty of your own view is 100%?
> 
> ...







trolling blunder is simply deranged, pay him no mind, though it is fun to see him fall apart with his ranting!


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.
> 
> The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone.
> 
> ...








Never, ever let pride get in the way of science.  If you're wrong admit it and move on with a better theory.  Just be patient, the world is going into another cooling phase and it will become ever more obvious to the point that no matter how hard Hansen et al try and cook the books it will be patently obvious to even a person of diminished capacity can see they are lying.  Then, you'll know who the despotic types are and will be able to shun them.  This is the information age and their tactics are starting to not work anymore and it's driving them batshit crazy.  Just look at trolling blunders posts.  He's gone off the deep end and still thinks he's relevent.  Poor sod.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...










See these submarines?  They are at the North Pole.  Notice anything else?   No, you wouldn't would you.  Loser.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I see you're still terminally clueless and confused, walleyedretard. 

An account from one crew member, James E. Hester, aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959: 

*"the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up.  The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet."

Other scientists and experts on the Arctic environment....pointing out that stretches of open water in summertime are very common in the Arctic. Previous Arctic explorers even expressed frustration at being unable to proceed over the ice due precisely to unpredictable areas of open water obstructing their progress. The reason for the areas of open water is that the floating ice is subject to stresses from wind, currents and tides, causing cracking, ridging between slabs, and the creation of open leads of water between separating ice slabs. In winter, open leads quickly freeze over from the sub-zero air temperature, but in summer with the air  temperature often above sea water freezing point (-2°C), such leads can remain open for extended periods.*
(source)


Meanwhile, getting out of the denier cult bizarroworld and back to the real world, here's what's happening in the Arctic.

*Arctic sea ice in record retreat*
July 8, 2011
*The summer melt season is in full swing in the Arctic, and sea ice there is in record retreat. Arctic sea ice is currently at its lowest extent on record for early July, according to estimates from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and University of Bremen. Moreover, Arctic sea ice volume is at its lowest on record, according to the University of Washington Polar Science Center, and during June 2011, was reduced by nearly half (47%) compared to its maximum at the beginning of the satellite era, in 1979.*


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 20, 2011)

Chris said:


> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> 
> Scientists from NASA



The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> ...



Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...








Sure doofus sure!  And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules.  But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, walleyedretard. But I don't have much hope you actually will. 

Why don't you show me the words I "_altered_" in your posts, dingbat.


----------



## Meister (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



*It doesn't have to be "words", altering a post in any way is against the board rules.*


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




"Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones." 

That didn't happen either  I believe it is you that has been duped sir.


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Matt sorry but on this I disagree.. To say one can use sunspot activity alone to make the claim the sun isn't causing the warming is completely oversimplifying an much more complex system. Exactly the same type of one-dimensional, linear logic that fuels the CO2 is to blame camp.

You are thinking linearly and not dimensional. Sunposts=one factor, magnetic field behavior of both the sun and the earth= another factor, cloud cover on this planet=another factor, changes in the amount of cosmic rays hitting us (which is directly related to a less active sun)=another factor, and an innumerable amount of other factors known and as of yet unknown to us. 

Matt I think higher of you than the other 3 trolls, So I will share a link with you to a site with a lot more in depth information than you will get from any environmental site. Its not the nicest looking or best laid out site but it does a great job of informing a person on the suns cycles and their believed effects.

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

Sunspot activity does not necessarily correlate to an increase or decrease in solar irradiation. There is much more to this than a simple counting of sunspots, and every environmental website that backs this or any pro-AGW site period will almost always go for the simple "sunspots" explanation and pretend that solves the suns problem in their theory.

This is BS and a gross oversimplification. Please read that site as closely as you can then ask yourself some questions about what it means and keep the scope of the thing in mind the whole time when you do. 

heres a lil bit from that site.



> Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the suns energy.  Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the suns varying activity. Satellite data show that the solar constant S is variable. The solar irradiance decreased from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum 1986, increased again on the way to the next maximum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, and decreased anew in the descending phase. This came as a surprise as it is plausible that the dark sunspots with their strong magnetic fields impede the free flux of energy from the suns interior to the outside. Yet P. V. Foukal and J. Lean [22] have shown that bright faculae in the vicinity of sunspots increase even more than sunspots when the activity grows stronger, so that an irradiance surplus is established.
> 
> IPCC scientists hold that the corresponding variation in the solar constant (Delta S) is smaller than 0.1% and has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the greenhouse effect [94]. Yet they fail to appreciate that quotes of 0.1% in the literature refer to the absolute amplitude of the sinusoidal variation in the solar constant, not the whole change from minimum to maximum, or from maximum to minimum [25, 32, 39]. Figure 1 after C. Fröhlich [25] shows this distinctly. The data at the top of the figure, designated by `HF', represent NIMBUS-7 measurements. The smoothed curve shows the 81-day running average related to the interval of three solar rotations of 27days. The horizontal axis indicates the investigated period, above in years, below in days since the first day of 1980. The vertical axis measures the solar constant S in W/m2. The scale in the middle of Figure 1 indicates the range of 0.1%. When this scale is taken to measure the variation in the smoothed curve from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum in 1986, the result is Delta S approximately equal to - 0.22%.   IPCC scientists cannot object to this higher value on the grounds that it is not a common practice to assess the total variation in such a way. They proceed equally by relating the rise in global temperature to the minimum at the end of the 19th century and not to the long-term temperature mean.



That equals only two paragraphs so prepare for information overload.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







What was that youngster?  Now don't do it again, got it.  Or you'll get sent to naughty corner again!


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


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



He is a student of oldsocks, and we all know he is not above going back and fixing things to save his butt. Nice to see the apple fell straight down on that tree...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.
> ...



Just keep repeating the nonsense, Walleyes. Won't make it any more correct, but will help with your mental problems.


----------



## gslack (Jul 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


 
Yeah somehow knew you wouldn't think there is a problem with letting pride get in the way of science.. LOL,


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 20, 2011)

1	 MYTH  	Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT  	Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear  that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym  garbage in, garbage out.

2	 MYTH  	Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT  	In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level  wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3	 MYTH  	Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT  	Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist  levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

4	 MYTH  	Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

 FACT  	96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5	 MYTH  	Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT  	A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause  this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

6	 MYTH  	Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

 FACT  	The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round  it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7	 MYTH  	The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

FACT  	Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this  it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense  this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

8	 MYTH  	The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT  	As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9	 MYTH  	Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

FACT  	Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments  in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10	 MYTH  	There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT  	There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...







Pride goeth before the fall olfraud, thanks for the assist!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2011)

Hey Big-Foot-In-The-Mouth, here is the satellite data from Dr. Spencer;

UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2011: +0.31 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now show me where that represents a cooling in the last two or three years. You spout totally stupid lies.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

As of July 17, 2011, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.56 million square kilometers (2.92 million square miles), 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice is particularly low in the Barents, Kara, and Laptev Seas (the far northern Atlantic region), Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

-------------------------------------------------------

October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month.  October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.

Germany recorded in 2009 its lowest October temperature in history. New Zealand had record low October temperatures and record late snows link China had the worst October snowstorms in recorded history, 40 people died and over 9,000 buildings collapsed.

Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010.  European and Asian temperatures in the winter 2009-2010 were well below normal. 

October 2008 to January 2009 temps were well below normal According to the NCDC U.S. temperatures in October 2009 was on average the third coldest in 116 years, November was the 4th coldest, and February 2010 was the 29th coldest. U.S. temperatures December '09 - February '10 were well below normal. UK experiences coldest May temps in 15 years U.S. temps Nov '09 to May '10 remain mostly below normal, October '09 through March '10 was the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere.

In February 2010, the Northern Hemisphere had the second largest area of snow coverage ever recorded link and North America had the most snow cover ever recorded. Snow coverage in the Northern hemisphere has been growing since 1998 link.  Snow in areas where it usually does not snow can only be because temperatures are colder, and not from global warming/ The additional snow was not because of higher levels of humidity, according to NCDC February '10 was the 47th driest in 116 years.

July 2010, South America experiences historic cold weather. Argentina experienced its coldest winter in 40 years. 

In spite of all the hot weather of late, according to NOAA 62% of the continental U.S. had below normal temperatures January-July 2010.

---------------------------------------------------

Now Oldrocks you want to address me the way you did in the previous post just because we disagree, you can go to hell. It is certainly easy to tell that you are from Portland, some of the rudest and dumbest sons-of-bitches I have ever known are from the Eugene and Portland areas. 

**Links to all of the above "cooling data" are available and there are many more proven temperature readings from around the world I can also document. If you want the links you can apologize for your immaturity and I will cheerfully provide them for you. If not you can just keep on being a shit.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month.  October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.
> 
> ...



Link?


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Russian heatwave 'worst in 1000 years', killing 700 people a day 

THE heatwave which has caused a sanitary and agricultural crisis in Russia is the most severe in the country's history, a top meteorological official says. 

The head of weather forecaster Rosgidromet said that nothing similar had been observed in the millennium history of the Russian state, which dates back to the acceptance of Christianity by ancient Russia in the late 10th Century.

"From the moment of the foundation of our country, we can say, in the last period of 1000 years, no similar heatwave has been observed neither by ourselves nor by our ancestors," Alexander Frolov said.

Russian heatwave 'worst in 1000 years', killing 700 people a day | News.com.au


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

All of that information is linkable, read my previous post.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> All of that information is linkable, read my previous post.



Not good enough.

Link?


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2011)

Really? 

Real temps from NOAA

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/NA_sfcT_2010_SOCR_FINAL.pdf

By the way, Big-Foot-In-Mouth, your threat to put me on ignore is so devastating.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Chris said:


> Russian heatwave 'worst in 1000 years', killing 700 people a day
> 
> THE heatwave which has caused a sanitary and agricultural crisis in Russia is the most severe in the country's history, a top meteorological official says.
> 
> ...


-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a new blow to the climate change lobby, Russia's top weatherman today announced that the winter now drawing to a close in Siberia may turn out to be the coldest on record. 

'The winter of 2009-10 was one of the most severe in European part of Russia for more than 30 years, and in Siberia it was perhaps the record breaking coldest ever,' said Dr Alexander Frolov, head of state meteorological service Rosgidromet.

Statistics are still being analysed in detail, but it is known that in western Siberia the mean temperature was minus 23.2C, with more colder days than in previous years. 

Some 63 days were colder than minus 25C and 39 days below minus 30C.

For this part of Siberia, this represents the coldest conditions in 40 years and the second harshest winter in 110 years. 

Equivalent statistics for colder eastern Siberia have not been issued yet.

The coldest recorded temperature in the recent winter is believed to have been minus 57.4C degrees in Oymyakon on 20 January. 

Russian weatherman strikes blow for climate change lobby by announcing winter in Siberia may be coldest on record | Mail Online
----------------------------------------------


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer
September 16, 2009 

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

Ocean temperatures averaged 62.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the June-August period, 1.04 degree higher than normal for the period. 

And for August the world sea-surface average was 62.4 degrees, 1.03 higher than usual, also the warmest for August on record, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said. 

The report is based on data back to 1880. 

http://www.physorg.com/news172338162.html


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2011)

Shitty ice melting pattern over the past few days and for about a week. 2007 was still able to score some home runs this week before dropping to around 40-60 thousand a day. We may cross 2007 within the next 3-4 days...It is all up to the pattern. 

WEATHER PATTERN. A strong ridge is going to have sun light melting the ice and warming the ocean that is open, but low pressure is going to decrease this. I'd say we have 50 percent chance at beating 2007, which is pretty good.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really?
> 
> Real temps from NOAA
> 
> ...



That works for me. Buh-by.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month.  October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.
> 
> ...



LOL!!!!    You just cannot post the links, right? Lordy, do you think that you are in grade school?


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

NSIDC/NASA AMSR-E also shows that the overall trend of ocean temperatures since 2002 is one of cooling in spite of a recent short lived El Nino warming event.


-------------------------






The oceans have been cooling which is contrary to climate model predictions:

____________________________


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Chris said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > All of that information is linkable, read my previous post.
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> NSIDC/NASA AMSR-E also shows that the overall trend of ocean temperatures since 2002 is one of cooling in spite of a recent short lived El Nino warming event.
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> ...



.(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday. 

Ocean temperatures averaged 62.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the June-August period, 1.04 degree higher than normal for the period. 

And for August the world sea-surface average was 62.4 degrees, 1.03 higher than usual, also the warmest for August on record, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said. 

The report is based on data back to 1880. 

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Or you can go with the guys who have over 3,000 buoys in the oceans worldwide that are designed specifically for measuring ocean temperatures: 



> Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.



The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Goodnight.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks for proving my point, Bigfoot, you are the best!






Since 2009 the temperatures are really going up!


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Chris, if you would do the reading you would find that the spike in 2009 was due to El Nino and since the temperatures have been steadily dropping. 

Anyway your post leads me to believe that discussion isn't the goal. Do you think we are having some type of contest? If so you can win all of the Forum self-superiority you want, heck, you deserve it my man. From the looks of the board here there are plenty of folks to interact with without the game. 

Goodnight, again


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2011)

7-21-1979






7-21-1985






7-21-1991






7-21-1998







7-21-2007






7-19-2011

Anyways on yesterdays map it shows that the area north of Alaska more or less is about 2-3 weeks from melting totally. A narrow path away through the northwest passage could open up within the next week or so and the same is occurring with the northeast.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 21, 2011)

Cool colors Matthew..........if you scroll down fast enough, it'd almost remind you of a re-run of The Grateful Dead Movie!!


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> 7-21-1979
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey why is the last picture representing this year a close up and the rest are not? Seriously look at it. Its a different distance than the others why is that? Because if it were to scale you could see its nearly the same ice coverage as a few of the previous years. Dude you are completely fooled by anything they claim aren't you... LOL you don't even check or question anything they say you just post it and think it makes you smart.. LOL

Tool, the ice coverage is up then down then up and down again and your pics show that. The last one being a close up really tells the tale here. Why didn't they keep them all the same range as far as close up or far away? Because to do that would allow for a half way discerning person yo see what they claim and what actually is happening is not the same... What a mindless drone..


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 21, 2011)

Even if the arctic ice does thin, I don't see the downside. If it thins to the point where we can rush in a hundred oil rigs it would be just fine with me.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 7-21-1979
> ...



Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT. Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really fucking trust your people??? That used to be mine?  I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics.  They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.

I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed. Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the  other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?

Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> Even if the arctic ice does thin, I don't see the downside. If it thins to the point where we can rush in a hundred oil rigs it would be just fine with me.



I agree---I hate cold weather and would like to see a warmer planet. You can park as many fucking oil rigs as you wish within the northern pole of this planet. I could care less.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



OH BS, newer advances in imaging tech is a cop-out. That image is a close up and the rest are not. The last image is at least 2x zoomed and its plain as day. Why did they do that? Just look at the pics and see for yourself there is nothing in this ice coverage trend that is either a record or unprecedented. There are some areas with less and some with more just as there is on all of those images. To pretend its not is being obtuse..

Further I call HIM a tool because the way he treats people who disagree with his posting. He calls me a hell of a lot worse, so I give what I and others get from him... 

The site had a lot of information on it, not all or even most of it can be so easily dismissed. Whether or not I agree with him or your side on this is besides the point. The point is until the IPCC and others start to take other considerations and factors into their assessments and reports/climate models their data and their finding or claims, including all of those groups who support and encourage them with misleading claims based on circumstantial and incomplete data, their data and their findings will continue to be suspect in the very least.

Now, if you agree there a lot more to solar activity and radiation and their effects on our climate, then you can at least see  my concern over their incessant blaming of everything the climate does on more CO2. Its asinine and completely ignorant to pretend by limiting CO2 we can stop the climate from changing. It's just plain silly now, and many of the same scientists who claim the earth is warming from CO2, claimed that the earth was going to go into an Ice Age due to the same CO2... They were wrong then, and so far they have been wrong more than they have been right. Yet they are still called experts by the pro-agw lobby and YOU. Anyone who doesn't agree is either on the take or a nut. Olsocks even called a MIT professor a oil company shill just because he wouldn't sign on with the AGW crowd. Seriously? MIT? The preeminent Tech college in this country employ oil company shills.. Yeah right..

When I see what I think might be a duck, I check to see if it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck then if all is true, I call it a duck. Therefore if Chris posts, talks, and gives all the right cues (like mindlessly posting charts and data he doesn't even check for BS), or olsocks posts links to a Greenpeace site and try to pretend its fair and non-bias, or when he deliberately leaves off bits of information in a quote to give a wrong impression of what a scientist says, I can safely call them tools because they act like tools..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I agree that the newer imagine is much closer, but you would *think* that the scientist or anyone that is serious about measuring the extent of the ice would understand this and have worked through the issue painfully to make sure it is accurate. What I think of science is that it is very much based on a ton of a math and accuracy and that means a lot to most scientist.   A least I would hope so, but it would really be sad that even with a peer review system and other authors looking at this data that they wouldn't spot such issues.
There is also volume, which is at its lowest point ever in 2011 since 1979, which is a even better way to gage the ice. Ice extent as you say moves around and some years the ice is one place and the next it is another. Or it piles up. Volume is even more important. 

I agree that a tool is someone that can't think through things and has to be a sheep for a group or political party. Me and you see face to face with the cycles and understand that the IPCC was way to simple about what they put out there for people and now the real skeptics are poking holes within what they put forward. They should of more or less said that co2 is a positive forcing within a complex system of cycles. They would of been right if they would of, but instead they tried to pull off the bs that solar cycles mean nothing. The 2000s bit them in the ass as one such cyclone occurred. 

Now what I'm asking is why or how the past 5-6 years within such a grand minimum cycle are we holding steady and some are even arguing that we're increasing in global temperature. Me and you agree with the negative forcing as such cycle as this one 'puts on a period' as pointed out with that paper you posted, but something is amiss.  

Truth is we supposed to be cooling right now...I'd say we should be as cold now after 5-6 years of a Dalton type grand minimum as the 1960s. We know it is NOT the sun or anything to do with TSI that=the warming. What I'm saying is the ipcc excluded the solar cycles and the natural cycles and got bit on the ass, but that doesn't mean that we can describe the warming or even the fact that we're not cooling. If not co2 what? 

 About them calling for a new ice age in 1970s to occur in the 2000's. Hell look at the grand minimum, we're in right now and you can understand why they did. They likely didn't think that the positive forcing  was going to reverse the natural solar cycle was even possible at that time. Think about it for a second--- in 1880 the idea of plate tectonics wasn't know or what the brent floods were. Science advances every day and new theories are made to make more leaps of understanding. Hell a few years ago, I thought with this grand minimum that we were going to have at least .3-.4c of cooling within the next ten or so years. Remember the paper you posted a link to me and it had charts of these period and how they could be predicted. Maybe they were pointing toward them. There mistake was thinking that the natural cycles didn't matter anymore.

The truth is I believe in the natural cycles and they should be forcing a negative impact on global temperature right now. A real drop should be occurring. Hansen may of been right about the basic idea, but excluded one very important thing as you say.--->The natural cycles. Think about it for a moment with a open mind. I'm listening to your case too.


----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Volume is usually more closely related to precipitation than temperature. My point is simple though... Looking at the maps or graphics there you can plainly see that there is nothing in them that there is no precedence for in the past even the recent past using just those graphics. In fact the last one is very similar to both 98 and 91. 

Also why the years they chose? If it were indeed warming to the extent they claim they could and should have just done 10 year based pics on down the line, but they didn't. Hell they could a did every 5 years but again they didn't they instead went and pulled this one and that one. A warming as they claim should have been constant and almost even every july so it would have helped them to do it the way I said, but no... I know why, and so do you, they did this cause if they tried to post them all chronologically it would not show the extreme warming they wanted. So they cherry picked some graphics to better suit their goals.

This is standard PS PR work 101. I see this all the time in my work and its plain as day. Its called shinola and they have gotten better at it over the years.

*edit*

Just forgot your question sorry bout that.. Here goes again.... You are still trying to take one thing and use it as evidence. This is not so simple and I said this before. Please stop looking for the tree thats blocking your view of the forest...


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Jul 21, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Ya know why they always put a drastic color line at a down slope across the middle like that? SO even the most ignorant algorian can look and see if its supposed to represent a decline or incline without hurting themselves. That way they can at least pretend to know what they are talking about for a few minutes...


----------



## Chris (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2011)

The oceans are warming, and doing so very rapidly. The Woods Hole Institute is perhaps the world's premier ocean research institute, and here is what it has to say on this.

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Not for people that have some scientific knowledge. It is for dumb fucks like you that cannot even understand the simplist of graphs.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Ok chris I am tired and want to make this short...

#1 What exactly does the part in parenthesis mean? You know it says this above your chart. "(Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" What exactly does that mean in this context, I am not quite sure on that... Does it mean they only used areas where the ice was 15% of the area by volume of sea water or ice? or what? And if that is indeed what they mean, why not use the whole dam ice area? Wouldn't that be a better way to judge ice extent for the area? And if thats not what they meant please explain to me what in fact they do mean by that.

#2 The third line on the legend text represents 1979 - 2000 average correct? Ok so why did they only do the average to 2000? 10 years are missing and that seems a bit odd to me. I think a continued warming trend would be best represented by a full average up to 2010 if in fact there was drastic warming as they claim... Comparing 2011 ice coverage to 2007 and then comparing them both to an average between 1979 and 2000 while leaving out 9 years between the average and the two years separated by 3 more years between them is incomplete at best and I say a bit suspect...

#3 The part in the legend that says + or - 2 ... So if that is correct and their is a + - of 2 then by looking at 2007 and 2011 and keeping that + or Minus factor of 2 in mind we can safely say the two years separated by 3 years which we do not see represented here, are within the margin of error to make them nearly identical... Which begs the question how does this + or - factor into the 1979 to 2000 average? Was it taken with an assumption of a - 2 or a + 2? If it were a +2 than the average itself would be suspect as well.

You see chris that rather long winded and dull investigation of just the one chart you posted, told me some very basic truths. One; we have a error factor in it of + or -2 which given the fact there is no more than a difference factor of 2 in the years 2007 and 2011, we could very easily say there is no discernible difference in ice coverage between the two years, making the charts implications false in its pretense this years ice is less than 2007. Second, using and average of 21 years, and comparing it to 2 non-consecutive years themselves separated by no less than a total of 9 years after the end point of the average, is unsound scientifically and gives a false impression of the data. And I would say at least a bit dishonest if not by intent, in the very least by misrepresentation.

Dam I went and got all boring and dull again didn't I... LOL ok dude your chart sucks! There now you and olsocks can understand it...


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Olesocks, I think on layers, levels and multiple dimensions and do so while maintaining a level of communication that allows even the most limited of minds like yours to at least grasp a concept here and there... LOL MENSA MAN!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Damn, the lack of comprehension displayed here is astounding. You didn't finish the third grade.


----------



## Chris (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

Look just north of northeastern russia and you will see close to land that there is NO sea ICE. The northeast passage seems to have opened!!!


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 22, 2011)

Sadly there were no satellites to snap kodachromes of the sea ice a few thousand years ago.  Ah, but wait, there were no people around to give a shit.  Maybe we'll regain that balance in a few more mil.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> Sadly there were no satellites to snap kodachromes of the sea ice a few thousand years ago.  Ah, but wait, there were no people around to give a shit.  Maybe we'll regain that balance in a few more mil.





Within the HCO the suns "energy" was more directed at the poles, which is because the earths poles were pointed at more of a incline toward them. Today that is not the case and it is really weird why the same is occurring.

1#Energy is forced to go through more atmosphere, so more of a chance to be reflected before hitting the surface and 2# the solar "rays" are more spread out, so less energy hitting directly. Both these factors become less as the earth's axis incline is more directly pointed at the poles, which means direct solar energy towards the poles=more direct energy to melt the ice and to warm that part of the planet.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 22, 2011)

Maybe Greenland will become green again. At one point in time they say that the north pole had about the same climate as present day Florida. Anyway if the ice is melting up there we should start drilling for oil which would help mankind more then the ice melting will hurt it. There isn't really a downside.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> Maybe Greenland will become green again. At one point in time they say that the north pole had about the same climate as present day Florida. Anyway if the ice is melting up there we should start drilling for oil which would help mankind more then the ice melting will hurt it. There isn't really a downside.



A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[12] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's.[13][14]

Cretaceous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the past few years there has been a real shake-up in the conception of what hothouse climates are like. First, it was found that the Tropical regions in hothouse climates are not tightly thermostatted as had been previously thought. Prior indications of a cool tropics turned out to be an artifact of alteration of the chemistry of marine sediments after they were deposited &#8212; a nightmare known as diagenesis to paleoceanographers. The tropics are actually quite a bit warmer than today&#8217;s tropics. For example, the Eocene tropical ocean may have been as warm as 35C, as compared to about 29C today. The upward revision of tropical temperatures is quite a good thing for the CO2 theory, since it removes a good part of the &#8220;low gradient&#8221; problem, wherein models were thought to systematically exaggerate the pole to equator temperature gradient." Real climate.

The thing about this period is co2 was as much as 3,000 ppm Even with the weaker sun, which means less solar energy getting into our climate system. A very hot period. 
How do you explain it if not for co2?

Another thing---this would be very bad for life as it is today. No question about it. 35c tropics would be to hot for human life.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> Maybe Greenland will become green again. At one point in time they say that the north pole had about the same climate as present day Florida. Anyway if the ice is melting up there we should start drilling for oil which would help mankind more then the ice melting will hurt it. There isn't really a downside.






win


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 22, 2011)

Arctic ice has anorexia.

Yet another cash vaccum cleaner to wrestle with.


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The oceans are warming, and doing so very rapidly. The Woods Hole Institute is perhaps the world's premier ocean research institute, and here is what it has to say on this.
> 
> Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution






If they cherry pick yep.  If you don't cherry pick this is what you get.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Greenland will become green again. At one point in time they say that the north pole had about the same climate as present day Florida. Anyway if the ice is melting up there we should start drilling for oil which would help mankind more then the ice melting will hurt it. There isn't really a downside.
> ...





Skooks, even if we got greenland, Canada and russia to be new growing area's, but area's like the southern plains and midwest would become much drier, which means they wouldn't be able to be one of the bread baskets of the world. How do we know that greenland, russia and Canada can replace the midwestern United states?

Also drilling for oil within the arctic is all fine and good.


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Look just north of northeastern russia and you will see close to land that there is NO sea ICE. The northeast passage seems to have opened!!!






The northeast passage allways opens.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Look just north of northeastern russia and you will see close to land that there is NO sea ICE. The northeast passage seems to have opened!!!
> ...



LOL.  Once again Walleyes demonstrates that he is an idiot.

Northern Passages : Weather Underground

In 2007 the Northeast Passage was not open. You had to have an icebreaker for one portion of it. In 2010, two sail boats sailed both the Northwest and the Northeast Passages in one summer. With no help from icebreakers.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Answer the questions I asked, and explain the points I raised then MENSA man...

Socks you have never given that much thought to anything regarding climate change. Do you really think you can dismiss legitimate questions and issues by pretending the person is stupid? Sorry dufus but if you had half the intelligence you claim to have you would have already noticed these issues.


----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I am going to repost this until chris can explain the issues I raised with his chart...


----------



## Chris (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Jul 22, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Thats it avoid the problem... I knew you didn't understand what you posted thanks for clarifying that...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

07,22,2011,6965156

-70,157 melt today

It is going to be very very close. The pattern broke down and that high was completely replaced with a low pressure area that is forecasted to remind for about a week or so. If we some how beat 2007 with this poor pattern I will be amazed...It will be completely because of the volume being far less.

Here is a temperature anomaly map for the 30th of July.





My guess is in about 3-4 weeks that a new high will build and will take us up to 60-70 thousand a day melts in mid to late August, which case we will likely reclaim our first place for this year. That is just guessing.






2007=4.2 million km, 2010 4.8 million km, 4.76 million km, 2008=4.56, 2009=5.1 
We have a negative pdo, which is not as favorable for ice melt either and a nina. We're far below the ipcc models by at least a few years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2011)

This was made up to 2006. So let me update it to 2010. We're below the projection!

2006=5.8 million km^2
2007 4.2 million km^2
2008 4.56 million km^2
2009 5.1 million km^2
2010 4.76 million km^2

Eyeballing the graph tells me that the "means" model projection for 2010 was near 5.65 million km^2! At the time of the model was made in 2006 it was more like 6.25 million km^2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Would someone kindly explain to poor ol' g-string what standard deviation means.


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Okay MENSA man I am now going to have to show how completely ignorant you are.. AGAIN!

+ or - 2 standard deviation is what I was referring to you imbecile. Using that standard we can add or subtract 2 from the graph lines and still be within tolerances. Thats why they have that standard deviation so they have room for error. Using that we can see plainly that there is very little if any difference in the years shown on that graph. My questions were in regards to how they used that standard deviation and its application to the average they use to compare the other two years.

Now I am done explaining this to the self-proclaimed affiliate of MENSA, who should in the very least be able to follow a simple analysis of a graph and points raised.

Come on MENSA man you should be able to answer my questions if your friends to cowardly to do so...


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 23, 2011)

> When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23).  They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's *and for the last eight years, continuously cooling temperatures*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 23, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> > When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23).  They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's *and for the last eight years, continuously cooling temperatures*




I used to believe this crap, but now understand 2008 for what it was as a goddamn nina year that matches 1976 in many ways, but anyways what is more important is the general trend of things. Truth is we're going to get internal changes within our climate systems like the enso, pdo, amo, ao, ect. There is no cooling, I can tell you that much. Hell we could see another little ice age set up on our sun and I doubt we could cool this fucker down now as we're very close to a dalton set up now. Just watch!


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 23, 2011)

Well, in my neck of the woods it sure is cooling. Short summers and long cold winters with tons of snow. There is still snow all over the mountains today wherever you look. I only dream about the warm days of summer anymore. I say heat this mother up a little bit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2011)

gslack said:


> old rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



lol!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> > When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23).  They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's *and for the last eight years, continuously cooling temperatures*



Fucking dumb, Big-Foot-in-Mouth.

UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2011: +0.31 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now look at the graph from this site. Does that look like a cooling for the last eight years? Do you practice telling dumb easy pointed out lies?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 23, 2011)

07,23,2011,6908281

-57,344 km^2 

07,23,2007,6972031

We're ahead of 2007 by 63,750 km^2 right

We need to have at least 50,156 km^2 tomorrow or we fall below 2007. 

690,8281-6858125(7-24)=50,156 km^2


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > old rocks said:
> ...



So then you can't can you MENSA man... yeah thought not, you have nothing to say because first you can't follow what I asked or the points I raised. You know it, I know it and all of your MENSA lies can't hide it... Second, you are well aware by now that when I want to go after a post like that, I double and triple check everything I post, and that means I am going to be in the very least sound in my analysis. You know it, I know it.... Now that we have seen you turn into a sniveling little coward again, I can safely assume that neither you or your pal who posted it, despite all the pretense of a higher intellect can grasp any of what you post.. Got it thanks.. Pretty dam pathetic to cry for science and can't answer anything about the science you cry for...


----------



## gslack (Jul 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23).  They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's *and for the last eight years, continuously cooling temperatures*
> ...



MENSA man why don't you explain the chart in your own words.. No googling, no going to some scientists explanation, lets see you explain it to us.... After all you are in MENSA, should no problem at all for you genius...

No seriously do you need a hit?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 23, 2011)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Of course that error could be on the higher side for 1979-2000 avg to. So you could argue both ways. When you consider that the 1900-1979 ice extent graph I posted somewhere within this thread that shown pretty much 1 million up or down for 79 years before it started dropping in 1979 should tell you that possible 3 million km^2 all downwards is quite a lot. Would you agree?

Who's to say that that 79 years wasn't to low and 2 million km^2 higher then it was measured if some how the past 30 years ever turned out to have been on the top part of that error in 1979, which the trend would be the same or close to it?

Trend my friend.

I hope I quoted right.


----------



## gslack (Jul 24, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



First I want to thank you chris for having the courage the original poster and oldsocks lack and trying to answer my questions and address my points. At least YOU seem to care that not being able answer questions on something you post, shows the poster to be a buffoon trying to play scientist..

Although the quoting inside my quote is a bit confusing, its a lot better than just writing bold face in between the lines like you did before. ..

Now your first answer is exactly the point I was making. IF it represents areas with at least 15% sea ice, what about areas with less than 15%?  Is  the difference between say 14% and 15% enough to effectively consider the 14% non-existent in a scientific study? I hardly think so...

Again + or - 2 can very easily make the difference between a claim of drastic ice loss and very little. The issue still remains... Roughly 16 at the start of the graph for the average and roughly 14 to 14.5 at the start for 2007 and 2011 respectively taking the + or - 2 into account can make the average 14 as well... See the problem? Its a deceptive piece of PR work and its plain as day..

You didn't address the last point... Why did they choose those particular years? Why separation between 2007 and 2011? Why stop the average at 2000? Come on matt you have to see this is a rather strange way to try and show something that is supposed to be constant. IF it were warming like they claim then it would have been better to have a longer frame to base your average, and showing them all chronologically would be doubly so if their claims are correct.

As far as your question regarding the amount being large or small.. I have no idea. Maybe it is but does that mean it is unprecedented? No it does not especially in the context of a mere 30 years. It sounds like a scary amount but then so did a lot of numbers shown out of context and with no perspective. How much ice loss did we lose before the last 30 years? How much did that ice loss vary year to year? A lot of questions that a simple chart and claim cannot address.

And your question regarding the error could make average lower or higher, why yes it could but given the error could hurt or help them in the context of the chart, and the track record of other similar data I feel pretty sure that the estimates were on the high side of that 2. BUT even IF I am wrong and the average would be higher, (more ice coverage) than the point still remains its an error factor of 2 with the difference not being more than 2. That alone makes the entire chart dubious, but taking all of the rest in context its HIGHLY suspect..


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Jul 24, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Chris you posted a graphic with marker line around it from Where?

LOL whats the name of the site that graphic came from chris?

Save it chris here is the site you got it from and the site its linked to. NRDC's Save BioGems: The Place to Save Wildlife and Wildlands

They are a site for citizen environmental activists. 

And their linked to this activist group in their front page graphic.. The NRDC NRDC: About NRDC

Which as you might have guessed are another enviro/ecomantalist organization.

 Way to go the scientific route there bud...LOL


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2011)

*More important than area, is volume. *

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2

Arctic Sea Ice Volume AnomalySea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.  Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2010 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September.  The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure.  Monthly averaged ice volume for June 2011 was 15,700 km3. This value is 37% lower than the mean over this period, 47% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.5 standard deviations below the trend. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the residuals of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at approximately one-month intervals.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2011)

Of course g-string is going to attack these scientists work with his usual yap-yap. However, there is another point here. There are many people that live on the shores of the Artic that are as old or older than I am, and can remember clearly back to mid-twentieth century. And they will tell you unequivocally that the ice has had extreme changes in their lifetime.

Research Project for the 2010 Alaska Region National Ocean Sciences Bowl | Alaska Ocean Sciences Bowl


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2011)

*Another interesting result of the dramitic decline in Arctic sea ice.*

As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological

The largest species invasion in over 2 million years is now underway as Arctic ice cover melts and shrinks, permitting a freer exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; dire and dramatic consequences for Atlantic biodiversity are predicted.

From microscopic plants and jellyfish to predatory packs of Orcas and soon-to-be-arriving squid&#8230;The &#8220;alien&#8221; invasion of the Atlantic ocean by Pacific Ocean species is fully underway, all made possible by ever-decreasing Arctic sea ice cover.

It is now accepted that oceanic and atmospheric warming is causing the Arctic ice sheet to steadily shrink, accelerated by loss of ice albedo (reflectivity of light off ice); Arctic ice cover has become so fragmented and sparse in some areas that, for the first time in centuries, an &#8220;ice-free&#8221; Northwest Passage was possible during winter. This summer&#8217;s ice-cover is at it smallest extent in centuries, if not millennia.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2011)

*Just ran across this priceless blog post from climate skeptic, Ian Mott. Published in February, 2007. Of course, by September, 2007, his idiocy was proven for what it was.*


Ian Mott: Hard Cover Maps reveal no shinking Arctic Ice Sheet

The map showing the change from 1979 to 2000 appears to show incontrovertable evidence that the ice sheet is shrinking. But, luckily, I was able to check the 1960 edition of the Readers Digest World Atlas, prepared under the direction of Frank Debenham, OBE, MA, DSC(hon) Emeritus Professor of Geography at Cambridge, that has plotted the extent of this ice sheet 20 years prior to the first satellite scan.

And surprise, surprise, the large tongues of ice that in 1979 were protruding between Novaya Zemla and Severnaya Zemla, and on the Eastern side of Severnaya Zemla, that is not there today, were also not there in the 1960's.

The BBC map is not clear enough to be certain but it appears that there may have actually been some minimal expansion in the ice limit between Svalbard and Severnaya Zemla. The only portion that does appear to have receded is a small section in the East Siberian Sea.

So while a short, totally inadequate, sample period may indicate a receding Arctic ice sheet, the evidence over a 40 year interval makes it clear that THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THIS CLAIMED RECEDING TREND IS INTIRELY WITHIN THE RECENT HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.

Once again, we have so called "highly respected scientific teams" being caught out making extrapolations from limited data sets. It is not only incompetent but downright lazy to limit one's inquiry to the most convenient data sources. But when this is done in relation to a key evidentiary plank in the "Gullible Warming" debate it is inexcusable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Another interesting result of the dramitic decline in Arctic sea ice.*
> 
> As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological
> 
> ...





LAUGH........ME.............BALLS..............OFF

As usual, the link supplied by Old Rocks above?

Click and scroll down.......

"reprinted with permission from *PlanetSave.com"*









Like most far lefties........these people think they are far smarter than everybody else. Like the president who represents them, will look you in the eye and smile and proceed to tell a tall tale figuring you're too stupid to check the record.


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2011)

And with all this hand wringing and whining and predictions of doom.....Boreal _still_ had a chair lift going yesterday!  Imagine that, skiing in the middle of* SUMMER*!



RENO  Skiers and snowboarders enjoyed a final fling on the slopes Saturday as the Sierra Nevada skiing season came to an official close after one of the snowiest winters in more than six decades. 

Boreal Mountain Resort atop Donner Summit operated one chairlift for the day, the latest date it has ever operated in the season.

Resort spokesman Jon Slaughter said hundreds of diehards, some wearing bikinis and T-shirts, turned out to enjoy the access to one run and terrain park.

It's utter excitement. People were real hungry to get out here one more time, he said.

The resort reported receiving about 66 feet of snow this season, surpassing its record of 55 feet set in 1994-95. Boreal ended its daily operations in April and weekend operations in May.

It's believed to be one of the latest dates a Sierra ski resort has operated in the season. Only a couple of resorts usually stay open through the Fourth of July.

Mammoth Mountain, just east of Yosemite National Park, was able to stay open until Aug. 13, 1995, after a heavy snow year, resort spokesman Daniel Hanson said.

I think up high on the mountain there's spots that could be open for skiing now, but there's not enough demand for it, he said.

Don Lane, who has worked for the U.S. Forest Service at Lake Tahoe for the last 40 years, said he can recall only a handful of years with such a dense lingering snow.

The deep snowpack has delayed the start of mountain backpacking and hiking for a month to two months, depending on the elevation, said Lane, a recreation planner for the agency. The popular Desolation Wilderness near Tahoe has seen few visitors so far.

It's still a white wonderland at the highest passes 8,000 feet elevation and up, he said. The lakes at the higher elevations are still covered with snow. From 6,000 feet to 8,000 feet, there's starting to be more brown than white.

The snowpack at its peak was the fourth deepest since 1946 at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Laboratory near Donner Summit, and well above normal across the Sierra. 

Boreal opened for the day to promote Woodward Tahoe, an indoor action sports training facility scheduled to open at its base next summer. 






Skiers enjoy final fling on slopes in Sierra | NevadaAppeal.com


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 24, 2011)

Shit, the high was replaced with a low. Kind of like going from a nino to a nina when your talking about global temperatures. Same thing occurred in 2010, but 3 weeks earlier.  2007 is the 1998 of sea ice. Great pattern from July, August, Sept. Strong high pressure with 8-15c above normal temperatures over the sea ice. 2007 is a anomaly people.

The weather over the ice is a huge part of the ground noise around the means of the trend. I'd say as much as a million km^2 either side. You can see this on my max graph from 1900-1979 I'd posted about 10-12 post up thread as that also shows natural weather effects on the arctic sea ice. 

I'd expect that if we can't kick back into a favorable pattern like 2007 that we will likely end up as 2nd or maybe 3rd. 4.4-4.6 million km^2 may be a reasonable prediction right now. 3-4 years ago you tried this pattern and that would of been more like 5 million km^2 as the sea ice volume was a lot more then. 

We will just have to see what occurs.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Another interesting result of the dramitic decline in Arctic sea ice.*
> 
> As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological
> 
> ...



Gasp!  You mean a stronger species may prevail, like how the planet ran for eons before we were even an idea?


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 24, 2011)

The super pattern that made 2007 possible has made the difference and by a few thousand 2007 is yet again king.

07,24,2011,6866563

07,24,2007,6858125

8,438 behind 2007...I think this year did really fucking good being that it never had even close to the pattern, about like 2010 with global temperature. As soon as we get into a marginal high pattern watch this year regain the title.

Getting people to understand what a anomally 1998 to 2010 is. Is very much like trying to get people to understand the 2007 compared to 2011 sea ice. 

Compare volume. You will find 2011 has far less ice volume=easier to beat 2007, but 2007 had a super impressive melting pattern that still over comes the advantage 2011 has. Also now that we're getting a poor period of clouds=low pressure you can see why we're starting to fall.

You can have the best horse at the horse track, but if the horse is sick(worst weather pattern) and you still run it then it will likely lose. 2007 could of been the best horse to race in the past 100 years and one of the best of all times.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 25, 2011)

Here is a chart I made. This has nothing to with real numbers, but as a tool to show people what I'm talking about. It starts at 02, which is the earlier season and ends at 08. More or less you can say this is 6 peak to base cycles. This shows whats really going on within the arctic.

What you can see 02 had a lower maximum in the spring(March-April time period) then 03 as more of a polar vortex was likely over the sea ice in 03 then 02, but this pattern breaks down as you head into May, while May-Sept in 02 has a cooler set up. Most likely more clouds. 

Now lets compare 03 to 04----

04 starts out lower, could be either 1# a warmer winter, or 2# the world is warmer that makes 04 start out lower then 02 and 03. As you head into the melt season you see about the same pattern as 03, but lower. Could be because the earth has warmed slightly? Maybe. Lower volume helps the same equal pattern melt more ice. Why you'll say??? Because 5 year thick ice of 4-5 meters is hard to melt then 2 year ice that might be 2-3 meters. 

Now lets compare 04 to 05

05 starts out higher then 04 most likely because it had a pattern like winter(Feb, march) of 03 then 02, 04 had, but 05 develops a huge arctic high pressure alot like 03 and with less volume and the ice being less thick or old it blows through 02, 03, 04 records for a new minimal record. 

Now lets compare 05 to 06

After a great year in 05, 06 doesn't recover as good so it starts out near 05 started, but the pattern goes to hell. Even through we got lower ice volume and thickness the whole melt season has a large low pressure system with -4 to -5c below avg arctic temperatures. Below avg. The season heads up a lot like 04.

Now onto 06 compared to 07

Now 07 starts out with low volume and ice extent(this is of course a ice extent model) poor winter like 02, 04, but most important like 04 a large high pressure over the arctic with 4-6c above normal through the means of the melt season=record melt season. Unlike 06.

Compare 07 to 08

08 starts out much alike 07 and even for a time has a great melt around April and May, but the pattern turns into the shitter much alike 2009 and August 2010---Melting is very slow up until September time frame, but has a nice ending to get us within 500 thousand km^2 of 07.

2007 more or less had a record low season ice throughout the year and then what would be explained only as  a arctic heat wave with a strong ridge over the arctic for late June through Sept for that year. It would be alike 07, while you can compare this year and last to 05 or 08. The difference is that 2010 had lower volume, but the pattern broke down in mid July and never really came back for it.  Same could happen for 2011 or a short period of poor ice melting weather with a shape like 08, but not for months, but for weeks before we get back to a 07 or 2007 like pattern. Of course with the less sea ice volume this could mean a new record.

The trend is still downwards, but the natural variability is around a million km^2...What that is of course is weather patterns and what ever other natural internal pattern like the enso, pdo, nao, ect. The climate system is very complex.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2011)

As one can see from the graph, we started, in 1979, with a winter area of 15 million kilometers, and a summer area of 5.5 million kilometers. This years winter high was 13 million kilometers, and the last four years lows have been from 3 to 3.5 million kilometers. That is about a 50% reduction for the summer low.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

For the volume, the reduction is even more significant.

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> As one can see from the graph, we started, in 1979, with a winter area of 15 million kilometers, and a summer area of 5.5 million kilometers. This years winter high was 13 million kilometers, and the last four years lows have been from 3 to 3.5 million kilometers. That is about a 50% reduction for the summer low.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
> 
> ...









I wonder what the sea ice coverage was in the 1960's when submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole?


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 25, 2011)

At lunch today, the local news said we have had 24  days of 90 degree or wamer weather.  The record is 44 days and tomorrow is suppose to be a high of 88.  The year it was 44 days in a row was 1988.


----------



## Chris (Jul 25, 2011)

The rate of Arctic Ocean sea ice decline continued during the first half of July on a pace as rapid as any year since satellite data began to be collected in 1979, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said this week.

"Arctic sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace through the first half of July, and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum September extent," the agency, based at the University of Colorado, reported.

"The rapid decline in the past few weeks is related to persistent above-average temperatures and an early start to melt. Snow cover over Northern Eurasia was especially low in May and June, continuing the pattern seen in April."

The snow and ice data center said that for the years before 1979, there is not as comprehensive a record for the rate of melting as that obtained by satellite, but "shipping records and other evidence show that the ice extent has been in a continued state of decline for at least the last hundred years. Climate models predicted that Arctic sea ice loss would accompany warming temperatures in the Arctic. But the ice loss has happened faster than any models predicted, and researchers now expect that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer well before the end of the century."

This year, the overall ice decline was 46,000 square miles a day during the first two weeks of July, the report said.

As of July 17, ice covered 2.92 million square miles of the Arctic, which was 2.24 million square miles below the 1979-2000 average.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - entry Arctic losing 46 000 square miles of ice daily in early July


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2011)

We've still not had a day over 100 degrees yet.  I have no idea how many years it's been since that occured but the old timers around here can't remember one.  I actually went snowshoeing today!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 25, 2011)

westwall said:


> We've still not had a day over 100 degrees yet.  I have no idea how many years it's been since that occured but the old timers around here can't remember one.  I actually went snowshoeing today!



Hell, Portland Oregon hasn't had a single freaking 90f degree day yet. Only a hand full of 80f and the rest being 60s and 70s all the way through July. I mean wtf?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As one can see from the graph, we started, in 1979, with a winter area of 15 million kilometers, and a summer area of 5.5 million kilometers. This years winter high was 13 million kilometers, and the last four years lows have been from 3 to 3.5 million kilometers. That is about a 50% reduction for the summer low.
> ...




*Easy enough to check, Walleyes.*

Trends and variability in summer sea ice cover in the Canadian Arctic based on the Canadian Ice Service Digital Archive, 1960&#8211;2008 and 1968&#8211;2008

Trends and variability in summer sea ice cover in the Canadian Arctic based on the Canadian Ice Service Digital Archive, 19602008 and 19682008 

Trends and variability in summer sea ice cover in the Canadian Arctic based on the Canadian Ice Service Digital Archive, 19602008 and 19682008 
Adrienne Tivy

Foothills Climate Analysis Facility, Centre for Alpine and Arctic Climate Research, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 

Stephen E. L. Howell

Climate Processes Section, Climate Research Division, Atmospheric Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 

Bea Alt

Balanced Environmental Associates, Carlsbad Springs, Ontario, Canada

Steve McCourt

Canadian Ice Service, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Richard Chagnon

Canadian Ice Service, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Greg Crocker

Ballicator Consulting Ltd., Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Tom Carrieres

Canadian Ice Service, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

John J. Yackel

Foothills Climate Analysis Facility, Centre for Alpine and Arctic Climate Research, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 

The Canadian Ice Service Digital Archive (CISDA) is a compilation of weekly ice charts covering Canadian waters from the early 1960s to present. The main sources of uncertainty in the database are reviewed and the data are validated for use in climate studies before trends and variability in summer averaged sea ice cover are investigated. These data revealed that between 1968 and 2008, summer sea ice cover has decreased by 11.3% ± 2.6% decade&#8722;1 in Hudson Bay, 2.9% ± 1.2% decade&#8722;1 in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA), 8.9% ± 3.1% decade&#8722;1 in Baffin Bay, and 5.2% ± 2.4% decade&#8722;1 in the Beaufort Sea with no significant reductions in multiyear ice. Reductions in sea ice cover are linked to increases in early summer surface air temperature (SAT); significant increases in SAT were observed in every season and they are consistently greater than the pan-Arctic change by up to &#8764;0.2°C decade&#8722;1. Within the CAA and Baffin Bay, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation index correlates well with multiyear ice coverage (positive) and first-year ice coverage (negative) suggesting that El Niño episodes precede summers with more multiyear ice and less first-year ice. Extending the trend calculations back to 1960 along the major shipping routes revealed significant decreases in summer sea ice coverage ranging between 11% and 15% decade&#8722;1 along the route through Hudson Bay and 6% and 10% decade&#8722;1 along the southern route of the Northwest Passage, the latter is linked to increases in SAT. Between 1960 and 2008, no significant trends were found along the northern western Parry Channel route of the Northwest Passage


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 28, 2011)

If it weren't for the claims of doom climate science would be an obscure academic niche.  Global warming has made everyone in the field rich in at the very least academic bullshit  (I'm a famous scientist which makes me very important!) and some in wealth of dollars. Some people understand that the alarmist scientists are as corrupt as trial lawyers and unions and more are beginning to understand that fact.


----------



## konradv (Jul 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As one can see from the graph, we started, in 1979, with a winter area of 15 million kilometers, and a summer area of 5.5 million kilometers. This years winter high was 13 million kilometers, and the last four years lows have been from 3 to 3.5 million kilometers. That is about a 50% reduction for the summer low.
> ...



Open water?  Checked Google images and everyone shows a submarine breaking through ice.


----------



## wirebender (Jul 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> Open water?  Checked Google images and everyone shows a submarine breaking through ice.



Guess you are no better at researching for pictures than you are at researching for the truth behind the AGW hoax;






Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines. 

USN photo from The American Submarine, by Norman Polmar, submitted by Robert Hurst. 












Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Open water?  Checked Google images and everyone shows a submarine breaking through ice.
> ...







Yep, looks like open water to me too.  But maybe that's what they classify as 15% coverage


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As one can see from the graph, we started, in 1979, with a winter area of 15 million kilometers, and a summer area of 5.5 million kilometers. This years winter high was 13 million kilometers, and the last four years lows have been from 3 to 3.5 million kilometers. That is about a 50% reduction for the summer low.
> ...





wirebender said:


> Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines.
> USN photo from The American Submarine, by Norman Polmar, submitted by Robert Hurst.
> http://stevengoddard.files.
> Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959



Hilarious how you denier cult dingbats repeat the same myths no matter how many times they are debunked. I've already gone through this with the walleyedretard some pages back on this thread. To reiterate...

Walleyedretard, your whole "_submarines in open water at the pole in the 60's_" argument is once again based entirely on your bottomless ignorance and gullibility.              Spots of open water in the mostly ice covered Arctic ocean have always been a common occurrence in the summer months as the winds move and shift the ice. The difference now is that the extent and thickness of the ice are greatly diminished.

*Arctic Science Journeys*
2000
Arctic Ice Cap
(excerpts)

* According to University of Washington oceanographer Dr. Drew Rothrock and other scientists who study the Arctic, open water at the pole is a common occurrence.

ROTHROCK: "There's a lot of open water, a lot of cracks of this size they describe in the sea ice in the summer."

In fact, at any given time during the summer, 10 to 15 percent of the Arctic Ocean is not covered by ice, says Dr. Mark Johnson, a physical oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Johnson spends a great deal of time modeling the ever-changing dynamics of the ice cap. He says the six-mile-long opening in the icecalled a leadthat tourists saw, sounds about right for this time of year.

The reason there is open water at the North Pole is because the ice cap is not, as some people might think, a stable, unchanging sheet of ice. Far from it, says Rothrock.

ROTHROCK: "It's a big ocean up there at the North Pole. It has floating sea ice covering it, which is typically about ten feet thick. It's not like an ice sheet or glacier on land, which is the situation at the South Pole. Sea ice is pretty mobile stuff. It moves around. It cracks. It breaks. It piles up. It's always on the go."

...That seems to fit with records from about 1930 to 1960 that show sea ice in the high Arctic was thick and widespread. It also seems to mesh with data from 1960 to 1990, which shows that sea ice became 40 percent thinner overall, according to Rothrock's research.

ROTHROCK: "We've published results from submarine cruises, where they have upward-looking sonar and they are able to determine ice thickness. We took data taken from cruises in the 1990s that we had been party to and compared it to older data from the '50s, '60s and '70s and found quite a large difference."*


***


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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










still losing s0n............although your posts are colorful!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2011)

Well no, we are not losing, the whole world is losing. By the time you idiots realize that things are no longer what they were, it will be too late. And by the looks of the present speed of change, I am going to be around to see that. Ten years ago, I would have said that was too far into the future, but events are unfolding at a much faster rate than predicted.


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







Yeah we're the dingbats yet you're the moron who can't understand simple rules

What a complete loser you are!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 30, 2011)

Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming is very bad and getting worse. In the last half century or so, the Arctic has lost millions of square kilometers of sea ice, perhaps as much as 50% of the previous long term average area of coverage. There was a record minimum of ice set in 2005 and then an even lower record low extent in 2007, down another 23% under the 2005 record low. This year is on track to match or exceed that record ice loss set in 2007. The shiny, white sea ice reflects about 90% of the sun's energy back out towards space but when the ice melts, the dark ocean waters absorb about 90% of the sun's energy, warming the waters and melting more ice in a positive feedback loop. Climate scientists are finding out that the disruption of the Arctic climate patterns and the much higher temperatures there are having major effects on the whole Northern Hemisphere climate. 

*Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Summer Arctic Sea Ice Decline*

_This figure compares the extent of the summer arctic sea ice in 1979 with the extent of the sea ice in summer 2005. Since 1979, more than 20% of the Polar Ice Cap has melted away in response to increased surface air and ocean temperatures._






That was just the ice loss through September 2005. _On September 21, 2005, the five-day running mean sea ice extent dropped to 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles), the lowest extent ever observed during the satellite record._ Since then, much more of the Arctic sea ice has melted in the heat. In 2007 the sea ice cover was diminished another 23% from the previous low in 2005, down to only 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles). Now 2011 is on track to match or beat the 2007 record low sea ice cover. 

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado -

*Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
NSIDC*
1 October 2007
*"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s."*





_Figure 1: This image compares the average sea ice extent for September 2007 to September 2005; the magenta line indicates the long-term median from 1979 to 2000. September 2007 sea ice extent was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), compared to 5.57 million square kilometers (2.14 million square miles) in September 2005. This image is from the NSIDC Sea Ice Index. See *high-resolution version*_



*Early sea ice melt onset, snow cover retreat presage rapid 2011 summer decline
NSIDC*
July 18, 2011
*Arctic sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace through the first half of July, and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum September extent.  *


*Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice it as its lowest extent for this time of early July. The melting season for Arctic ice continues until the end of August.*
July 9, 2011
(excerpt)
*The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says sea ice in the Arctic ocean is retreating at a record pace. It's currently at it's lowest extent for early July. Previous, July 2007 was the lowest extent before this year. Back in 2007 by the end of the melting season, the melting of the Arctic sea ice was the most in recorded history. That year lost more ice in one year than in the past 28 years combined according to the NSIDC.
*

***


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well no, we are not losing, the whole world is losing. By the time you idiots realize that things are no longer what they were, it will be too late. And by the looks of the present speed of change, I am going to be around to see that. Ten years ago, I would have said that was too far into the future, but events are unfolding at a much faster rate than predicted.








No, the whole world is carrying on as it has for the last four and a half billion years.  You clowns crack me up with your incessant hand wringing and claims of impending doom.  Get your sandwhich boards out and go stand on the corner like you used to telling us about the coming end of the world...


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming is very bad and getting worse. In the last half century or so, the Arctic has lost millions of square kilometers of sea ice, perhaps as much as 50% of the previous long term average area of coverage. There was a record minimum of ice set in 2005 and then an even lower record low extent in 2007, down another 23% under the 2005 record low. This year is on track to match or exceed that record ice loss set in 2007. The shiny, white sea ice reflects about 90% of the sun's energy back out towards space but when the ice melts, the dark ocean waters absorb about 90% of the sun's energy, warming the waters and melting more ice in a positive feedback loop. Climate scientists are finding out that the disruption of the Arctic climate patterns and the much higher temperatures there are having major effects on the whole Northern Hemisphere climate.
> 
> *Pew Center on Global Climate Change
> 
> ...







This is HMS Tireless in 1991....at the North Pole.....notice anything?


----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Jul 30, 2011)

The largest species invasion in over 2 million years is now underway as Arctic ice cover melts and shrinks, permitting a freer exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; dire and dramatic consequences for Atlantic biodiversity are predicted.

From microscopic plants and jellyfish to predatory packs of Orcas and soon-to-be-arriving squid...The "alien" invasion of the Atlantic ocean by Pacific Ocean species is fully underway, all made possible by ever-decreasing Arctic sea ice cover.

It is now accepted that oceanic and atmospheric warming is causing the Arctic ice sheet to steadily shrink, accelerated by loss of ice albedo (reflectivity of light off ice); Arctic ice cover has become so fragmented and sparse in some areas that, for the first time in centuries, an "ice-free" Northwest Passage was possible during winter. This summer's ice-cover is at it smallest extent in centuries, if not millennia.

As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological 'Tumult' | Reuters


----------



## westwall (Jul 30, 2011)

Chris said:


> The largest species invasion in over 2 million years is now underway as Arctic ice cover melts and shrinks, permitting a freer exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; dire and dramatic consequences for Atlantic biodiversity are predicted.
> 
> From microscopic plants and jellyfish to predatory packs of Orcas and soon-to-be-arriving squid...The "alien" invasion of the Atlantic ocean by Pacific Ocean species is fully underway, all made possible by ever-decreasing Arctic sea ice cover.
> 
> ...








I find it amusing that it is always the "biggest evah" event.  You people are so funny.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> This is HMS Tireless in 1991....at the North Pole.....notice anything?



Yeah, dumbass, I notice the same thing everybody notices every time you post these pictures. We notice submarines surfacing in what are called '*leads*' or '*polynas*', which you are too deliberately ignorant or utterly brainwashed to acknowledge no matter how many times your delusion is debunked with actual evidence that holes in the Arctic ice sea ice are common occurrences and not some kind of '_proof_' of your idiotic contention that the north pole was '_just as warm before so the current melting is nothing new_'. How long will you keep repeating this delusion when the evidence that you're wrong is being shoved in your face, you silly retard?

_*Lead (sea ice)*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_

*Leads are stretches of open water within fields of sea ice.[1] Leads are caused by movements of the ice due to wind, or to currents in the underlying water, and may open and close again within a brief period; alternatively they may remain open more or less permanently. The so-called "Big Lead", off the North Greenland coast, was discovered in 1906 by Robert Peary on his first (unsuccessful) North Polar trek, and was still there when he made his second attempt in 1909.*


Notice carefully the last item in this encyclopedia entry.

_*Polynya*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_

*A polynya (common US spelling) or polynia (common UK spelling) (pronounced /p&#601;&#712;l&#618;nj&#601;/) is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice.[1] It is now used as geographical term for areas of sea in Arctic or Antarctic regions which remain unfrozen for much of the year. It is a loanword from Russian: &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1099;&#1085;&#1100;&#1103;, Russian pronunciation: [p&#601;l&#616;&#712;n&#690;ja] (polynya or polynia), which means a natural ice hole, and was adopted in the 19th century by polar explorers to describe navigable portions of the sea.[2][3] In past decades, for example, some polynyas, such as the Weddell Polynya, have lasted over multiple winters (19741976).[4]

Contents
    * 1 Formation
    * 2 Ecology
    * 3 Arctic navigation

Formation

Polynyas are formed through two main processes:

    * The first mechanism for polynya formation is thermodynamically driven, and occurs when the surface water temperature never reaches the freezing point. This may be due to a region of warm water upwelling, which reduces ice production and may stop it altogether. This type of polynya is called a Sensible Heat Polynya.

    * The second type of polynya is called a Latent Heat Polynya and is formed through the action of katabatic wind or ocean currents which act to drive ice away from a fixed boundary, such as a coastline, fast ice, or an ice bridge. The polynya forms initially by the first year pack ice being driven away from the coast, which leaves an area of open water within which new ice is formed. This new ice is then also herded downwind toward the first year pack ice. When it reaches the pack ice the new ice is consolidated onto the first year pack ice. The latent heat polynya is the open water region between the coast and the first year ice pack.

Latent heat polynyas are regions of high ice production and therefore are possible sites of dense water production in both polar regions. The high ice production rates within these polynyas leads to a large amount of brine rejection into the surface waters. This salty water then sinks and mixes to possibly form new water masses. It is an open question as to whether the polynyas of the Arctic can produce enough dense water to form a major portion of the dense water required to drive the thermohaline circulation.

Arctic navigation

When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 60s, there was a significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same, large polynya near the North Pole, for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[6]*


***


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, we are not losing, the whole world is losing. By the time you idiots realize that things are no longer what they were, it will be too late. And by the looks of the present speed of change, I am going to be around to see that. Ten years ago, I would have said that was too far into the future, but events are unfolding at a much faster rate than predicted.
> ...




West......do you realize that Rolling Thunder has posted up that same exact gay post 47 times in the past 3 months alone!!! This guy and Chris with his perseverative posts in this forum every day. Whats that famous bumper sticker about liberalism???


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2011)

mental disorders are only gay if you reject pharmachological aids.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well no, we are not losing, the whole world is losing. By the time you idiots realize that things are no longer what they were, it will be too late. And by the looks of the present speed of change, I am going to be around to see that. Ten years ago, I would have said that was too far into the future, but events are unfolding at a much faster rate than predicted.





If it happens, then it happens. If the skeptics turn *out wrong* ,and the most extreme things the warmers say occurs, then we can always get drunk out of our minds as it is going down!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 31, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> mental disorders are only gay if you reject pharmachological(sic) aids.



Well, you're certainly the first hand expert on mental disorders, kooker. Also, judging from the number of times you use the word, you seem to be a first hand expert on being gay. Now if you only had a brain.....


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This is HMS Tireless in 1991....at the North Pole.....notice anything?
> ...



Well thank you for googling up a nice bit of wikkipedia for us all, but I have to say one thing to it...

SO WHAT? The names of the spaces between sea ice is about as pertinent as your last several BS posts... 

1. If the subs surfaced inside of a lead or a polynya what caused the polynya? Oh I know perhaps it was warmer? LOL, you freaking idiots crack me up. Yeah it gets warmer and the ice melts and melts in strange ways, and its done so since they been there. None of it is evidence of global warming..

2. As your own wikki link contends, in 1909 and as far as 1906 there where leads. Kind of funny you tried to make an argument for AGW causing wild sea ice melting, then in your eagerness to win a argument over submarines surfacing inside sea ice, you bring evidence that proves these such occurrences are not only uneventful but given the fact they have been observed since the early 1900's you just killed your own AGW claim.... Nice work man!

LOL, care to help stomp out algorian BS, be my guest just try and let us know who's side your on..


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, we are not losing, the whole world is losing. By the time you idiots realize that things are no longer what they were, it will be too late. And by the looks of the present speed of change, I am going to be around to see that. Ten years ago, I would have said that was too far into the future, but events are unfolding at a much faster rate than predicted.
> ...







And let's say the worst case scenario happens.  What really happens?  Let's postulate a rise to MWP levels so 2.5 C over where we are now (more then what most warmers are claiming).  What terrible thing will happen?


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > mental disorders are only gay if you reject pharmachological(sic) aids.
> ...







His brain is able enough to follow simple rules.  Why can't your brain do that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 31, 2011)

gslack said:


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


Yeah, slackjawedidiot, you 'say' the one thing you always unconsciously proclaim with your posts - that you are a silly retard who has no idea what's going on or what people are saying.







gslack said:


> SO WHAT? The names of the spaces between sea ice is about as pertinent as your last several BS posts...


Well, slackjawed, where retards like you see only "_names_", normal people can see definitions pertinent to the discussion. A normal un-retarded person would have read the definitions and understood that it is the winds and ocean currents that move the ice and pile it up and leave small openings in the sea ice cover.







gslack said:


> 1. If the subs surfaced inside of a lead or a polynya what caused the polynya? Oh I know perhaps it was warmer?


As the definitions I just posted said (which you, as usual, are far too retarded to comprehend), there are two ways that polynyas or leads form. One way can be an upwelling of warmer water in certain spots (not a general warming of the whole Arctic region as you're hallucinating), and the other way involves wind and ocean currents pushing the ice and piling it up in one area and leaving small holes in the ice cover elsewhere.









gslack said:


> LOL, you freaking idiots crack me up. Yeah it gets warmer and the ice melts and melts in strange ways, and its done so since they been there. None of it is evidence of global warming..
> 
> 2. As your own wikki link contends, in 1909 and as far as 1906 there where leads. Kind of funny you tried to make an argument for AGW causing wild sea ice melting, then in your eagerness to win a argument over submarines surfacing inside sea ice, you bring evidence that proves these such occurrences are not only uneventful but given the fact they have been observed since the early 1900's you just killed your own AGW claim.... Nice work man!
> 
> LOL, care to help stomp out algorian BS, be my guest just try and let us know who's side your on..


LOLOLOLOLOLOLO.......I know it's not nice to laugh at the handicapped, but you are such a complete moron, it is hilarious to watch your mental gyrations. It's like watching a one-legged man with a broken knee in an ass kicking contest with Paul Bunyan.

The walleyedretard keeps posting pictures of submarines surfacing in polynyas near the north pole in the sixties as evidence that the current melting is nothing new and has no significance. LOL. I posted information showing that such openings are the product of normal conditions in the Arctic and have always been there. Those polynyas are not evidence of global warming, either now or in the past. The disappearance of over 7.5 million square kilometers of the ice cap over the last thirty years is the evidence for global warming/climate change. The opening of the northeast and northwest passages to commercial shipping for the first time in human history is evidence. The massive and increasing ice loss from Greenland and the Alaskan glaciers is evidence. The melting of the permafrost over huge areas of Alaska, Canada and Siberia for the first time in human history is evidence.

Too bad you and walleyed are such clueless fools. It must suck to be that retarded.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







You're the only one proving to be a moron.  We are allways saying that this is nothing unusual.  You say it is.  Proove it.  You claim the sea ice is at an all time low.  We have shown how those claims were made before and lo and behold they were wrong....just....like.....you....are.....today.


----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Ya know you can pretend we are all the dumb ones here, but it will not change the fact you once again stuck your foot in your mouth pal... LOL

YOU claim drastic and dangerous warming and ice melting, then get into an argument over submarines surfacing, and in your desire to win at all costs disproved your own claims here.... Nice work idiot...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


LOLOL.....I know it looks that way to you but that is only because you're a brainwashed retard with your head up Exxon's ass.





westwall said:


> We are allways saying that this is nothing unusual.


"_This_" *what*, walleyed? The melting of about half of the previous long term extent of the Arctic ice cap in just a few decades? That's what's actually happened, BTW, that you nitwits are imagining, in your denier-nut-cult bizarro-world, to be "_nothing unusual_". LOL. And as support for your lamebrained and very mistaken myths, you offer pictures of submarines surfacing in polynyas in the 60's, so I post various evidence in posts #1351  and #1355 that such openings are a common result of wind and current dynamics in the Arctic and are unconnected to the the current general warming of the atmosphere and ocean that has now melted (and is continuing to melt, faster and faster) so much of the ice cap that *had been there*, substantially unchanged, for thousands of years.






westwall said:


> You say it is.  Proove(sic) it.  You claim the sea ice is at an all time low.


I have "_Prooved_"(LOL) it many times on many threads, you poor clueless nitwit. Just recently on this thread in post #1355

*Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
NSIDC*
1 October 2007
*"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s."*




*Showing the loss from just as recently as 1979 to 2005. Sea ice extent was even larger in the 50's than it was in 1979.*




*Sea ice loss between 2005 and 2007. 2011 is tracking as low or lower than 2007 so far in the current melt season.*







westwall said:


> We have shown how those claims were made before and lo and behold they were wrong....just....like.....you....are.....today.


In your dreams maybe. In the real world, you haven't been able to "_show_" anything about anything that wasn't immediately debunked as misinformation and lies.

Please do, though, feel free to show us all those satellite photos of the shrunken ice cap taken way back when, at those times in the last couple of centuries when you hallucinate that the Arctic melted away as much as it has now. Oh wait, you don't actually have *that* kind of hard, verifiable evidence, do you? Just isolated anecdotes that you try and fail to spin up into significance. LOL.


----------



## Chris (Jul 31, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Jul 31, 2011)

Spam the thread now trolling blunder thats what you do when you embarrass yourself. Pretend it didn't happen, keep calling others morons and above all keep on posting the same BS.... Dude you are more pathetic every day...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 31, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Nobody has to '_pretend_' anything; you denier cult dingbats really are dumber than a bag of retarded rocks, especially you, slackjawed.






gslack said:


> but it will not change the fact you once again stuck your foot in your mouth pal... LOL


No, I once again stuck my foot up your dumb ass. You're so retarded, you have no idea what is going on.






gslack said:


> YOU claim drastic and dangerous warming and ice melting, then get into an argument over submarines surfacing, and in your desire to win at all costs disproved your own claims here.... Nice work idiot...


I didn't disprove my own claims at all, you pathetic cretin. I showed that openings in the Arctic ice cover are naturally occurring and have nothing to do with the current abrupt warming trend that has shrunk the ice cap so severely.


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







The only thing you have proven is your fundamental inability to follow directions so simple my 5 year old understood them.  Yet you didn't.  That tells the world just how stupid you are.  Congrats, you're not just dumber then a fifth grader but you're dumber then a five year old.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





			
				trolling blunder said:
			
		

> No, I once again stuck my foot up your dumb ass. You're so retarded, you have no idea what is going on.



LOL, really? Then why do you turn into a defensive flailing idiot? If I do not understand, then why is it you just disproved your own argument about global warming? LOL



			
				trolling blunder said:
			
		

> I didn't disprove my own claims at all, you pathetic cretin. I showed that openings in the Arctic ice cover are naturally occurring and have nothing to do with the current abrupt warming trend that has shrunk the ice cap so severely.



Yes you did moron, you flat out screwed your own claims. IF that warming was natural then this warming could just as well be natural. 



			
				trolling blunder said:
			
		

> I didn't disprove my own claims at all, you pathetic cretin. I showed that openings in the Arctic ice cover are naturally occurring and have nothing to do with the current abrupt warming trend that has shrunk the ice cap so severely.



Ah, so the warming that occurred then, was natural occurences but any such things happening now are not? Really? LOL, you can make that claim? Thats hilarious man...


----------



## wirebender (Aug 1, 2011)

gslack said:


> LOL, really? Then why do you turn into a defensive flailing idiot? If I do not understand, then why is it you just disproved your own argument about global warming? LOL



Turn into?  I can't say that I recall him ever being anything else?  Pasting article after article that I guess he believes constitutes proof for his position that man is causing the climate to change when in reality, at best, his pastes show that this or that is happening.

The ice has been melting for 14K years now.  Pasted articles that state that the ice continues to melt don't strike me as grounds for fear, or grounds for mild concern, or grounds for anything other than to question the rationality of those who do find reason to angst in the fact that ice continues to melt.

The fact is that if we were creatures that live for eons, we would be looking out on very early spring after a very long winter.


----------



## gslack (Aug 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, really? Then why do you turn into a defensive flailing idiot? If I do not understand, then why is it you just disproved your own argument about global warming? LOL
> ...



LOL, when he and oldsocks start talking complex physics, I can't help but imagine those two being upset over the poor dead cat in that box... Dam that shroedinger!...


----------



## konradv (Aug 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> *The ice has been melting for 14K years now.*  Pasted articles that state that the ice continues to melt don't strike me as grounds for fear, or grounds for mild concern, or grounds for anything other than to question the rationality of those who do find reason to angst in the fact that ice continues to melt.



True, but as the skeptics like to point out, back in the 70s some scientists were saying we were heading to a new Ice Age.  Given the regular cycles Earth has gone through, that should have seemed reasonable to everyone.  But the fact is, we're seeing a trend towards more warming.  So, what happened to the normal cycle?  Why shouldn't we pay attention when scientists change their minds that fast?  It couldn't all be the money, because as anyone who knows about the grant system is aware, the theory has to precede the money or nothing gets funded.  If we didn't see some indication of unusual temps, we'd be studying the coming Ice Age, instead.


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > *The ice has been melting for 14K years now.*  Pasted articles that state that the ice continues to melt don't strike me as grounds for fear, or grounds for mild concern, or grounds for anything other than to question the rationality of those who do find reason to angst in the fact that ice continues to melt.
> ...



The Earth is really unpredictable isn't it? With or without Man.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 1, 2011)

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Really? For two million years the ice ages have been occuring as regular as a heart beat. And now we are seeing a dramatic departure from where we should be in the warming and cooling cycles. But it is best to deny the science and keep in line with our hero, the obese junkie.


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Your religion has to cheat to attain the desired results, roxie......so yeah, REALLY.


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


We just got over an iceage 15,000 years ago....just how often have they been "occuring.....regularly like clockwork"?


----------



## konradv (Aug 1, 2011)

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



I thought the skeptic/deniers were claiming Earth's climate IS predictable?!?!  They swear up and down this is a "natural cycle", so they must be making that claim from data of past events, right?  You can't have it both ways.  If it's being unpredictable, just maybe it's because we put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on Earth do in a normal year!!!


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The Earth IS unpredictable...yes there are cycles....but when....we have no control over that.  A volcano erupts and throws a twist into the mix.  There are so many intangibles.


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > *The ice has been melting for 14K years now.*  Pasted articles that state that the ice continues to melt don't strike me as grounds for fear, or grounds for mild concern, or grounds for anything other than to question the rationality of those who do find reason to angst in the fact that ice continues to melt.
> ...








They changed their minds because the planet began another warming trend that was so obvious a kindergartner could see it, and secondly they weren't getting any funding.


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







  What was that MENSA man?  Seems to me there was a 100,000 year gap here, a 55,000 year gap there, etc.  If that's your definition of a regular heartbeat I suggest you see a real good cardiologist.  I can recommend one for you!


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...








My gosh.  Are you really that ignorant?  Or are you just playing dumb?  Where oh where have sceptics ever claimed that the climate was predictable?  That is the mantra of the AGW hand wringing crowd buckwheat.  Our mantra is all observed phenomena are not "exceptional" or "unusual" or "unprecedented"  Our mantra is all observed weather and climate phenomena are natural and are occuring regardless of mans influence.  

Get your facts straight....oh wait, I'm sorry....you don't "do" facts.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 2, 2011)

A cat5 anti-ice melt pattern has taken place within the arctic. Clouds, low pressure, and shit. We may still be within the top 5, but I think we will be behind 2007, 2008, 2010 as of right now. Unless things change back. There is a million km^2 variability within the arctic on either side of the means for weather patterns and this is such a case. 

Only 25-35 thousand a day melts...I'd say the fourth lowest.

O'well, maybe next year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2011)

Mathew, I really would prefer it if that curve would just flatten out and drop no further this year.


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2011)

_"And then the Goracle spoke onto the believers and said,"Fear not any cooling, for it is not a cooling but a climate change, brought forth by the works of the non-believers." And the believers feared the global cooler warming and prayed to the Goracle for proof to show the blasphemers. And the Goracle gave them anomalies, a hockey stick, and the IPCC and steeled their resolve to bring the light to the darkness of skepticism. All hail the Goracle. "_

The Tao of Algorianism, The Book of Cooler Warming, Chapter IV, Verse 8.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 3, 2011)

gslack said:


> _"And then the Goracle spoke onto the believers and said,"Fear not any cooling, for it is not a cooling but a climate change, brought forth by the works of the non-believers." And the believers feared the global cooler warming and prayed to the Goracle for proof to show the blasphemers. And the Goracle gave them anomalies, a hockey stick, and the IPCC and steeled their resolve to bring the light to the darkness of skepticism. All hail the Goracle. "_
> 
> The Tao of Algorianism, The Book of Cooler Warming, Chapter IV, Verse 8.




We both know that weather patterns within the arctic controls the level of ice extent to a huge extent.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 3, 2011)

Interesting pattern of broken ice, also quite a large hole on the northeast side of Greenland.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## gslack (Aug 3, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > _"And then the Goracle spoke onto the believers and said,"Fear not any cooling, for it is not a cooling but a climate change, brought forth by the works of the non-believers." And the believers feared the global cooler warming and prayed to the Goracle for proof to show the blasphemers. And the Goracle gave them anomalies, a hockey stick, and the IPCC and steeled their resolve to bring the light to the darkness of skepticism. All hail the Goracle. "_
> ...



And we both know that weather is no indicator of climate, yet here we are...


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 4, 2011)

Chris said:


>





still............... nobody cares s0n!!!


----------



## westwall (Aug 4, 2011)

Chris said:


>








I still don't see open water there at the pole.......  Wonder why?   Being how its so hot and all that.  I mean based on your constant blathering there should be tons of open water there.  Right?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are soooooooo retarded, walleyed......LOLOLOL....

"_I still don't see open water there at the pole.......  Wonder why?_"....maybe 'cause you're looking at a graphic depicting ice extent, not a satellite photograph, you silly moron.

I already debunked your idiotic contention that past openings in the Arctic sea ice cover _*must*_ have been caused by previous, otherwise undetected, global warming and not, as the science says, by the normal action of wind and waves. I guess you're just too retarded to let go of a debunked propaganda meme.


----------



## Chris (Aug 5, 2011)

The polar ice cap in the Arctic has melted to near its 2007 record minimum level and in some areas is 50 per cent smaller than average, Russia's environmental monitoring agency says.

"According to the results of observations, the Arctic ice sheet is currently near the minimum that was observed in 2007 in the polar region," the Roshydromet agency said in a statement.

It said the ice sheet covered an area of 6.8 billion square kilometres and was much smaller than normal in Russia's Arctic seas.

"The ice cap is smaller than the norm in all the Russian seas: by 56 per cent in the southwest of the Kara Sea, by 20 per cent in the northeast of the Kara Sea, by 40 per cent in the Laptev Sea, by 14 per cent in the East Siberia Sea and by 35 per cent in Sea of Chukotka," it said.

Arctic ice cap 'near 2007 record minimum'


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> The polar ice cap in the Arctic has melted to near its 2007 record minimum level and in some areas is 50 per cent smaller than average, Russia's environmental monitoring agency says.
> 
> "According to the results of observations, the Arctic ice sheet is currently near the minimum that was observed in 2007 in the polar region," the Roshydromet agency said in a statement.
> 
> ...





Big whoop.

"Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced. 

Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland which they say is an accurate way to measure the extent of ancient ice loss. 

Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago. 

They say changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.

They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.

While modern observations by ship and by satellite give us a very accurate picture of the recent state of the ice, historic information is limited. The ice comes and goes without leaving a permanent record. 

But a Danish team believes it has found an indirect method that gives a clear picture of the ice loss dating back 11,000 years.

Dr Svend Funder from the Natural History Museum of Denmark led several expeditions to inhospitable regions of Northern Greenland. On these frozen shores the Danish team noticed several pieces of ancient driftwood. They concluded that it could be an important method of unlocking the secrets of the ancient ice. 

"Driftwood cannot float across the water, it has to be ferried across the ocean on ice, and this voyage takes several years, which means that driftwood is actually a signal of multi-year sea ice in the ocean and it is this ice that is at risk at the moment," said Dr Funder.

Carbon dating was used to determine the age of the wood. And figuring out its origins also yielded important information.

"It's so lovely that drift wood from Siberia is mainly larch and from North America is mainly spruce. So if we see there was more larch or spruce we can see that the wind system had changed and in some periods there was little spruce and in other periods there was lots," he said.

Wind delay?

As well as the driftwood, the scientists mapped beach ridges for 500km (310 miles) along the coast. This proved that at one time the waves had reached the shore unhindered by the ice. 

Dr Funder and his team say their data shows a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007. 

But the researcher says that even with a loss of this size, the sea ice will not reach a point of no return. 

"I think we can say that with the loss of 50% of the current ice, the tipping point wasn't reached."

The idea of an Arctic tipping point has been highlighted by many scientists in recent years. They have argued that when enough ice is lost it could cause a runaway effect with disastrous consequences.

"I don't say that our current worries are not justified, but I think that there are factors which will work to delay the action in relation to some of the models that have been in the media.

"I think the effect of temperature and global warming may cause a change in the general wind systems which maybe will delay the effects of the rapidly rising temperatures a little bit."

The researchers are now set to examine DNA from the fossils of polar bears to try and find out how the animals fared when the temperatures were higher and there was much less ice." 



BBC News - Arctic 'tipping point' may not be reached


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...





What was that silly person?  We have shown multiple pictures of subs surfacing at the North Pole in past decades.  They were in open water.  I don't see any open water here.
Hell, a couple of years ago Top Gear DROVE to the North Pole in one of their episodes...in the middle of the summer.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ]&#x202a;Top Gear: Polar Special part 1 - BBC&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2011)

Interesting that the CO2 level 5000 or 11,000 years ago was not above 300 ppm. Today, it is at 390 ppm. With that in mind, the ice will continue to melt rapidly. And the minimum will be far lower than that of 5000 to 11,000 years ago. 

By the way, I would link to a scientist I was quoting. Where might I find Dr. Funder's study?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2011)

OK, my apologies, link didn't work the first time.

A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability

Science 5 August 2011: 
Vol. 333 no. 6043 pp. 747-750 
DOI: 10.1126/science.1202760 
Report 
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability&#8212;View from the Beach
Svend Funder1,*, Hugues Goosse2, Hans Jepsen1, Eigil Kaas3, Kurt H. Kjær1, Niels J. Korsgaard1, Nicolaj K. Larsen4, Hans Linderson5, Astrid Lyså6, Per Möller5, Jesper Olsen7, Eske Willerslev1 
+ Author Affiliations

1Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, DK 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark. 
2Université Catholique de Louvain, Earth and Life Institute, Centre de Recherches sur la Terre et le Climat Georges Lemaître, Chemin du Cyclotron, 2, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. 
3Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 
4Geological Institute University of Aarhus, C. F. Møllers Allé 4, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. 
5GeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE 22362 Lund, Sweden. 
6Geological Survey of Norway, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. 
7School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen&#8217;s University, Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK. 
&#8629;*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: svf@snm.ku.dk 
Abstract
We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.


----------



## gslack (Aug 5, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I love Top Gear!


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2011)

gslack said:


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







Me too!


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 5, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Are you blind as well as retarded?





westwall said:


> We have shown multiple pictures of subs surfacing at the North Pole in past decades.  They were in open water.


Yes you have and they have been just as meaningless every time, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, you hopeless cretin. Openings in the Arctic sea ice are normal and are caused by the action of the wind and waves, not global warming. Global warming is what has shrunk the extent of the ice cap by about 50% in the last six decades or so and thinned  the ice to a fraction of its former thickness.





westwall said:


> I don't see any open water here.


"_Here_" where? Your bellybutton? You can't see the writing on the wall, you can't see the obvious, how do you expect to see any water? Especially with your head jammed so far up your ass like that.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



The ice was melted by the top secret alien technology the Russians got from a crashed alien craft back in the 1950's. They hid it in a place called Areaski 51-ovich.. Or something very russian like that... Sorry I can't type russian or even speak it, its very difficult they seem to have a different word for everything.....


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2011)

gslack said:


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







Actually their space program is located at the Baikonur Cosmodrome (please forgive me if my spelling is wrong) in Kazakhstan.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



A perfect name for it too... The Cosmodrome... Kinda sounds like a football stadium...


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2011)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...






Yeah it's near the river Syr Daria and there are tons of geologic features all over the place.


----------



## gslack (Aug 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



My brother was a Russian Linguist for the navy and NSA back in the 80's and early 90's. All i know of the place was from him (not much considering his job) and the standard press which was cold war-centric. Oh and tom clancy novels ..LOL

PS. I did read the brothers karamazov once a long time ago..LOL


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 6, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 6, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2011)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...






The Brothers karamazov huh.  Oh well I guess we can forgive you for that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>



Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

Nature Geoscience | Article
Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming
Qinghua Ding,1 Eric J. Steig,1 David S. Battisti2 & Marcel Küttel1 
Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author Journal name: 
Nature Geoscience 
Volume: 
4, 
Pages: 
398403 
Year published: 
(2011) 
DOI: 
doi:10.1038/ngeo1129 
Received 26 October 2010 Accepted 08 March 2011 Published online 10 April 2011 
Abstract
Abstract Author information Supplementary information Article toolsPrint


 The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years. An increase in the circumpolar westerlies, owing in part to the decline in stratospheric ozone concentrations since the late 1970s, may account for warming trends in the peninsula region in austral summer and autumn. The more widespread warming in continental West Antarctica (Ellsworth Land and Marie Byrd Land) occurs primarily in austral winter and spring, and remains unexplained. Here we use observations of Antarctic surface temperature and global sea surface temperature, and atmospheric circulation data to show that recent warming in continental West Antarctica is linked to sea surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific. Over the past 30 years, anomalous sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific have generated an atmospheric Rossby wave response that influences atmospheric circulation over the Amundsen Sea, causing increased advection of warm air to the Antarctic continent. General circulation model experiments show that the central tropical Pacific is a critical region for producing the observed high latitude response. We conclude that, by affecting the atmospheric circulation at high southern latitudes, increasing tropical sea surface temperatures may account for West Antarctic warming through most of the twentieth century


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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









Glaciology

Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past

Richard A. Kerr




A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole. Although not the final word, the new study shows that researchers still have a lot to learn about the vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Understanding the role of East Antarctica is one key to figuring out what the ice sheets, and thus sea level, will be doing by century's end. 



Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

MOSCOW: The Arctic is getting warmer at a fast pace with the Russian Arctic sector's ice areas reducing to "historically low levels", the Russian meteorological bureau has said. 

The Rosgidromet bureau report said the polar cap in the Russian sector has shrunk to the historical low registered in 2007, with no ice expected to block the Northern Seaway at least until September, Xinhua reported citing the Itar-Tass news agency. 

"Currently, Arctic navigation conditions are very favourable. By early August, navigation can be done without icebreakers almost along the entire route," said Valery Martyshchenko, head of the bureau's environment pollution monitoring department. 

Arctic ice melting: Russian meteorologists - The Economic Times


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> MOSCOW: The Arctic is getting warmer at a fast pace with the Russian Arctic sector's ice areas reducing to "historically low levels", the Russian meteorological bureau has said.
> 
> The Rosgidromet bureau report said the polar cap in the Russian sector has shrunk to the historical low registered in 2007, with no ice expected to block the Northern Seaway at least until September, Xinhua reported citing the Itar-Tass news agency.
> 
> ...



Good, let it be fast and painless for us all.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

Arctic sea ice, a benchmark for the earth&#8217;s rising temperature, may approach a record low in September after its biggest July melt since 2007, researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. 

Ice covered an average of 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles) of ocean last month, 210,000 square kilometers less than the average for the same period in 2007, when there was a record melt season, according to the center. After a recovery toward the end of the month, an all-time low is &#8220;an outside possibility,&#8221; said Walt Meier, an NSIDC scientist. 

&#8220;It will be another low year, very likely one of the five lowest,&#8221; Meier said today in an e-mail. &#8220;One year doesn&#8217;t say too much in and of itself, but the long-term downward trend and the series of very low years is indicative of a thinner ice cover and warming temperatures.&#8221; 

The Arctic ice typically melts until September, before freezing again through March. Scientists at the Boulder, Colorado-based center say the declining ice pack is a harbinger of global warming. By 2030, there may &#8220;consistently&#8221; be summers where little or no ice remains on the ocean, Meier said. 

Arctic Sea Ice May Approach Record Low After Biggest July Melt - Bloomberg


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice, a benchmark for the earths rising temperature, may approach a record low in September after its biggest July melt since 2007, researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
> 
> Ice covered an average of 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles) of ocean last month, 210,000 square kilometers less than the average for the same period in 2007, when there was a record melt season, according to the center. After a recovery toward the end of the month, an all-time low is an outside possibility, said Walt Meier, an NSIDC scientist.
> 
> ...








Still no open water at the pole.


----------



## Chris (Aug 8, 2011)

Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis














Still no open water at the pole.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2011)

OMG! record ice loss in August! LOL


----------



## wirebender (Aug 8, 2011)

gslack said:


> OMG! record ice loss in August! LOL



Imagine, ice melting in the summer.  Who would have thought.

I sure wish one of the hand wringers would post some observed, repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > OMG! record ice loss in August! LOL
> ...



Or even establishing a concrete proof of continued warming NOT within the natural variability...


----------



## Chris (Aug 9, 2011)

Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russia&#8217;s environmental agency said. 

Ice cover is close to a record low, opening &#8220;almost the entire northern sea route to icebreaker-free shipping&#8221; as of early August, the Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said on its website today. 

The so-called ice extent is as much as 56 percent less than average in some areas, allowing &#8220;very easy&#8221; sailing that will persist through September, the Moscow-based service said. 

Arctic Ice Melt Near Record Clears Ship Route to Asia, Russian Agency Says - Bloomberg


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russias environmental agency said.
> 
> Ice cover is close to a record low, opening almost the entire northern sea route to icebreaker-free shipping as of early August, the Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said on its website today.
> 
> ...








Andrew Revkin of the NYT Dot Earth blog seems to disagree with you.  He actually talked to scientists on the ice and discovered that this is neither unusual nor extaraordinary.  So sad for you.

August 8, 2011, 3:04 pm 
On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Aug. 9, 8:00 p.m. | Updated 
Heres an update on Arctic ice trends, starting with a fast-motion video portrait of sea ice conditions near the North Pole, provided by one of two automated cameras deployed there in April (keeping in mind that the camera is on ice thats drifted hundreds of miles since then):



For more than a decade, Ive been probing changes in Arctic climate and sea ice and their implications for the species that make up northern ecosystems and for human communities there.

There are big changes afoot, with more to come should greenhouse gases continue to build unabated in the atmosphere. There will be impacts on human affairs in the Arctic, for worse and better, as we explored extensively in 2005 and Ive followed here since.

But even as I push for an energy quest that limits climate risk, Im not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to todays policy debates. This is one reason I dont go for descriptions of the system being in a death spiral.

The main source of my Arctic comfort level  besides what I learned while camped with scientists on the North Pole sea ice  is the growing body of work on past variations* in sea ice conditions in the Arctic. The latest evidence comes in a study in the current issue of Science. The paper, combining evidence of driftwood accumulation and beach formation in northern Greenland with evidence of past sea-ice extent in parts of Canada, concludes that Arctic sea ice appears to have retreated far more in some spans since the end of the last ice age than it has in recent years. [A Dot Earth reader has offered a different view of Arctic and climatic risk.]

Theres more on the paper below from the lead author, Svend Funder of the University of Copenhagen, and some independent ice scientists I queried about the work. The paper builds on earlier research finding evidence of open water and wave-splashed beaches in parts of Greenland that are now more typically locked in ice. Heres more previous analysis of Arctic ice patterns during the Holocene, the span since the end of the last ice age.

Heres a photograph of the sea ice along the northeastern Greenland coast, taken by Funder during fieldwork for this study:


Svend Funder, University of Copenhagen
When considered alongside research on past shifts in Arctic flora and fauna, a picture emerges of a physical system that amplifies warm or cool jogs and a biological system attuned to such changes.

Heres some input on the new research from Funder (from a press release issued by his university; Im tied up on other fronts or would have reached out for more):

Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which is absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

On the broader implications of the work:

Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media.

Theres much more in the news release.

For those wanting to go a little deeper, here are initial reactions I received when I sent the paper to a variety of researchers focused on sea ice (Ill add more as they come in):


James Overland, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory:

What the authors say is consistent with previous ideas. At the Holocene maximum the orbit was more elliptic and the axis was more tilted. We had very short hot summers and long cold winters. It is not clear which season would win out. A lot of proxies are for summer only so they slant the data too much for warming. It is hard to get models to be completely sea-ice free during this period, so this papers results are consistent. Other papers on erosion of Greenland beaches suggest the same thing. Bottom line is that current and historical sea ice cover is sensitive to changes in the radiation balance.

Leonid Polyak of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University notes that the general climatic and ice situation in the Arctic now appears very different than what prevailed in earlier Holocene warm periods:

Overall, the early-Holocene situation in the Arctic seems to be very different from the modern one. Now we are having the strongest ice retreat in the Pacific sector and ice pile-up near Greenland  practically the opposite to what Funders paper suggests for the early Holocene.

James Morison of the University of Washington and the North Pole Environmental Observatory project:

This looks really interesting. I had heard about one study of whale bones on Northern Greenland that indicated there were ice free summers or mostly ice free summers around the same time 6000-8000 years before present.

The discussion of general circulation and ice patterns looks right to me. The interesting physical wrinkle that I was unfamiliar with is the role of shore-fast ice in blocking the driftwood from the beach. It sounds like the ideal situation is a lot of sea ice to carry the wood, but no shore-fast ice to impede depositing it on the beach. It doesnt seem like that would need to be multi-year sea ice. The process makes one wonder about the relation between [the Arctic Oscillation] and the growth of trees and their export in runoff to the sea. It isnt discussed in this paper, but I wonder how that influences abundance on the Greenland beaches.

Michael MacCracken, a veteran climate modeler and chief scientist at the Climate Institute, noted on the Google group on geo-engineering that this new paper adds credence to proposals for an Arctic focus for managing incoming sunlight as a way to limit greenhouse-driven impacts. (Personally, I dont see this kind of effort going anywhere unless and until climate impacts trend toward worst-case outcomes.)

[Aug. 9, 8:04 p.m. | Updated 
Joe Romm has predictably assailed my view of Arctic sea ice trends and their implications, straying into discussions of melting permafrost (which is an entirely different issue laden with its own questions -- one being why the last big retreat of permafrost, in the Holocene's warmest stretch, didn't have a greenhouse-gas impact) and my refusal to proclaim a magically safe level of carbon dioxide (which I discuss here). I'll be posting a response before the week is out but not immediately because of other work.]

[* The original wording in the asterisked line above used the word "variability" in a way that could be interpreted as referring to natural internal variability of the Arctic climate and sea ice. In fact, my intent was simply to describe past natural variations that almost certainly were driven by an external force shaping climate -- shifts in the Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun, as described by Mike MacCracken in a comment that alerted me to the problem.]



On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future - NYTimes.com


----------



## wirebender (Aug 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russias environmental agency said.
> 
> Ice cover is close to a record low, opening almost the entire northern sea route to icebreaker-free shipping as of early August, the Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said on its website today.
> 
> ...



Tell me Chris, what is it about melting ice that upsets you so?  I mean, it has been melting back for about 14,000 years now and has retreated nearly 2,000 miles.  What do you find so upsetting about the fact that a trend that began 14,000 years ago continues?


----------



## konradv (Aug 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice is melting at a near- record pace, opening shipping lanes for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia, Russias environmental agency said.
> ...



Because in the 70s it was said by some we were going into a new Ice Age.  What happened?  Some say 'money', there's no real reason why it would fall more to one side than the other.  Are they telling us the skeptic side doesn't have it's 'money' people too?  When you see the entities that have a vested interest in keeping us on a carbon economy, the 'money' angle is ludicrous.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> Because in the 70s it was said by some we were going into a new Ice Age.



What, exactly do you think that has to do with the question I asked?  Get with the program konradv.  Mindlessly spewing  is not a good substitute for rational answers to questions.



konradv said:


> What happened?  Some say 'money', there's no real reason why it would fall more to one side than the other.  Are they telling us the skeptic side doesn't have it's 'money' people too?  When you see the entities that have a vested interest in keeping us on a carbon economy, the 'money' angle is ludicrous.



And again, what does that have to do with the question I asked?  You get further away from rational thinking every time you sit down to your computer.


----------



## konradv (Aug 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Because in the 70s it was said by some we were going into a new Ice Age.
> ...



Who cares what questions you ask, when you have no basis for asking them in the first place?  I might as well be asking a first grader about economic theory.  If you want to stay in the discussion, you're going to have answer MY questions.  If not, have a nice life.  I don't have a lot of tinme to waste on your nonsense.  So we'll try it slooooower,  why... have... scientists... changed ... their... minds... so... quickly... about... the... possiblity... of... a... new... Ice... Age?


----------



## gslack (Aug 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Kornhole your ignorant ramblings are nothing but that... You post nonsense at every turn and then try and pretend others are the problem.. Dude seriously already, get a grip and follow a thread before posting its just plain annoying..


----------



## konradv (Aug 10, 2011)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Tit-for-tat, gramps, tit-for-tat.  Whaat's more annoying than someone like you that doesn't understand the science, but posts anyway.  If you can't follow my posts, maybe the problem's not mine, eh?


----------



## gslack (Aug 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Its not a question of following your posts, its that your posts are asinine and lack common as well as any other sense... Dude you really don't understand any of this at all do you.....

Whats even funnier is when you make a fool of yourself on a daily basis you don't even learn from it...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2011)

MIT study says Arctic ice thinning 4x faster than predicted | Bostinnovation: Boston Start-ups, Innovation and News Blog

This seems like BULL SHIT TO ME as it appears to me that the main drop within ice extent occurred between 1996-2007, but has slowed a crap load the past 3-4 years. Likely caused by ocean currents and natural patterns within the system. Something changed the past few years, -pdo?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> Who cares what questions you ask, when you have no basis for asking them in the first place?



Elaborate on that konradv.  How is it that you believe that you have logically reached the conclusion that I have no basis for asking the questions I have asked?  I would be interested in seeing how it is that your mind works.



konradv said:


> I might as well be asking a first grader about economic theory.



Funny konradv.  It is you who is lost in anything approaching scientific discussion.  We have already established that beyond any doubt.  It is facinating, however, to watch you engage in your strange form of mental masturbation to the point that you believe that you have a better grasp of the science than I.



konradv said:


> If you want to stay in the discussion, you're going to have answer MY questions.



I have answered your questions ad nauseum konradv, no matter how juvenile they are.  I have answered them and provided peer reviewed science to back me up and when appropriate, I have answered them and done the math out in the open here on this board for anyone and everyone to examine my work.  To date, even though several have complained that I have offended thier faith, no one has pointed to any mathematical error on my part or any misapplied physical law.



konradv said:


> If not, have a nice life.  I don't have a lot of tinme to waste on your nonsense.



Again with the mental masturbation.  Having a bad day konradv and need to make yourself feel better no matter how shallow those good feelings may be?  I am laughing at you konradv, and anyone who has taken the time to read the conversations between you and I is laughing at you as well.



konradv said:


> So we'll try it slooooower,  why... have... scientists... changed ... their... minds... so... quickly... about... the... possiblity... of... a... new... Ice... Age?



Follow the money konradv.  It isn't rocket science.  It isn't any sort of science at all unless you want to call economics and increasing one's disposable income science.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> Tit-for-tat, gramps, tit-for-tat.  Whaat's more annoying than someone like you that doesn't understand the science, but posts anyway.  If you can't follow my posts, maybe the problem's not mine, eh?



And yet, you keep posting.  How about we revisit the math konradv.  Are you ready to point out any error on my part or do you still not accept it because it offends your faith?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 11, 2011)

gslack said:


> Its not a question of following your posts, its that your posts are asinine and lack common as well as any other sense... Dude you really don't understand any of this at all do you.....
> 
> Whats even funnier is when you make a fool of yourself on a daily basis you don't even learn from it...



Strange guy isn't he?  I ask Chris what exactly it is about the fact that the ice continues to melt as it has for the past 14,000 years and it triggers some switch in his head that makes him spout gibberish and make claims that he has a superior grasp on the science for 3 or for posts.

You have to wonder what goes on in a mind like that?  His attempts at logic make me think of great gobs of twisted fishing line.


----------



## annesmith (Aug 11, 2011)

Lets save mother earth


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2011)

on a related note- an ice core drill was performed in 2002 by Lonnie Thompson at Bona-Churchill. it unexpectedly only found 2500 years of ice, and warmer temps 400-800 years ago. 

using a common method in paleoclimatology, the information is made to disappear simply by not finishing the project. many of the updates in treering measuring are lost in the same fashion when they do not replicate the favoured findings of past reconstructions.

Bona-Churchill, Alaska
The Inconvenient Skeptic » The Integrity of Science


----------



## gslack (Aug 11, 2011)

wirebender said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Its not a question of following your posts, its that your posts are asinine and lack common as well as any other sense... Dude you really don't understand any of this at all do you.....
> ...



Yeah I have very little patience with him and Kornhole. Oldsocks is a BSer and has a reason for what he does here if ya watch his postings he will accidentally tip his hand from time to time. He has some vested interest in this crap at least. But Chris is just a blind faithful follower. Kornhole is either a teenager or a shut in with no concept of reality.

I just don't understand anyone who just blindly accepts what others tell them, and worse allow them to tell them who or what is to be trusted.

I am a data analyst by trade. Basically I am given data from as many sources on a subject as possible and I take that data, compile it, and attempt to separate fact from fiction, opinion and nonsense. I then take whats left (hopefully the truth) and put it in a format that a laymen can easily understand and use to advise others on. Now if I had the kind of clouded thinking of these guys I couldn't even begin to do my job for a day much less the 20 years I been doing it.

I didn't understand quantum mechanics at all, and I went and got a book that basically broke it down for general population. It didn't make me a quantum physicist, but It did give me a good basic understanding of its principles and processes. I didn't know so felt I had to find out, and did something about it. Neither of these two are willing to do that and thats sad.. They would rather have someone else tell them this is thus, and that is this. No wonder the US has fallen behind in school...


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 12, 2011)

gslack said:


> I am a data analyst by trade.



LOLOL....oh come on, slackjawedidiot, it is obvious from the extremely ignorant and delusional nature of your posts that you are really a porn film fluffer "_by trade_". You couldn't 'analyze' your way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I am a data analyst by trade.
> ...



Ah trollingblunder... So what alter-ego shall we be seeing today? Will it be the blind one line posting type or the obtuse rambling type?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 12, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



So I keep you guessing, eh? LOL. You never do that, slackjawed. We always know just what face you'll be displaying on this forum. The face of an drooling, dim-witted, utter retard, that is kept somewhat obscured from view by the fact that you keep it shoved so far up your ass that you can lick your own tonsils from below.

Too bad you can never manage to post anything but drivel and ignorant nonsense, but then what else can we expect from a brainwashed denier cult cretin like you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 12, 2011)

Another recent study of current conditions in the Arctic shows one of the reasons why the Arctic sea ice is thinning so rapidly. It is the shift from snowfall to rainfall, induced by rising temperatures, that is exposing the bare ice to the sun's rays.

*More Rain, Less Snow Leads to Faster Arctic Ice Melt*
ScienceDaily 
July 1, 2011 
(excerpts)

* Rising air temperatures in the Arctic region have led to an increase in rainfall and a decrease in snowfall, making the sea ice more susceptible to melting, a new study has revealed. The Arctic region is warming more rapidly than anywhere else on Earth. Dr Screen of the University's School of Earth Sciences, who led the research, said due to warming temperatures, on more days of the year and in more parts of the polar region, temperatures are becoming too warm for protective snow to form. 

"As a result of this temperature shift, we estimate that there has been a 40 percent decrease in summer snowfall over the last 20 years. Snow is highly reflective and bounces up to 85 percent of the incoming sunlight back into space. Snow on top of ice effectively acts as a sunscreen protecting the ice from the power of the sun rays. As the snow cover has decreased, more sea ice has become exposed to the sunlight, increasing the melting of the ice. Measurements show that the sea ice has been getting thinner and less extensive," he said*

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


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2011)

AHHHHHH! water can melt ice!


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 13, 2011)

gslack said:


> AHHHHHH! water can melt ice!



Yeah, startling news for you retards, I'm sure.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif.  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> 
> ...



You're full of shit but -

Do you know what an ice age is?

Dumb people like you act as if the climate doesn't change - and when it does there is something horribly wrong.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Why are you retards so hell bent on stopping a natural process?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 13, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > PASADENA, Calif. &#8211; Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> ...



Because it is not a natural process this time but you are obviously far too retarded, brainwashed and ignorant to be able to comprehend that fact no matter how much evidence you're shown. We all know what wrong with dumb people like you but since you're so stupid, I'll show you a picture of how you and the other denier cultists appear to the intelligent people of the world.

*Edited-Meister*


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > AHHHHHH! water can melt ice!
> ...



Excuse me but WHO posted the story???

LOL you're an idiot. They are laughing at you right now same as the rest of us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2011)

So you claim to be a data analyst. Well, for sure, my company would not hire anyone as incompetant as you obviously are. Nor would I waste time reading your analysis of quantum mechanics. 

I post articles, lectures, and data from the scientists that are actually studying this subject. You post yap-yap about what a smart fellow you are, and then fail to back any of your yap-yap up with real science.


----------



## Chris (Aug 14, 2011)

The United Nations' most recent global climate report "fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends," says a new research from MIT.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.

However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT'S Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).

The research team's findings will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off. IPCC models focused on changes in temperature, which are one way to lose or gain ice. However, Rampal said that the report underestimates mechanical forces that contributed to ice-melting. 

UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT - International Business Times


----------



## Chris (Aug 14, 2011)

Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

Climate veriability ( winds currents and the like) are also brreaking down the ice.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Climate veriability(sic) ( winds currents and the like) are also brreaking(sic) down the ice.



And what do scientists say is causing the changes in "_winds, currents and the like_" that is now causing them to contribute to the shrinking and thinning of the Arctic sea ice cover? Global warming. The same factor that has raised temperatures in the Arctic 7 to 10 degrees and warmed the ocean waters too. Anthropogenic global warming is causing the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap. That's a fact.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

CLIMATE VERIABILITY!



that was the first words I typed.


Guess what sceince says is causing the Climate veriability?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Because it is not a natural process this time but you are obviously far too retarded, brainwashed and ignorant to be able to comprehend that fact no matter how much evidence you're shown. We all know what wrong with dumb people like you but since you're so stupid, I'll show you a picture of how you and the other denier cultists appear to the intelligent people of the world.



Not a natural process "this time".  I am laughing great donkey laughs HE HAW  HEEE HAAAAW   HEE HAAAW in your face again thunder.

Tell me thunder, what is happening "this time" that is outside the boundries of natural variability?  What is happening "this time" that is even approaching the borders of natural variability?  

Answer the question thunder.  What is happening in the climate now that is unprecedented, and completely unique on the planet earth?  

I will enjoy seeing you fail to answer the question and put the lie to your claim that it is not a natural process "this time".

The more your hoax falls down around your ears, the more shrill you get.  Pathetic thunder.  I posted some avatars of wringing hands on another thread for another hand wringer.  Maybe you could pick out one for yourself.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I post articles, lectures, and data from the scientists that are actually studying this subject. You post yap-yap about what a smart fellow you are, and then fail to back any of your yap-yap up with real science.



But you don't have a clue as to what they say, or what they mean, or whether the methods described are accurate or appropriate.  It is a matter of faith for you rocks.  You couldn't begin to do the math so you have no idea as to the veracity of the things you past here.  You accept them on faith.  Simple, and sad as that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> CLIMATE VERIABILITY(sic)!
> 
> that was the first words I typed.
> 
> Guess what sceince(sic) says is causing the Climate veriability(sic)?



What is happening now to the Earth's climate patterns is outside the limits of natural variability. That is the conclusion of the scientists who've been studying this for decades.

*The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​*


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

RT you are missing the fact that I agree with you.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> [And what do scientists say is causing the changes in "_winds, currents and the like_" that is now causing them to contribute to the shrinking and thinning of the Arctic sea ice cover? Global warming. The same factor that has raised temperatures in the Arctic 7 to 10 degrees and warmed the ocean waters too. Anthropogenic global warming is causing the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap. That's a fact.



7 to 10 degrees?  I am laughing at you again thunder.  Perhaps your priests haven't informed you that there is a signifigant warming bias in the data they use.  Seems that any paper that used ERA-40 as a basis for claimed arctic warming isn't worth the paper it is printed on.  That covers about every paper written since 1997.  

Indictment Of The ERA-40 Reanalysis In A New Paper &#8220;Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look&#8221; By Screen and Simmonds 2011 | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

It is all falling down around your ears thunder.  Keep on waving those pom poms though, it is hilarious and truely pathetic at the same time.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.



So you are posting scripture now as well?  Tell me thunder, what is happening in the climate now that is outside of, or even approaching the borders of natural variability?  The answer to that question is nothing.  That being the case, upon what grounds do you suppose the claim that the climate is out of balance can be supported?  

Think guy.  Use your brain.  If the climate is within the bounds of natural variability, how can it possibly be out of balance?


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 14, 2011)

Roger A. Pielke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.[3][4] He has said:
 the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see [http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf]). [1]


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 14, 2011)

Who cares s0n............

Ice is expanding in the Antarctic............Antarctica Showing Significant Cooling with Ice Expansion - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com


Cherry picked variability is gay.............


----------



## yidnar (Aug 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> The United Nations' most recent global climate report "fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends," says a new research from MIT.
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.
> 
> ...


maybe you are over estimating it!!


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



Ever hear of snowball earth?

At one period Geo was a gigantic ball of ice.

Care to explain what occurred that caused that ice to melt?

So what makes it different this time? oh and by the way it has only occurred 20+ times (at least) since then.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.[3][4] He has said:
> the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see [http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf]). [1]



That does not alter the fact that he is convinced that the surface record is not reliable.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is not a natural process this time but you are obviously far too retarded, brainwashed and ignorant to be able to comprehend that fact no matter how much evidence you're shown. We all know what wrong with dumb people like you but since you're so stupid, I'll show you a picture of how you and the other denier cultists appear to the intelligent people of the world.
> ...



Here ya go, you silly braindead retard.

*- Arctic sea ice minimum is decreasing 11.5% per decade.

- Sea levels are rising at a current rate of about 3.27mm per year and accelerating.

- Global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees in the last 130 years.

- Greenland is losing about 100 billion tons of ice mass per year.

- Many places have less snowpack than they used to, and this snowpack is melting earlier, threatening water supplies for human consumption and agriculture worldwide.

- Most of the glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in many parts of the world, including both Glacier National Park and Alaska here in America, have shrunk dramatically or in some cases, disappeared entirely.

- Permafrost all across the Arctic in Alaska, Canada and Siberia is melting rapidly.

- 2010 was the third consecutive yearand the third time in recorded historythat both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.

- Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in at least the last 50 years and probably much longer. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

- The amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans has increased all over the world over the last few decades, and so has ocean acidity, posing grave threats to ocean ecology and the food chain.

- Since the 1970s, droughts have become longer and more extreme worldwide, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.

- Over the past 20 years, hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean have become stronger. 

- Since the 1980s, the United States has also experienced more intense single-day storms that are dumping a lot more rain or snow than usual.

- The global warming induced rise in ocean temperatures has caused more water to evaporate, raising water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% and, as a result, the world is, on average, already getting more precipitation now than it did 100 years ago: 6 percent more in the United States and nearly 2 percent more worldwide.*


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
How do you know it's different than in this past?  It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

Meister said:


> You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
> How do you know it's different than in this past?  It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...



Just because you're so ignorant about all this does not mean that the scientists who study this professionally are equally ignorant and clueless.

The Earth stopped warming up after the end of the last glacial period over 5000 years ago in a period called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and it then started a long term cooling trend that would have eventually initiated another glacial period if not for mankind's ignorantly foolish and very unfortunate influence on the atmospheric balance of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
> ...


A buffoon calling someone else ignorant...now that's just rich, R.T.

You haven't a clue on what in hell your talking about. 
You pay scientists enough to fund their existence, they will come up with your desired end game.
I also find it interesting that there is such a high concentration of "people" in the green movement that are socialists and communists.  Which one are you sonny?
You might try and lay off your holier-than-thou attitude, you really come off looking stupid.


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Average ice extent for July 2011 was 7.92 million square kilometers (3.06 million square miles). This is 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month, set in July 2007, and 2.18 million square kilometers (842,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.
> ...




MAN!!!  Haven't you been paying attention, troll.  If you're going to post, at least pay attention to what's being said.  SHEESH!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
> ...



...and an ice ages helps humanity how?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Here ya go, you silly braindead retard.
> 
> Arctic sea ice minimum is decreasing 11.5% per decade.



So that has never happened before?  Lets see the evidence.



RollingThunder said:


> - Sea levels are rising at a current rate of about 3.27mm per year and accelerating.



Aside from being a lie, that also would not be unprecedented.  Of course, feel free to provide evidence to support your claim that such a rise is outside the boundries of natural variability



RollingThunder said:


> - Global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees in the last 130 years.



Again, a lie, but even if there were such a rise in 130 years, again it would not be unprecedented.



RollingThunder said:


> - Greenland is losing about 100 billion tons of ice mass per year.



Once again, a lie, but that also would not be outside the borders of natural variability.



RollingThunder said:


> - Many places have less snowpack than they used to, and this snowpack is melting earlier, threatening water supplies for human consumption and agriculture worldwide.



And that is outside of natural variability how?



RollingThunder said:


> - Most of the glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in many parts of the world, including both Glacier National Park and Alaska here in America, have shrunk dramatically or in some cases, disappeared entirely.



The glaciers have been melting back for 14,000 years now and have receeded almost 2,000 miles along with a corresponding sea level rise of nearly 500 feet by the way.  How exactly, does the piddling melting you claim achieve the status of unprecedented?



RollingThunder said:


> - Permafrost all across the Arctic in Alaska, Canada and Siberia is melting rapidly.



And that is a new thing on earth how?  Face it guy, for the bulk of earth history, there has been no ice at all at one, or both of the poles.



RollingThunder said:


> - 2010 was the third consecutive year&#8212;and the third time in recorded history&#8212;that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.



And you believe that is unprecedented?  Laughing in your face thunder.  Laughing in your face.



RollingThunder said:


> - Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in at least the last 50 years and probably much longer. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.



Again, a lie, but 50 years?  WOW.  That is certainly a basis to claim "unprecedented"  You get more pathetic the harder you try.



RollingThunder said:


> - The amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans has increased all over the world over the last few decades, and so has ocean acidity, posing grave threats to ocean ecology and the food chain.



Again, a lie, but oceanic CO2 levels have been far higher thunder.  Hell, corals evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels measured in the thousands of ppm.



RollingThunder said:


> - Since the 1970s, droughts have become longer and more extreme worldwide, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.



Going back 40 years. Again.  WOW.  How exactly do you suppose that qualifies as unprecedented? How many peer reviewed studies would you like to see showing far more extensive droughts of longer duration way before man's CO2 was a factor? 

Laughing at you thunder.  Still laughing at you.



RollingThunder said:


> - Over the past 20 years, hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean have become stronger.



Again, a lie.  You sure lie a lot, but even that, if it were true would not be unprecedented or outside the realm of natural variability.  You are so weak.



RollingThunder said:


> - Since the 1980s, the United States has also experienced more intense single-day storms that are dumping a lot more rain or snow than usual.



More lies, but even if they were true, do you believe that at no time in history has the north american continent experienced more intense single day storms?  Lets see the proof of such a claim.



RollingThunder said:


> - The global warming induced rise in ocean temperatures has caused more water to evaporate, raising water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% and, as a result, the world is, on average, already getting more precipitation now than it did 100 years ago: 6 percent more in the United States and nearly 2 percent more worldwide.



Again, are you claiming that this is unprecedented?  Geez guy, you struck out completely.  About half your claims are lies but even if they were true, they would not even approach the limits of natural variability.

I strongly suggest that you grab yourself one of those hand wringing avatars before the best ones have been taken.  

Laughing at you thunder.  Laughing real loud at you.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Just because you're so ignorant about all this does not mean that the scientists who study this professionally are equally ignorant and clueless.



Of course they are clueless as evidenced by their long string of failed prophecies.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you're so ignorant about all this does not mean that the scientists who study this professionally are equally ignorant and clueless.
> ...



Please cite and reference these "failed prophecies" of which you speak.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> ...and an ice ages helps humanity how?



Who clained an ice age would help humanity?


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

Meister said:


> ...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
> How do you know it's different than in this past?  It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...



Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are universal. The evidences indicate that the current warming in abnormal and predominantly the result of humanity's addition of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. It is greatly similar to the PETM in this respect, except that it is currently happening at a vastly accelerated rate compared to the PETM event.


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.[3][4] He has said:
> ...



I'll give you that, as long as you go along with what he said about the "human fingerprint" being on climate change. Deal?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, you silly braindead retard.
> ...



The laughter of retards like you is like music to my ears. It only reflects how confused and ignorant you are, you poor deluded moron.

The list of evidence that I posted indicating that the changes the world is currently experiencing are beyond the limits of natural variability represents the conclusions of the world science community so your calling them all lies without any kind of backing for that claim (or trying to switch the goalposts from 'beyond natural variability' to "_unprecedented_") just shows how crazy and deluded you are. And of course you don't actually have any backing or evidence to support your retarded claims although one of your delusions is that you do. The pseudo-scientific drivel that you imagine is evidence supporting your denial of reality gets totally debunked every time you post it but you are too lost in your denier cult fantasyland to ever understand that fact. And that, wired&bent, is because you are an almost unbelievably stupid, misinformed and very pathetically gullible fool, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and totally brainwashed by right wing/fossil fuel industry propaganda. You and your pretensions of scientific knowledge are a joke, and a bad one at that, to anyone who actually knows anything about science.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 14, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > ...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
> ...



You really over emphasize the impact of humans on the atmosphere.  Periods of heavy volcanic activity dwarf our modest percentages.  CO2 does not and cannot retain heat for extended periods of time.  Shifting ocean currents can and will melt ice however.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> Climate veriability ( winds currents and the like) are also brreaking down the ice.



A predicted and expected occurence when they majority of the ice is new, thin ice as opposed to the thicker, multiyear ice accumulations that used to make up the majority of the Arctic sea ice.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> 7 to 10 degrees?  I am laughing at you again thunder.  Perhaps your priests haven't informed you that there is a signifigant warming bias in the data they use.  Seems that any paper that used ERA-40 as a basis for claimed arctic warming isn't worth the paper it is printed on.  That covers about every paper written since 1997.
> 
> Indictment Of The ERA-40 Reanalysis In A New Paper Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look By Screen and Simmonds 2011 | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
> 
> It is all falling down around your ears thunder.  Keep on waving those pom poms though, it is hilarious and truely pathetic at the same time.



Are you aware of what causes the highlighting of the terms in the abstract you link to (aside from cherry-picking biases)?

Regardless, I'm curious to understand exactly how your beliefs concerning what this paper demonstrates squares with statements like these from the actual paper (as opposed to perversions of the abstract and interpretations from those with a political axe to grind):

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



> ...One specific problem that has been identified in the
> 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
> Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) product is
> a shift of temperature bias in 1997. The ECMWF Web
> ...



I await your explanation.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 14, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


No, you're just blind to the evidence that humans are having an enormous effect on the atmosphere and the Earth's climate.






saveliberty said:


> Periods of heavy volcanic activity dwarf our modest percentages.


Unless you're referring to the Deccan Traps (60 million years ago) or the Siberian Traps (250 million years ago), you are either sadly misinformed, lying or just plain full of shit.

*Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
United States Geological Survey*
(excerpts)

*Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No. Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earths subaerial terrain. One of these is K&#299;lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscapethe equivalent of an extra 11,200 K&#299;lauea volcanoesto scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach. 
*








saveliberty said:


> CO2 does not and cannot retain heat for extended periods of time.


LOLOL....you are obviously soooo confused.

CO2 molecules do pass on the energy of the infrared radiation that they absorb very quickly but so what. That is not an issue at all. The important fact is that the extra CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere has a residency time of decades to centuries and will continue to affect world temperatures and climate patterns for a very long time.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 14, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




Slow release of fossil carbon during the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum
Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group



> The transient global warming event known as the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum occurred about 55.9&#8201;Myr ago. The warming was accompanied by a rapid shift in the isotopic signature of sedimentary carbonates, suggesting that the event was triggered by a massive release of carbon to the oceanatmosphere system. However, the source, rate of emission and total amount of carbon involved remain poorly constrained. Here we use an expanded marine sedimentary section from Spitsbergen to reconstruct the carbon isotope excursion as recorded in marine organic matter. We find that the total magnitude of the carbon isotope excursion in the oceanatmosphere system was about 4. We then force an Earth system model of intermediate complexity to conform to our isotope record, allowing us to generate a continuous estimate of the rate of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Our simulations show that the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.31.7&#8201;Pg&#8201;C&#8201;yr&#8722;1, much slower than the present rate of carbon emissions.



Ocean acidification is diurectly related to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is currently far greater than during the PETM, and is seems to be unprecedented in the geological record for at least the last 65 million years, and there are compelling indications that global oceanic acidification rates are greater than has been seen in the last half billion years.

"Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release"----  http://pages-142.unibe.ch/science/scor/gfx/Ridgwell&Schmidt2010NGeo-PastOceanAcidification.pdf


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2011)

Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..

BTW clone... Ocean acidification is no longer popular and cool with the AGW crowd. Seems a few of their own too eager to blame yet another thing on CO2 went and discovered the oceans uptake of CO2 is slowing and limited.... SO wont be able to make them acidic after all...


----------



## Trakar (Aug 15, 2011)

gslack said:


> Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..
> 
> BTW clone... Ocean acidification is no longer popular and cool with the AGW crowd. Seems a few of their own too eager to blame yet another thing on CO2 went and discovered the oceans uptake of CO2 is slowing and limited.... SO wont be able to make them acidic after all...



Got reference?

Tracking single coccolith dissolution with picogram
resolution and implications for CO2 sequestration
and ocean acidification
http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads...CO2-sequestration-and-ocean-acidification.pdf

Effect of ocean acidification on early life
stages of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.)
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/7097/2011/bgd-8-7097-2011.pdf


> The atmospheric CO2 concentration is constantly increasing primarily due to human activities causing an acidification of the ocean (Feely et al., 2004). While the CO2 concentration over the last 650 000 years ranged between 180 and 300 ppm the recent
> global mean is 5 391 ppm (Conway and Tans, 2011) and a further rise up to 450 respectively 1100 ppm by the end of the century, depending on the emission scenario, is
> predicted (IPCC, 2007). As a result the seawater carbonate chemistry is changing and
> the present mean oceanic surface pH of 7.98.25 is expected to decrease by 0.30.5
> units (Caldeira and Wickett, 2005)...



Global declines in oceanic nitrification rates as a consequence of ocean acidification
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/208.full


> Ocean acidification produced by dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in seawater has profound consequences for marine ecology and biogeochemistry. The oceans have absorbed one-third of CO2 emissions over the past two centuries, altering ocean chemistry, reducing seawater pH, and affecting marine animals and phytoplankton in multiple ways. Microbially mediated ocean biogeochemical processes will be pivotal in determining how the earth system responds to global environmental change;...



IMPACT OF SURFACE OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON THE CO2 ABSORPTION RATE
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:14542/SOURCE2

Many more available upon request


----------



## wirebender (Aug 15, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The laughter of retards like you is like music to my ears. It only reflects how confused and ignorant you are, you poor deluded moron.



Predictably stupid answer thunder.  Completely unsurprising.



RollingThunder said:


> The list of evidence that I posted indicating that the changes the world is currently experiencing are beyond the limits of natural variability represents the conclusions of the world science community so your calling them all lies without any kind of backing for that claim (or trying to switch the goalposts from 'beyond natural variability' to "_unprecedented_")



In case you didn't notice, you failed to provide even a shred of evidence that any of the events you named are approaching the limits of natural variability.  For the most part, your claims are no more than the output of computer models that we are frequently learning are based on bad, fraudulent, or manipulated data and have nothing at all to do  with real world observations.



RollingThunder said:


> The pseudo-scientific drivel that you imagine is evidence supporting your denial of reality gets totally debunked every time you post it but you are too lost in your denier cult fantasyland to ever understand that fact.



Really?  Do feel free to point to any post where someone pointed out a mathematical error or misapplied physical law on my part.  Again, you are caught lying.  

For a while thunder, I thought that you were just a dupe like so many of the faithful on this board.  I am coming to believe, however, that you aren't a dupe.  I am coming to think that you are an "ends justify the means" sort of guy who simply believes it is fine to fabricate, dissemble, falsify, prevaricate, misstate, distort, and flat out lie if you believe it will achieve a certain goal.  Sad for you but not unsurprising.



RollingThunder said:


> And that, wired&bent, is because you are an almost unbelievably stupid, misinformed and very pathetically gullible fool, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and totally brainwashed by right wing/fossil fuel industry propaganda. You and your pretensions of scientific knowledge are a joke, and a bad one at that, to anyone who actually knows anything about science.



And yet, you remain unable to even answer my least difficult questions.  Instead, you retreat to your fat kid fantasy of being the toughest kid on the playground and hurl impotent insult as if that might intimidate me.  I beat you at every exchange thunder and you are so focused on your objective that you fail to see that you are losing.

You might save some face by admitting that nothing that is going on in the climate today even approaches the limits of natural variability or actually providing some evidence to support your claims.  Simply making appeals to authority is hardly a suitable substitute for rational argument.  Before you attempt to put togethersome shabby "evidence", bear in mind that I am prepared to offer up peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study on the paleoclimate that will prove beyond question that nothing in the climate today even begins to approach the limits of natural variability.  Before you try to support your stupid claims consider the fact that about 450 of the past 600 million years, the average temperature on planet earth has been 17 degrees C or above as compared to the present gloabal average of about 14 degrees C and for a great deal of those 450 million years the average global temperature has been closer to 20 degrees C.  To make a claim that the present, with its relatively cool global average is unprecedented, and approaching the limits of natural variability indicates that you are either stupid, or a bald faced liar.  Which is it?


----------



## gslack (Aug 15, 2011)

Trakar said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..
> ...



Don't need one clone there is a thread here in this forum that was posted by one of you algorians that told all about it. IF you want to know then look it up, I do not jump for clones or the cowards that create them.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 15, 2011)

Trakar said:


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



What area of prophecy would you like?  Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons.......  The fact is that none of the prophecies made have matched physical observations.  You name the prediction and the actual observations prove the prediction wrong.  But feel free to name the topic of prediction you would like to see.  It will be the easiest argument to win all day.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Yes, all please.

Cite and reference specific published predictions 

and then an accompanying confirmation listing of failure to meet/match those predictions.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 15, 2011)

gslack said:


> Don't need one clone there is a thread here in this forum that was posted by one of you algorians that told all about it. IF you want to know then look it up, I do not jump for clones or the cowards that create them.



Your inability/unwillingness to provide evidences in support of your own baseless assertions and wild accussations is noted.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 15, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Here is a comprehensive site that lists the major climate models up to year 2006, their predictions and the observed data.  As you can clearly see, they failed miserably.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Here is the latest peer review regarding the failure of the oceans to heat up in spite of hansen's demand that they do so.

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf

Here is a quick chart showing hansen's predicted rate of ocean warming.






Here is a quick chart showing the three primary IPCC predictions of temperature increase vs UAH and Hadcrut:






Here is a quick chart showing hansen's personal failure vs GISS and Hadcrut temperatures






Here is some peer review regarding the failure of the prediction of more and greater floods.

http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf

Taylor & Francis Online :: Trend detection in river flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow / Détection de tendance dans des séries de débit fluvial: 1. Débit maximum annuel - Hydrological Sciences Journal - Volume 50, Issue 5

Here is a running total of tropical cyclones and huricaines:






Certainly not the increase predicted by the IPCC.

If you want more, then ask for specifics.  The fact that you are unaware of the abject failure of climate models says much about you.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Unfortunately, the links here do not reference the actual models, claimed predictions, or link to the data so that the assertions they make can be examined or verified, if you care to present legitimate journal published references and/or links to the information that supports these assertions and claims I would be happy to examine them and if reasonable and accurate, accept and acknowledge the claims as supportive of your claims.



> Here is the latest peer review regarding the failure of the oceans to heat up in spite of hansen's demand that they do so.
> 
> http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf



Please reference or link to Hansen's "prediction" and/or the model he used and the data which you claim represents a prediction which failed to resolve. Additionally, please clarify  and explain how your claims square with the following statements in the above paper you present as evidence supportive of your claims:



> ...The analysis reveals that an
> 8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional.
> It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely
> as a result of El Nino variability on decadal timescales, and
> ...





> Here is a quick chart showing hansen's predicted rate of ocean warming.



You are citing an anonymous blogger made graph with no link to the data which it is supposed to represent or indication that it even attempted to use legitimate methodology or practices in its construction. What exactly do you see this graph as an indication of?

please cite the science from which the data this graph is supposed to represent was derived, and the quote or reference to the asserted prediction by Hansen. 



> Here is a quick chart showing the three primary IPCC predictions of temperature increase vs UAH and Hadcrut:



Again an anonymous blogger graph with no link to the data it represents or definition of methodologies used in its construction. Please present the science and legitimate references and links  



> Here is a quick chart showing hansen's personal failure vs GISS and Hadcrut temperatures



More blogger scribbles without links or reference to data or actual science,...seriously, Nigerian princes who want you to help them with money transfers and promise to handsomely reward your efforts provide more verifiable supportive evidence than this.



> Here is some peer review regarding the failure of the prediction of more and greater floods.
> 
> http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf



Please reference the prediction you assert this paper refutes 



> Certainly not the increase predicted by the IPCC.



Another blog scribble without reference to the data, data treatment or methodology of construction, utterly useless in determining whether or not it is valid. Please cite the mentioned IPCC "prediction."



> If you want more, then ask for specifics.



I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.


----------



## Meister (Aug 15, 2011)

I knew this was going to end bad.  Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.

This is why I won't jump through those hoops.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 15, 2011)

Faithers are soooooo predictable.  Force their hand on CO2 and they bring up methane or ozone.  Rarely will one ever look at ocean currents influenced by shifts in jet stream as a reason for sea ice melt.  The Earth runs in cycles Faithers.  Always has and always will.  For most of it we weren't even on the planet.

I am really looking forward to the day you start screaming about an ice age returning.  That should start about 2028.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL......more hypocritical _'cut and paste'_ from ol' wiredup&bentover.....and predictably, nothing but deceptional denier cult blogs and other sources of misinformation and pseudo-science. Of course ol' W&B can't actually meet the challenge Trakar gave him to "_cite and reference specific published predictions_" or find actual scientific confirmations that the prediction failed because he had no clue about the actual science and only goes by and parrots the lies and misinterpretations of the science that he gleans from braindead denier cult blogs.

Let's look at the first one he cites, warwickhughes.com, a really idiotic denier cult blog full of misinformation and lies. Let's take one example of the lies there as an indicator of the general lack of accuracy or truth displayed by these fossil fuel industry stooges.



> Type of prediction  --  Arctic warming
> 
> Model prediction  --  1.0 to 3.0 C/decade warming (IPCC 1995)
> 
> ...



And now the reality:

*Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years*
LiveScience
 03 September 2009
(excerpts)

*Arctic air temperatures in the 1990s were the warmest in the last 2,000 years and were a result of rising greenhouse gas levels, a new study concludes. The findings, detailed in the Sept. 4 issue of the journal Science, also suggest that if it werent for these manmade pollutants, temperatures around the North Pole would actually be cooling as a result of natural climate patterns. The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there. 

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900. 

The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight.* 
***

Here's some more recent info from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado:
1/5/11 - *Air temperatures over eastern Siberia were 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in December. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Southern Baffin Island had the largest anomalies, with temperatures over 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal.*

7/18/11 - *To date in July, air temperatures over the North Pole (at the 925 millibar level, or roughly 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface) were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal, while temperatures along the coasts of the Laptev and East Siberian seas were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average.
*

So, it turns out that the denier cult blog is lying, no surprise there, and the climate model predictions were, if anything, underestimating the speed with which temperatures in the Arctic would increase. 


***


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 16, 2011)

Oh your "science" is so good that your people have to "manipulate" the data in order to make it fit their views.  You also have to use weather stations within ten feet of heat sources to help your cause.  Just weak.  Wrong, bad, greedy Phds.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> -warmest-2-000-years.html"]Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years[/URL][/SIZE][/B]



Still laughing at you thunder.  I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40?  That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic.  I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder.  Absolutely laughable.  It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.


----------



## wirebender (Aug 16, 2011)

Trakar said:


> I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.



Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework.  It might be easier, and more informative for you if you try to list some warmist predictions that have actually come to pass.

Here are some peer reviewed studies specifically covering the failure of climate models.

Google Oversæt

http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance

CO2 Science

New Paper &#8220;Validation And Forecasting Accuracy In Models Of Climate Change&#8221; By Fildes and Kourentzes | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

CO2 Science

The fact is trakar that there is abundant peer reviewed material proves without doubt that climate models for every purpose are abject failures.


----------



## JMadison (Aug 16, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked. Get a life... Environmental wackos are out tonight... Beware.


 
Does volume increase or decrease as ice melts?


----------



## konradv (Aug 16, 2011)

JMadison said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked. Get a life... Environmental wackos are out tonight... Beware.
> ...



Of course it decreases, but don't be fooled, that doesn't mean sea levels will lower.  That would happen only if it was sea ice alone that melted.  Sea ice melt is an indicator of overall melt.  The ice that would raise sea levels is the ice that's presently on land, Greenland, Antarctica and mountain glaciers.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Oh your "science" is so good that your people have to "manipulate" the data in order to make it fit their views.  You also have to use weather stations within ten feet of heat sources to help your cause.  Just weak.  Wrong, bad, greedy Phds.



Those are your propaganda induced denier cult delusions but they have no connection to reality.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years*
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..............ROTFLMLAO.......incredible.....you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's almost impossible......

You see a scientific study talking about temperatures over the last two thousand years and you assume that they used satellite data. LOLOLOL. Satellite data that only goes back a few decades. LOLOLOL. You ignore the clear statement about the data they used that is in the excerpts from the article that I quoted. LOLOLOL. You then spew some drivel about imaginary problems with the satellite data based only on some denier cultist's nutball speculations and denial of reality. LOLOLOL.....you are sooooo duped and confused and full of BS, it is just plain pathetic to watch you flailing about so mindlessly in your denial cult fantasy world.

From the two year old scientific study I cited, here's the part regarding the data they used, plus a few more excerpts:

*The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there.

These natural archives indicated a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the sun.

Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in the Northern Hemisphere's summertime, when Earth is farther from the sun (the main driver of summer temperatures is the fact that the hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during these months, while it is tilted away from the sun during winter).

The team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the sun, cooled at an average rate of about .35 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900.

"The amount of energy we're getting from the sun in the 20th century continued to go down, but the temperature went up higher than anything we've seen in the last 2,000 years," said team member Nicholas P. McKay of The University of Arizona in Tucson. *


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> ...if you try to list some warmist predictions that have actually come to pass.



Sure, little retard, here you go. I'll post some more later.

According to the IPCC 2007 WGI, Chapter 8 report by Randall, et al. (2007):

*1. There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales.

2. Models now being used in applications by major climate modeling groups better simulate seasonally varying patterns of precipitation, mean sea level pressure and surface air temperature than the models relied on by these same groups at the time of the IPCC Third Assessment Repport (TAR).

3. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period.

4. Some AOGCMs can now simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

 5. The ability of AOGCMs to simulate extreme events, especially hot and cold spells, has improved.

6. Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models are able to simulate extreme warm temperatures, cold air outbreaks and frost days reasonably well.

7. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures and the larger degree of warming in the Arctic known as polar amplification.

8. Models account for a very large fraction of the global temperature pattern: the correlation coefficient between the simulated and observed spatial patterns of annual mean temperature is typically about 0.98 for individual models. This supports the view that major processes governing surface temperature climatology are represented with a reasonable degree of fidelity by the models.

9. The models, as a group, clearly capture the differences between marine and continental environments and the larger magnitude of the annual cycle found at higher latitudes, but there is a general tendency to underestimate the annual temperature range over eastern Siberia. In general, the largest fractional errors are found over the oceans (e.g., over much of tropical South America and off the east coasts of North America and Asia). These exceptions to the overall good agreement illustrate a general characteristic of current climate models: the largest-scale features of climate are simulated more accurately than regional- and smaller-scale features.

10. Models predict the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991

11. Simulation of extratropical cyclones has improved. Some models used for projections of tropical cyclone changes can simulate successfully the observed frequency and distribution of tropical cyclones.

12. The models capture the dominant extratropical patterns of variability including the Northern and Southern Annular Modes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Pacific-North American and Cold Ocean-Warm Land Patterns.

13. With a few exceptions, the models can simulate the observed zonal mean of the annual mean outgoing LW within 10 W/m2 (an error of around 5%) The models reproduce the relative minimum in this field near the equator where the relatively high humidity and extensive cloud cover in the tropics raises the effective height (and lowers the effective temperature) at which LW radiation emanates to space.

14. The seasonal cycle of the outgoing LW radiation pattern is also reasonably well simulated by models.

15. The models capture the large-scale zonal mean precipitation differences, suggesting that they can adequately represent these features of atmospheric circulation. Moreover, there is some evidence that models have improved over the last several years in simulating the annual cycle of the precipitation patterns.

16. Models also simulate some of the major regional characteristics of the precipitation field, including the major convergence zones and the maxima over tropical rain forests, although there is a tendency to underestimate rainfall over the Amazon.

17. Confidence has also increased in the ability of GCMs to represent upper-tropospheric humidity and its variations, both free and forced. Together, upper-tropospheric observational and modeling evidence provide strong support for a combined water vapor/lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in GCMs (approximately 1 W/m2 oC-1, corresponding to around a 50% amplification of global mean warming).*


----------



## Meister (Aug 16, 2011)

IPCC?  

That is the root to the problem......it's all political with them to extract money out of the US.
I know, I know....


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2011)

Meister said:


> IPCC?
> That is the root to the problem......it's all political with them to extract money out of the US.



That is another of your nutjob denier cult myths and propaganda memes but once again, it has no actual connection to reality.


----------



## Meister (Aug 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > IPCC?
> ...



uh-huh. 

Have another glass of Kool-Aid, because your showing what a bias partisan hack you really are.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2011)

There is NO chance for 2007 now...We may come close to 2008 and 2010 range, but we will be within the top 5. It would have to collapse like Larsen b ice sheet to catch 2007 now.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2011)

To get back on topic, here some pertinent information about the data that was gathered by US and British submarines since about the mid fifties using their upward looking radar to measure the thickness of the sea ice. These older, formerly classified, military records were analyzed and compared to more recent data. The analysis shows that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has gotten about 40% thinner over about the last 50 years. Other observations and scientific studies support the conclusion that the ice has been thinning at an increasing rate during the same period that total ice extent has also been rapidly shrinking.

From the *National Snow and Ice Data Center* at the University of Colorado:

*All About Sea Ice*
(excerpts)

*In the 1990s, several scientific cruises took place as part of the Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX). These operations were military in nature, and most details remain classified. However, submarines participating in SCICEX collected many sea ice and ocean observations that are otherwise difficult to obtain. The most important observations in regard to sea ice were estimates of ice thickness from an upward-looking sonar. A comparison of recent data with data from submarines in the 1950s through the 1970s shows that sea ice has thinned by about 40 percent. See the sea ice section of NSIDC's State of the Cryosphere for further details on thinning sea ice. NSIDC archives and distributes data from SCICEX in the Submarine Upward Looking Sonar Ice Draft Profile Data and Statistics data set.*





*Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft from 1958 to 1997. Graph derived from Rothrock et al. 1999.*


----------



## Chris (Aug 17, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.
> ...







Trakar is a olfraud clone.  Facts and empirical data don't compute.  If it doesn't come from a computer model then it doesn't count.  Only CM's count.  Of course trakar can't understand how they don't correlate with the real world but they'll figure it out some decade.


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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








Soooooo riddle me this batman......if the Arctic has never been warmer how is it that grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today?  Hmmmm????  The Domesdy Book has records of 47 wineries that existed where none can today.

Seems like the real world is rising up to bite you in the ass again sunshine


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Ooooh, 8-bit graphics, I'm impressed....


----------



## Trakar (Aug 17, 2011)

Meister said:


> I knew this was going to end bad.  Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
> Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
> 
> This is why I won't jump through those hoops.



So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!

Seriously?!

This just went from sad to pitiful.


----------



## Meister (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I knew this was going to end bad.  Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
> ...



I told you to follow the money, sorry the comprehension level is low on your end.  Seems quite obvious to most, Trakar.  Yes that is pitiful, tsk, tsk


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I knew this was going to end bad.  Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
> ...









What is sad is people actually listen to frauds like you.  You constantly ask for links that you allready have been shown, repeatedly, just to waste peoples time.  Here's a newsflash, go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.  Scientists are rejecting the AGW non-falsifiable fraud all over the world.  Go carry on your circle jerk with your other cultists and enjoy yourself.  But please, stop wasting the time of those who truly wish to learn something.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > -warmest-2-000-years.html"]Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years[/URL][/SIZE][/B]
> ...



The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!
> 
> Seriously?!
> 
> This just went from sad to pitiful.



Someone puts a bucket of money in the middle of a pig trough. Is it a global conspiracy that people wallow in pig shit?

Nope, it's just free money.

Promoting the AGW myth gives people free money. Lots of people care more about free money than they do integrity.

This isn't that hard to figure out.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.
> ...



I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







You provide nothing but bluster and hyperbole and a serious dash of hubris.  AGW claims have never been born out.  Hansens claims were off by 300% (go look it up yourself), every time a scientific group looks into the claims of the AGW crowd problems are exposed.
The truth of the matter is the AGW crowd has consistently lied about the effects and the underlying science.

Remember the "Boy Who Cried Wolf"?  You idiots cried wolf too many times.  Don't say you weren't warned, the story dates to classical Greece.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Actually, he has........"compellingly"


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Is there a standard abbreviation for 'laughing so hard I fell off my chair' - LSHIFOMC maybe? If not, perhaps there should be, just for situations like this.

I always find it amusing when a complete & clueless nutjob like you refers to "_the real world_" when you have so little connection to it, let alone knowledge of it. Of course, you do 'know' a lot about your imaginary world but unfortunately in the actual 'real world', most of what you think you know is simple wrong. That's another unfortunate and inevitable byproduct of you being such a gullible retard, I suppose. Let's take a look at what you imagine you 'know' about this: 
"*grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today*" & "*47 wineries that existed where none can today*".

Here's a little taste of the real "_real world_" biting you back, you poor delusional imbecile.

*Medieval warmth and English wine*
(excerpts)

*Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes &#8211; changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn&#8217;t a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let&#8217;s assume that climate is actually the dominant control &#8211; so what does the history of English vineyards show?

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in &#8216;Punch&#8217; (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it &#8211; one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production &#8211; more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate&#8230;. *


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


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2011)

And another important and very relevant fact regarding the grape growing myth from the article I cited.

"*Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits.*"


----------



## wirebender (Aug 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Sure, little retard, here you go. I'll post some more later.
> 
> According to the IPCC 2007 WGI, Chapter 8 report by Randall, et al. (2007):
> 
> ...


----------



## wirebender (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?



One data set that has over 2000 citations in published work.  Every paper that cites that data set is untrustworthy.


----------



## IanC (Aug 17, 2011)

wirebender makes a few good points. climate models are continuously tweaked to get the best match for current data. hence they are always in the first few years of yet another 100 year projection so there has been little time to diverge from reality. 

the other point is papers done with outdated or incorrect data sets. while it is unreasonable to expect those papers to be continually updated to reflect new information, it is also unreasonable to assume that new papers with new data are going to be perfect either. the unwarranted certainty of scientific papers published and especially many of the hysterical conclusions drawn from them is an illusion.


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> And another important and very relevant fact regarding the grape growing myth from the article I cited.
> 
> "*Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits.*"







An excerpt from their pathetic attempt to disappear evidence that refutes their paradigm....

"Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren&#8217;t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it&#8217;s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don&#8217;t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England." 

The highlighted part is important as the reason the mention of the vinyard in the book is because they had to pay a tax on their production.  Your boys ignore that in an effort to discount the claim.  That is false, that is a lie.  That's why nobody gives a crap what they have to say at "real climate", they don't tell the truth.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 19, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Trakar (Aug 19, 2011)

gslack said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It has been provided many times before and specifically to you.  It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me.  YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE.  I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.
> ...



Fully and completely agreed!


----------



## FactFinder (Aug 19, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif.  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctics ice cover.
> 
> ...



What happened to 2009 thru 2011?


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2011)

Trakar said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not too sharp are ya.... YOU asked him to prove it, so the burden of disproof is on you not him. You don't ask the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, you ask the plaintiff to prove he did.
 You made him the defendant when you asked him to prove it, which made you the plaintiff, you claim he is wrong or doubt him prove him wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2011)

gslack said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...







No, he's not.  He's a time waster who thinks he's smart.  My wife calls them "factual posturers" they preen like birds but beyond their chirping they are essentially vacuous.


----------



## FactFinder (Aug 20, 2011)

and what is vacuous? and who judges the standard? Is there one more prevalent than another? Who is the judge? 

Seems this whole matter of Global Warming, AGW or whatever you want to call it has become some judgment call. Should I be the judge? Should Al Gore? Should Hansen be the judge. Hmm, what a conundrum! Who may be the fair judge since facts are wanting? 

Is the whole really of any import anyway or are some trying to to elevate themselves above us poor lowly classes with some unnecessary cause?


----------



## gslack (Aug 20, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> and what is vacuous? and who judges the standard? Is there one more prevalent than another? Who is the judge?
> 
> Seems this whole matter of Global Warming, AGW or whatever you want to call it has become some judgment call. Should I be the judge? Should Al Gore? Should Hansen be the judge. Hmm, what a conundrum! Who may be the fair judge since facts are wanting?
> 
> Is the whole really of any import anyway or are some trying to to elevate themselves above us poor lowly classes with some unnecessary cause?



Vacuous = A vacuum or as it pertains here a person, like that of a vacuum, containing nothing.

That poster or clone as I like to think of him has been found on numerous times talking in circles, trying to confound his responses with deliberate verbiage that tries to give him an appearance of knowledge or even something of value to add, and being a general posturing imbecile with access to a thesaurus.

That being said I think I can judge him for myself just as anyone else can. Wes I am pretty sure from his response feels the same about him.

I think its important simply because its a deliberate fallacy pushed upon the public no matter who brings it.


----------



## Meister (Aug 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > and what is vacuous? and who judges the standard? Is there one more prevalent than another? Who is the judge?
> ...



Truer words were never spoken


----------



## Trakar (Aug 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> Not too sharp are ya.... YOU asked him to prove it, so the burden of disproof is on you not him. You don't ask the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, you ask the plaintiff to prove he did.
> You made him the defendant when you asked him to prove it, which made you the plaintiff, you claim he is wrong or doubt him prove him wrong.



Go back and read the thread, but this time read for comprehension.

All I have ever asked is for those who make assertions, to support their assertions with cite or reference to compelling supportive evidences .


----------



## Trakar (Aug 20, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> and what is vacuous? and who judges the standard? Is there one more prevalent than another? Who is the judge?
> 
> Seems this whole matter of Global Warming, AGW or whatever you want to call it has become some judgment call. Should I be the judge? Should Al Gore? Should Hansen be the judge. Hmm, what a conundrum! Who may be the fair judge since facts are wanting?
> 
> Is the whole really of any import anyway or are some trying to to elevate themselves above us poor lowly classes with some unnecessary cause?



The only ones trying to make issues like AGW seem to be a "factless" choice of arbitrary position... , are those who find the experts and the facts they have spent the last century or so discovering, testing and refining, to not fit into their preferred world scheme, inconvenient truths, if you will.  

If you have a pain you go to a doctor, if you don't like what the doctor tells you, you don't  decide that there is no good medical answer and go to your lawyer or your mailman and ask them to see if they will give you an answer you like better,...do you?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 20, 2011)

Trakar said:


> If you have a pain you go to a doctor, if you don't like what the doctor tells you, you don't  decide that there is no good medical answer and go to your lawyer or your mailman and ask them to see if they will give you an answer you like better,...do you?



If the doctor tells me that I have a fever when my temperature is 98.6 and that may be pregnant even though I am male and have been for my whole life, or  that I may have tonsilitis even though I had my tonsils taken out when I was 6, I tend to wonder if the doctor knows what he is talking about.  In fact, I may grab myself a medical text or two and see if my symptoms match anything like what he is claiming is wrong with me.

When a climate scientist tells me that the surface of the earth is radiating more than twice the amount of energy it receives from the sun because of a trace gas in the atmosphere and can not descibe exactly how this may be without violating some very fundamental laws of physics, then I tend to wonder if the climate scientists either A) has a clue, or B) is saying what he is saying because someone is paying him a great deal of money to say it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 20, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> and what is vacuous? and who judges the standard? Is there one more prevalent than another? Who is the judge?
> 
> Seems this whole matter of Global Warming, AGW or whatever you want to call it has become some judgment call. Should I be the judge? Should Al Gore? Should Hansen be the judge. Hmm, what a conundrum! Who may be the fair judge since facts are wanting?
> 
> Is the whole really of any import anyway or are some trying to to elevate themselves above us poor lowly classes with some unnecessary cause?








No, it's not a "judgement call".  Science observes physical events.  It analyzes those events and after much thinking and verifying of facts a conclusion is reached.  The conclusion is not the "truth".  "Truth" is the purview of religion and spiritual thought.  Science is interested in the observation of the pysical world and factually reporting what is observed.  The AGW proponents stopped reporting factually years ago.


----------



## gslack (Aug 20, 2011)

Trakar said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sharp are ya.... YOU asked him to prove it, so the burden of disproof is on you not him. You don't ask the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, you ask the plaintiff to prove he did.
> ...



first I do not take orders from clones..

Second, I know that you asking him to prove he is right when you can't prove him wrong makes you a BS artist, not a very good one either...

He made an assertion you claim he is wrong so prove it if you can. 

Third, "all you have ever asked?" LOL who the hell are you? Says you joined in February, I wasn't on here at the time been busy until recently. From the way you said that makes me wonder if you are a clone......


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 21, 2011)

August 20th 2011 5,336,719

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156* 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*
2008 4,707,813*
2009 5,249,844*
2010 4,813,594*


----------



## Trakar (Aug 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> first I do not take orders from clones..
> 
> Second, I know that you asking him to prove he is right when you can't prove him wrong makes you a BS artist, not a very good one either...
> 
> ...



He made an assertion, I asked for reference or citation to evidence that compellingly supports his statement (as you noted, is the proper way of things,..."You make the claim its your job to back it up. Its a simple concept really. If you claim something, and then someones asks you to prove it, you can either prove it or not, but asking them to disprove it is lazy on your part.")


----------



## Trakar (Aug 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a pain you go to a doctor, if you don't like what the doctor tells you, you don't  decide that there is no good medical answer and go to your lawyer or your mailman and ask them to see if they will give you an answer you like better,...do you?
> ...



The Sun only shines on one half of the planet continuously, the Earth emits radiation from it entire sphere continuously. The Earth emits, to rather remarkable precision, the same amount of energy it absorbs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a pain you go to a doctor, if you don't like what the doctor tells you, you don't  decide that there is no good medical answer and go to your lawyer or your mailman and ask them to see if they will give you an answer you like better,...do you?
> ...



Given the quality and tenor of your posts, I would tend to believe the doctor.


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2011)

Trakar said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > first I do not take orders from clones..
> ...



Bull! You claim he is wrong in effect. You imply he is incorrect and rather than prove he is, you ask him to support his claim with evidence. He can do that or not its his choice. You on the other hand have to either accept his word, disregard his word, or claim it false. But if you want others to agree or prove he is wrong the burden of proof or "disproof" in this case is on you.

You can twist it all you want genius, but if you want to prove him wrong then do so..

BTW, you may have noticed my use of the noun "proof" and the verbs "prove" and "disprove".. You seemed to have a problem differing the two before in another thread, so I thought I should clarify their proper use here again....


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Given the way you post propaganda and DON'T read it before posting, I would tend to doubt anything you believe...


----------



## Trakar (Aug 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> Bull! You claim he is wrong in effect. You imply he is incorrect and rather than prove he is, you ask him to support his claim with evidence.



So in your perception, when I ask someone to provide supporting cites or references for their assertions, I am actually claiming they are wrong and it is incumbent upon me to provide evidence that indicate they are incorrect rather than incombent upon them to provide support for their assertions?! Seriously!?

That's just sad.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 21, 2011)

08,21,2011,    5,274,844(fifth)

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531* (first)
2008 4,707,813* (second)
2009 5,249,844*(forth)
2010 4,813,594* (third)

3 more weeks before we normally bottom out and we're at number 5 as a melt season. We're 1,020,313 km^2 from number one! I think that we will be forth within the next few days and take a shot at 3rd and maybe second. First maybe safe for another year.


----------



## gslack (Aug 22, 2011)

Trakar said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bull! You claim he is wrong in effect. You imply he is incorrect and rather than prove he is, you ask him to support his claim with evidence.
> ...



NO tool! in reality if you doubt him you can *prove* him wrong or not, but asking him to prove it is up to him not you. Can you *disprove* it? Obviously not or else you would have done so...

Notice I bold-faced and underlined the words you had trouble with before? Yeah I used the verb "prove" because it was the action taken or to be taken. See how that worked genius? And YES that IS how we spell words here moron...

Proof = noun

Prove = verb

Disproof = Noun

Disprove = verb

Get it? Care to explain how a person who claims to have so much knowledge and implied education have the the concept of noun and verb (or the transitive verb) so utterly wrong? Its a simple concept taught in grade school genius yet you not only knew the difference but you tried to argue it after being told the mistake....

Dude you are a posturing, preening fake... You talk in circles of bullshit never actually saying anything of value all to imply some greater knowledge, brilliance or education that you neither have nor work for.... Pathetic....


----------



## westwall (Aug 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...






Indeed.  Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2011)




----------



## oreo (Aug 22, 2011)

Chris said:


>





> The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
> places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
> Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
> from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in
> ...


 
*I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post 88+ years ago_
*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 23, 2011)

08,22,2011,  5,178,281(forth)

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594*(third)


923,750 km^2 away from being number one. High order you bet. We would need to buttom out near sept 15th, so that would be 923,750/24 days=38,489 km^2 per day if the rate remained constant. We all know that it levels off within a bridge or concave shape, so it needs to be a good amount more...We need likely 70-80k per day early on and this would slow to a very slow mount within thousands on the peak. Likely won't occur.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 23, 2011)

The area of the Arctic Ice is the fourth lowest already, and there is significant amounts of thick ice going south along the East coast of Greenland.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Cryosphere Today - Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere Animation

This was not supposed to be a year in which the Arctic showed very rapid warming. In fact, there should have been a return to more ice area, and a thickening as well. What we see is the continuation of the smaller ice area from 2007, and a very slight increase in volume, still way below the slope of the curve;


http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?


----------



## gslack (Aug 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The area of the Arctic Ice is the fourth lowest already, and there is significant amounts of thick ice going south along the East coast of Greenland.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
> 
> ...



4th lowest? Oh my!

And what was last year? The year before? Was it continuously warming? You know if this year was 4th, then last year would have been 5th, then 6th etc... ANd of course next year has to be third and so on... oh... no??? Well then I guess its just one of those weather things then huh...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 23, 2011)

Still demonstrating what a dumb ass you are. All one has to do is take one look at this graph to see how dramatically the summer sea ice has diminished.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

No, it doesn't move in a nice straight line. It shows the downward slope of the line with natural variability overlaying that line. So it may remain at 3 milion square miles for a few more years, then dramatically decline as it did in 2007. But decline it will. And the effects of the decline will be increasing felt as the clathrates destabalize, and the permofrost continues to melt and emit CO2 and CH4.


----------



## gslack (Aug 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Still demonstrating what a dumb ass you are. All one has to do is take one look at this graph to see how dramatically the summer sea ice has diminished.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
> 
> No, it doesn't move in a nice straight line. It shows the downward slope of the line with natural variability overlaying that line. So it may remain at 3 milion square miles for a few more years, then dramatically decline as it did in 2007. But decline it will. And the effects of the decline will be increasing felt as the clathrates destabalize, and the permofrost continues to melt and emit CO2 and CH4.



See grenpeace, you are so entrenched in your propaganda you forget a basic concept in your belief system that makes it illogical. 

1. If it did have natural variability as you stated above, than the variability is natural...

2. IF CO2 causes warming as you keep contending, and CO2 has continuously risen like a clock over the last 150 or so years as you keep contending, than it stands to reason the temperature would have continued to rise along with that CO2 increase. But it has not...

3. The Ice can only do one of 3 things. It can increase, decrease or stay the same. If it increases one year and decreases the next and stays the same the next, it over that 3 years decreased. If it decreased one year then increased the next and then stayed the same the 3rd year it increased overall for the 3 year period. Now the same principles apply over 3, 6, 9, or even 2,000,000 years. And since we have only been recording ice coverage about 30 years compared to the millions we have had ice coverage, what can we say regarding the ice coverage over all? Or for that matter given the fact ice has increased drastically and decreased drastically in even just the last few thousand years, what can we say about natural variability in all of this?

Get your head out of the greenpeace propaganda for a while...


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2011)

Chris said:


>







I see there is still more ice then there was in 2007.  How is that possible in this ever warming world?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2011)

Both Northwest and Northeast Passages open for business.

SeaNews: First Ever Suezmax Plying North-East Passage

First Ever Suezmax Plying North-East Passage 
23 August 2011, 17:41 / SeaNews / Rating: 107 
August 20 the Sovcomflot-owned tanker &#8220;Vladimir Tikhonov&#8221; left Murmansk for the North-East Passage. The ship loaded 120,000 tons of condensed gas in Honningsvag (Norway). In Murmansk bunkering operations and customs formalities were completed.

The cargo produced by Novatek is designated for SE Asia. The ship is to reach the destination in the second half of September. This is not the first shipment of Novatek&#8217;s cargo along the North-East Passage. This summer the product tanker &#8220;Perseverance&#8221; carried condensed gas to Ningbo. And last year, the &#8220;SCF Baltica&#8221; completed a test shipment to the same port.

This week another ship is to set sail for the North-East passage, the &#8220;Sanko Odissey&#8221; with some 70,000 tons of iron ore concentrate designated for China. The shipper is EuroChem, which has also already tested the Arctic route earlier this year when two MSCo&#8217;s bulkers carried its cargo to China.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## gslack (Aug 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Both Northwest and Northeast Passages open for business.
> 
> SeaNews: First Ever Suezmax Plying North-East Passage
> 
> ...



Ah yes, keep repeating the same things we all know full and well have happened time and again before like its some kind of scary thing...


----------



## wirebender (Aug 26, 2011)

gslack said:


> Ah yes, keep repeating the same things we all know full and well have happened time and again before like its some kind of scary thing...



It's kind of impossible for them to talk about the climate in terms of things that have never happened before so they wring thier hands over what the can.  Some people just need to worry and don't have it within themselves to relax. Even when things are great, they are just waiting for something to go wrong and after a lifetime of that sort of attitude, they can't help but end up as bitter, old, handwringing women.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> ...Soooooo riddle me this batman......if the Arctic has never been warmer how is it that grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today?  Hmmmm????  The Domesdy Book has records of 47 wineries that existed where none can today...



Got reference? 

First of all, it is a non sequitor to even attempt to use pre-instrumental, anecdotal English temperature approximations as a proxy for Arctic temperatures. 
That said, my looking at the Domesday records indicates all of the vineyards appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is no compelling reason to think that there were many, if any, vineyards north of that line. Currently, however there are some more than 100 English and Welsh vineyards above that line, including several around Yorkshire.

Of course, all of this is ridiculous, nothing in modern climate change understanding indicates that today's temperatures represent "all time global records," of unmatched and unexceeded local or global outlier maxima, rather, modern climate theories and understandings look at the physical causes of climate change and compare what we know about the physical effects and the historic record to understand which of the multiple drivers or combination of drivers, can best explain the observations. For the end of the 20th century, and the start of the 21rst century, the rise in greenhouse gases (with occassional buffering by the odd volcano and the concomittant industrial pollution rises in both SO2 and particulate pollution), seem to well and compellingly address the changes being seen.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Interestingly, his 8-bit graphics convey a lot more substance than your 2-bit commentary.


----------



## gslack (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ...Soooooo riddle me this batman......if the Arctic has never been warmer how is it that grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today?  Hmmmm????  The Domesdy Book has records of 47 wineries that existed where none can today...
> ...



More posturing from the fake..... 



			
				trakar said:
			
		

> Got reference?



Is that your anal attempt to dismiss this well established and known fact, or just you being a douchebag again? I think it was the second one so I am going to ignore it...



> First of all, it is a non sequitor to even attempt to use pre-instrumental, anecdotal English temperature approximations as a proxy for Arctic temperatures.



Then its equally true trying to use the last 150 years to establish catastrophic global warming, or the last 30 years to do the same regarding ice fluctuations. You can't have a legitimate argument on this if you are going to arbitrarily decide what is and is not evidence based on convenience for your own side.



> That said, my looking at the Domesday records indicates all of the vineyards appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is no compelling reason to think that there were many, if any, vineyards north of that line. Currently, however there are some more than 100 English and Welsh vineyards above that line, including several around Yorkshire.



And?... Exactly where in all of that rambling did you establish anything that contradicts or even brings doubt onto his assertions? Seriously man, you have something wrong with your head... He pointed out that vineyards hundreds of years ago where none could have been and you point out that there are some vineyards near there now? SO freaking what? It establishes the fact this warming is NOT out of natural variability even more so... Jesus you are thick for a guy trying to pretend to be so smart...



> * Of course, all of this is ridiculous, nothing in modern climate change understanding indicates that today's temperatures represent "all time global records," of unmatched and unexceeded local or global outlier maxima*, rather, modern climate theories and understandings look at the physical causes of climate change and compare what we know about the physical effects and the historic record to understand which of the multiple drivers or combination of drivers, can best explain the observations. For the end of the 20th century, and the start of the 21rst century, the rise in greenhouse gases (with occassional buffering by the odd volcano and the concomittant industrial pollution rises in both SO2 and particulate pollution), seem to well and compellingly address the changes being seen.



I made the obvious idiotic part bigger and bold to point it out... Read that again tool... *BINGO!* Get it yet slow boy? Just as that does not mean we are colder today than back then, the same holds true for climate models predictions and claims based on a small example of temps, ice coverage changes, and anomalous things that people like YOU keep pulling out of your ass and calling proof of climate change...

You idiots are so desperate for global warming to be true you stop seeing anything as it really is, and instead see it as your faith wishes it to be. You are supposed to be so smart... WHAT in the hell gave that idea? You talk and talk in circles making no sense, often undermining your own argument and then try and pretend some higher intellect or understanding.....WOW!


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

Meister said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




Oh, I've followed the money quite well, but it seems to lead in a direction different than you advocate:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study - Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

BUSH AIDE EDITED CLIMATE REPORTS - NYTimes.com
and it follow-on companion piece
Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil - New York Times

While Washington Slept | Politics | Vanity Fair

Bray, D. & von Storch, H. CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change, GKSS Report (2010). 

-- No Title -- (wjh13f00)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0]Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes - YouTube[/ame]

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/2007-08-13_newsweek_global_warming_denyers.pdf

Requiem for a species: why we resist the truth about climate change
Requiem for a species: why we resist ... - Google Books


----------



## gslack (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Douchebag I am so tired of your immaturity now... You post a challenge and then when it comes to you you run like a coward and pick another... Man up punk.. You aren't smart, you aren't cute, and you most certainly are nowhere near as educated as you try and pretend..

For once just stand by a claim you make and not run away.... Freaking coward...


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 26, 2011)

You know, the clueless acolytes are always the last people to figure out that they have been lied to. Except, by then, it is too late to do anything about it.


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








Well here is a list of a _FEW_ of the payments that Phil Jones recieved from the US DOE for "research".  This is from one US agency to one guy.  Kinda pales in comparison to the offer of 10,000 plus expenses listed in the first article.



From Verity Jones in comments:


From an Excel file released with the emails in November. US DOE Funding only:

Funding Source, Investigators, Grant Title, Funding, Start Date, End Date

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of CO2 induced climate change (Suppl.)  cum. total £540,956, original start date 01/12/90 £128,000 01/03/1995 29/02/1996

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.)  cum. total £672,956, original start date 01/12/90 £132,000 01/03/1996 28/02/1997

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.)  cum. total £797,956, original start date 01/12/90 £125,000 01/03/1997 28/02/1998

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £99,555 01/05/1998 30/04/1999

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change (Suppl.) £102,752 01/05/1999 30/04/2000

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £106,151 01/05/2000 30/04/2001

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data and analysis from the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £212,500 01/05/2001 30/04/2003

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate Data and Analysis  Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change.  Supp awarded £88,756  30.3.06 £262,629 01/05/2004 30/05/2006


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?
> ...



Which clearly demonstrates the level of ignorance regarding scientific citation and practice that you bring to the table. Scientific citation often includes works that represent contradictory information or even information that has been found flawed or otherwise incomplete. Anytime a research is mentioned or alluded to, whether it is supportive, or contradictory, it is supposed to be cited and referenced in any published study. In the case of the ERA-40 data the bias was detected, acknowledge and accounted for in the study that originally produced the data. Why would this cause you to believe that this invalidates that original study or data? Moreover, how would the citation of this study or data invalidate any other study that lists a citation to that study or data?


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> What happened to 2009 thru 2011?



The article in question was written in mid-July 2009 there was no late summer 2009 (yet alone 2010 or 2011) data to write about yet.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> ...Indeed.  Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.



Then you need to get her to spell it for you because the above is nonsensical.


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







Ohhh, I think not.

This is the level to which the AGW cult has fallen in their "studies".  Plus you can add all of the cites that have been made to papers that have been proven false (but are still being cited by the faithful!) and you have a small idea of how crappy AGW science is.  Nice try but as usual if won't fly.

Citizen Audit Anniversary

April 17, 2011



A year ago, I released the results of a citizen audit of all 18,531 references in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) 2007 report. That project was made possible by the volunteer labour of more than 40 individuals from 12 countries. Over a period of five weeks we examined the references that appear at the end of each of the 44 chapters of the 3,000-page report informally known as the climate bible.

Each list of references was evaluated by three auditors working independently. We sorted these references into two groups  articles published in peer-reviewed journals and all others. Then we calculated the percentage of references that did, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed. (When auditors findings differed slightly, we used the number most favourable to the IPCC.)

This was a fact-checking mission. For years, IPCC officials  as well as the news media  have said we should trust the IPCC because it bases its conclusions solely on research that has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Numerous examples of this claim appear here. Instances in which IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri personally said so are here.

Pachauri once told a newspaper that research that has not been peer-reviewed belongs in the dustbin (see the end of this article). He further told a committee of the North Carolina legislature:


everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we dont settle for anything less than that.

Our audit determined that this claim is spectacularly mistaken. By our count, 30%  or 5,587  of all the references in the climate bible cite sources that were not, in fact, peer-reviewed. In 21 separate chapters, the percentage of peer-reviewed references was so low the IPCC would have received an F on an elementary school report card. (Thus the F21 on the coffee mug above.)

Our findings raise an obvious question: If the IPCC cant be trusted to describe its own report accurately, why should we believe anything else it says?

Another group of questions is equally disturbing. Thousands of individuals participate in the IPCC process. All of those people were therefore in a position to know that the 100% peer-reviewed claim was false. Where are the open letters, signed by hundreds of scientists, setting the record straight? Why did none of these people feel the need to shout from the rooftops that the public was being misled? What does this tell us about the internal culture of the IPCC? If IPCC participants were prepared to overlook this moral lapse, what else were they prepared to overlook?

It seems to me we hear the 100% peer-reviewed claim less often these days. If that is the case, it means that a group of concerned citizens has struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. It means our efforts are helping to keep the IPCC honest.

When our findings were released last year, I included two graphics in the report. One was from the IPCC:



The other was designed by moi:



To commemorate the anniversary of the Citizen Audit Ive arranged for souvenir coffee mugs, mouse pads, and fridge magnets bearing this second graphic. They can be ordered from the following:
 USA store (also recommended for countries not appearing on this list)
 UK store
 Australia store
 Canada store

A portion of the sale price of these items will help fund this blog. I set an identical price in the case of the US, UK, and Australia. CafePress (a third-party supplier of custom merchandise) translates that into local currencies.

My apologies to my fellow Canadians. Even though I halved the blog-supporting portion, shipping costs are so steep in our case the total is still slightly higher than in other jurisdictions. The good news is that GST, PST, and HST are included in the prices you see.



UN IPCC Citizen Audit Anniversary: 'By our count, 30% &ndash;or 5,587 &ndash;of all references in IPCC climate bible cite sources that were not, in fact, peer-reviewed' | Climate Depot


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ...Indeed.  Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.
> ...






Yeahhh, well one thing you'll find is geologists in general are poor spellers plus the fact that my old fingers don't work like they used to (smashed them with a single jack too many times!), but we live with it!

Posturer is the proper spelling, happy now


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

oreo said:


> *I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
> November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
> The Washington Post 88+ years ago_
> *



I understand that this post is repeated in full from e-mail spam, so I probably shouldn't be attributing these as your own words, but 1922, wasn't that the year of the Knickerbocker Storm? (the storm was named after the famous theater in New York whose roof collapsed in the middle of a play from the 28inches of wet snow the storm dumped in very short order, killing almost a hundred patrons including a US congressman)..., regardless, was there a point you are trying to get to? with this article?

We have instrumental records that cover back to the mid-late 1800s (longer for some localities), regardless of minor and generally outlier weather anomalies and short-range trends, we can look at the instrumental record and see that the global average temperature over the last century or so and see that the 1920s weren't particularly warm.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201107.gif

Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas

NASA GISS: Research News: Despite Subtle Differences, Global Temperature Records in Close Agreement


> ...NASA's announcement this year  that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record  made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?
> 
> Not all that much, emphasizes James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. In the GISS analysis, for example, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 0.01°C (0.018°F), a difference so small that the temperatures of these two years are indistinguishable, given the uncertainty of the calculation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The area of the Arctic Ice is the fourth lowest already, and there is significant amounts of thick ice going south along the East coast of Greenland.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
> 
> ...








 Looks like cascading failure factors engaging in relative slow motion.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...








"More"? Really? are you applying the density scale in your assessment? Those colors aren't there to make it look cool. Unless you are counting "slush" as sea ice (aka virtually anything that isn't pink or purple on those depictions (anything much less than 70% ice)). It looks to me like there has been a substantial degradation of the northern sea-ice cap over the last 4 years. Vast reductions in the volume of 90-100% ice (dark purple) with it being mostly replaced by the thinner annual and decay ices of 70-90% ice (pinkish) it is the Red slush 50-70% ice and yellow and green slurry 30-50% ice seas that look to make up most of the differences you seem to be seeing in over all extent. Looking at the mass concentrations and compositions from the graph you supplied, it is casually easy to see the loss of substantial mass over the last 4 years.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I may have missed it, can you point out how much of these monies are the equivilant of the $10,000 on top of the "expenses" of the research Dr. Jones performed? As far as I can tell he never stole, nor has even been suspected of having personally misappropriated or or misused research monies. If you feel that you have evidence compellingly supportive a such a  assertion I would certainly be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I'm not seeing the connection between the two very different situations of a research scientists receiving funding for unbiased investigations the government puts up for bid, and a private company offering researchers funding plus a morality compromised bonus to conduct research that produces results that can be used to contradict or successfully challenge science that they find inconvenient to their profit making future.


----------



## Trakar (Aug 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Ohhh, I think not.



obviously.


----------



## gslack (Aug 26, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ...Indeed.  Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.
> ...



Oh really?

You made a claim about the words "proof, prove, disproof, and disprove" in much the same manner on this forum recently with another poster... Care to enlighten us all as to how we are misusing the terms again?

Proof = noun, "I want proof of that."

Prove = Verb, "Can you prove that."

Disproof = noun, "He bears the burden of disproof."

Disprove = verb, "I will attempt to disprove that."

 You claimed that may be how we use words here but you used the terms just how you wanted to. You responded to my post  claiming you weren't trying to "disproof" my claims and you were not "disproofing" anything. 

Another poster pointed out that it was "prove, disprove, and disproving in that case and you claimed you were in fact correct and we the obvious idiots...

One more time tool lets see you grow a pair and stand by your claim this time. Last time all you did was run and hide... DO not correct other people until you can separate noun from verb moron..


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 26, 2011)

Polar bears eat baby seals.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2011)

Looked at the data today. Appears that 2011 is now the second lowest area recorded.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

And the slope, if continued, will take it below 2007 pretty rapidly.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 27, 2011)

08,27,2011,   4,980,938


mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594*(third)

Less then 90 thousand away from 2010 for third, but 2 to 3 days work. Second will be a little harder, but not impossible at all.


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 28, 2011)

Better than a submarine!

British explorers row 450 miles to North Pole in world first voyage - Telegraph


----------



## Trakar (Aug 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> http://www.climatedepot.com/r/10606...te-sources-that-were-not-in-fact-peerreviewed




LOL, I told you before I don't do blogs or activist fringe political groups and their conspiracy manifestos. If you can point to legitimate science there's a discussion to be had. If you want to make an economic or social point there are plenty of discussions to be had there as well, but I'm really not into the black helicopter, pilots/engineers for 9/11 truth, alien abduction conspiracy BS.


----------



## gslack (Aug 28, 2011)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.climatedepot.com/r/10606...te-sources-that-were-not-in-fact-peerreviewed
> ...




YOU don't do much of anything... Including thinking...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2011)

Now G-string, you transparent closet liberal, who are you to accuse anyone of posting without thinking? I have yet to see a post of yours that demonstrates the least amount of thought.


----------



## gslack (Aug 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now G-string, you transparent closet liberal, who are you to accuse anyone of posting without thinking? I have yet to see a post of yours that demonstrates the least amount of thought.



Oh I don't know socks, I thought about whether or not to poke you with a stick. I decided best to do it so you don't think I forgot about you... I know you get upset when I don't pay attention to you.


----------



## Chris (Aug 29, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 29, 2011)

08,29,2011,   *4,900,938*


mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594*(third)

LESS THEN 200,000 fucking thousand from number 2#!!!

200,000/(40,000/day)=5 days melt  or if we get more days like today 200,000/50,000=4 days. 

We have about 12-15 days before the peak. I think we will get to number 3 and have a very good chance at 2#. I think 2007 will remain the king!


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Better than a submarine!
> 
> British explorers row 450 miles to North Pole in world first voyage - Telegraph








  First off congrats to the rowers for gaining their goal, but, and it's a big but, they rowed to where the _magnetic pole_ was back in 1996.  They are in fact 738 km SOUTH of the actual North Pole.  BTW Top Gear presenters Jeremy Clarkson and James May _drove_ there in 2007 at the beginning of spring.

Nice try but a pretty huge fail there olfraud.

From their website....

"The expedition to the Magnetic North Pole (as certified in 1996) will set off from Resolute Bay in July/August 2011, the crew plan to row for 450 miles before finally reaching the Magnetic North Pole at 78 degrees, 35.724 minutes North, 104 degrees, 11.915 minutes West."

The expedition


----------



## gslack (Aug 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Better than a submarine!
> ...



Would that be the magnetic pole or the geographic one?


----------



## wirebender (Aug 30, 2011)

gslack said:


> Would that be the magnetic pole or the geographic one?



Doesn't really matter.  In either case, it was nothing more than a failed stunt designed to promote the hoax.


----------



## Chris (Aug 30, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2011)

08,30,2011,     4,803,438 NOW THIRD!!! YAY!!!! Less then 95,000 away from second!

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594


----------



## gslack (Aug 31, 2011)

Chris said:


>



I notice something odd with your graph ... Notice in June this year the ice extent was lower than the record in 2007? Yet in ending July when we set all those heat records the actual ice extent was greater than the 2007 record? WTH????

Dude how is that possible if this is evidence of AGW? You have been broadcasting record highs for a couple months now and all to show some kind of proof of AGW, and yet the ice extent you just showed was at a record low BEFORE the record heat, and since the record heat has maintained ice extent greater than 2007... 

It verifies one thing... That weather is no indicator of climate nor what the ice will do. Not for a season, a year, or even a decade. Its bigger than that, and to pretend anything else is asinine...


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2011)

The United Nations' most recent global climate report "fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends," says a new research from MIT.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.

However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT'S Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).

UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT - International Business Times


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2011)

Chris said:


> The United Nations' most recent global climate report "fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends," says a new research from MIT.
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100.
> 
> ...







C'mon Chris.  The 4th report has been proven to be sooooo ridiculously poor it's been relegated to bird cage liner by reputable scientists the world over.  Best wait for the next one, or even better yet go back to the 1st report, before the process got so political.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2011)

08,31,2011,         4,737,969

30,156 km^2 away from NUMBER FUCKING TWO!!! SHOULD DO IT TOMORROW!!!

Normal peak of melt season around the 15th of september, so I will say 15,000k overall melt per dayx15 days=225,000km^2 to 250,000km^2, I'd expect for the peak. My prediction for the peak will be near *4,487,969km^2 or a solid second.* Just shows how much of a anomaly 2007 was!

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2011)

4,737,969-4,254,531=483,438km^2 away from 2007


----------



## Chris (Sep 1, 2011)

Satellites in 2008 saw the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic and the Northern Sea Route above Russia were open simultaneously for the first time since satellite measurements started, and researchers say it has happened again, the European Space Agency reported in a release from its Paris headquarters this week.

The ESA monitors arctic ice with its Envisat, CryoSat and SMOS satellites.

Satellites have recorded reductions in the minimum ice extent at the end of summer during the last 30 years, from around 3 million square miles in the early 1980s to the historic minimum of less than 1.6 million square miles in 2007.

The early opening of both sea passages this year suggests a possible record low in ice cover.

&#8220;Whether we reach an absolute minimum or not, this year again confirms that we are in a new regime with substantially less summer ice than before,&#8221; Leif Toudal Pedersen, a senior scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute, said. &#8221;The last five summers are the five minimum ice extent summers on record.

Two major Arctic Ocean shipping routes open simultaneously as ice recedes &mdash; MercoPress


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2011)

Chris said:


> Satellites in 2008 saw the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic and the Northern Sea Route above Russia were open simultaneously for the first time since satellite measurements started, and researchers say it has happened again, the European Space Agency reported in a release from its Paris headquarters this week.
> 
> The ESA monitors arctic ice with its Envisat, CryoSat and SMOS satellites.
> 
> ...







The coldest SUMMER in Ireland since 1851......


"ONE of our coldest summers ever has been followed by the coldest August in 25 years.

Following an "unspectacular summer" of the coldest June in nearly 40 years and the coldest July in 50 years, this month is now one of the coldest since records began in 1851.

The last time temperatures for the month were as low was when the country was struck by Hurricane Charley in 1986 and witnessed record rainfall and flooding.

Met Eireann records show temperatures have been up to 1.3C below average this month at all 10 of its stations across the country. The lowest temperature has been a nippy 2.7C in Mullingar, with highest temperatures across the nation ranging from 15-17C, at best.

A forecaster for Met Eireann said: "While the current weather hasn't been brilliant, it hasn't been a bad summer.

"It has been very cool but it hasn't been a wet one and rainfall is well below average in most places."

Early season sunny spells were soon forgotten about and the maximum temperature this summer only managed to be 25.5C in Co Carlow, on June 3.

The last time Ireland's peak summer temperature was so low was 46 years ago when the top temperature was 25.2C.

Met Eireann said Dublin's main weather station, at the airport, averaged just 13.8C, the coldest since July 1965, which saw 13.1C.

A forecast for the next seven days shows that the current situation is not due to change and is described as "unsettled".

Any suggestions that the current weather dip is building up for winter were dismissed with Met Eireann saying it has no bearing on what can be expected towards the end of the year.

- David Whelan

Irish Independent"





What summer? August was coldest in 25 years - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 4, 2011)

09,03,2011,           4,682,188

mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156 
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594

NUMBER FUCKING TWO!!!! About 7-9 days more...nearly 430km^2 to get to first. NOT GOING TO OCCUR, but that shows how amazing 2007 was. 

It is like 1998 for global temperature, but likely bigger anomaly.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> PASADENA, Calif. &#8211; Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
> 
> The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic&#8217;s ice cover.
> 
> ...



When's that thing gonna melt and get done with it anyway? I'm tired of hearin' about it!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2011)

In about 20 years.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In about 20 years.



Oh man! For 20 more years I gotta hear all the moaning and groaning. God have mercy!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 4, 2011)

09,04,2011,    4,644,531


2007 4,254,531*(first)

390km^2 away...I think we could get under 300km^2, but not much more.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 5, 2011)

Just hope the Asian markets pull through! Perhaps in a few years AFTER the environment collapses and the world is a starving  mess, then  we just might realize there is something more important than the economy.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Just hope the Asian markets pull through! Perhaps in a few years AFTER the environment collapses and the world is a starving  mess, then  we just might realize there is something more important than the economy.







I guess you havn't figured out yet that without an economy you wouldn't be alive.  Here's an experiment for you.  Take yourself off the grid (I have).  You figure out how to power your home completely off the grid then you can come back and preach.  Till then try reaing something to educate yourself.  You'll find the environment never collapses.  It changes for sure but it never go's away.


----------



## Chris (Sep 5, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 6, 2011)

09,06,2011, 4,576,094


2007 4,254,531*(first)

More or less 321,563km^2 from 2007s record

God if we didn't have that shitty pattern in July and early August we would of easily owned the fucking record this year.

We have 4 more days before the peak before things normally start going back up. 

I think we can lose the 21,563 to get under 300 thousand between this year and 2007. Could do it tomorrow.

My prediction for Sept 10th(peak of melt season is) 4,490,000km^2 or around  20,000x4=80,000-90,000 or so melt to go.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 10, 2011)

Sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date

The PSC recently improved their PIOMAS model, which combines the best observational data with their own analysis.  They are publishing their findings in the Journal of Geophysical Research, &#8220;Uncertainty in Modeled Arctic Sea Ice Volume&#8221;: 

    &#8230; the 2010 September ice volume anomaly did in fact exceed the previous 2007 minimum by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record.





*
Extent is not really important as it is very much controlled by 1# weather, 2# wind, so in general it can be compacted more one year and spread out more another. Volume is what you must watch!* Do I agree with the curve put on this? Not really, but it is trending within the past decade like it...Honestly we don't know what the future will do, but for what we do know that is what it is.


----------



## Chris (Sep 10, 2011)




----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2011)

I still don't see the open water.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2011)

LOL. A volume reduction of 75%, and that is ol' Walleyes reply.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. A volume reduction of 75%, and that is ol' Walleyes reply.







My reply is all that was warranted.  When you have something new and interesting I will reply in kind.  This is just more of the same.  I'm still trying to figure out how you thought the people rowing to the "North Pole" were actually at the North Pole.  I guess you really don't know where it's at.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 11, 2011)

Sept 10th is the peak and we're offically going back up!!! We ended up with a solid second for 2011! We missed it by less then 3 solid 100 thousand melt days in July. Could of easily done it if it wasn't for that 3 weeks in July-August.

09,09,2011,        4526875


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 11, 2011)

You can clearly see that the Darker shades are not even half the size this year as in 2007...When thinking about the volume that is telling. It was more spread out this year, but there was less. More compacted in 2007, so extent was slightly less...I've come to the conclusion that volume is far more important.

Remember the volume graph I posted above.
2007 6.5 million km^3 to this years 4.3 million km^3...That is 2.2 million km^3 drop over 2007...Pretty hard to miss. 2007 was just really compacted.

I don't know how we can't come to agreement with something that is this straight forward. Do you agree with what I'm saying Gssack, Westwall or even wirebender? The volume is down and the extent graph shows less darker shades=less thick ice. Both show that the volume is likely less, so there is no reason why both sides can't shack hands on this. Do we have agreement?


Ok, for 

09,11,2011, 4519375

Less then -10,000 over yesterday. But likely to be revised in the morning to close to the amount it went down...So we will have to see, but 9-9 could of been the bottom, but there is a slim chance if it only gets revised 6,000 tomorrow morning that we could have a new low point...Not likely, but we will see.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 11, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date
> 
> The PSC recently improved their PIOMAS model, which combines the best observational data with their own analysis.  They are publishing their findings in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Uncertainty in Modeled Arctic Sea Ice Volume:
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Sep 11, 2011)

Researchers from the University of Bremen have announced that 2011s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum is the smallest in recorded history, coming in under the previous lowest Minimum in September of 2007.

The Arctic sea ice extent reached its minimum on September 8 of this year, at 4.24 million square kilometres. This, compared to the 4.267 million square kilometres reached back in 2007, and down from 15 million square kilometres during the peak of winter.

The decline of summer ice is already 50 percent since 1972. For small organisms that live on the underside of the ice and also the starting point of the human food chain are also for us, leaving less and less habitat, said Dr George Heygster.

2011 a Historic New Arctic Sea Ice Minimum &#8211; Planetsave


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 11, 2011)

Yes, 

Bremen for sea ice is like RSS is to global temperatures. So one out of the three have this year with the record. 

I post Jaxa in the arctic ice thread....Which should be second.

















Cryosphere today also set a record over 2007...So 2 out of 4. Jaxa, nsidc aren't likely to beat the record...Nsidc will be close.


----------



## Chris (Sep 12, 2011)

The amount of Arctic sea ice has melted to a historic low, with the area of land covered by ice at the smallest level since scientists began observing it with satellites in 1972, researchers from the University of Bremen in Germany report.

The North Pole skull cap shrank to about half a percent under the previous record low set in September 2007, according to the school's Institute of Environmental Physics.

Researchers, including those from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, had predicted earlier this summer that Arctic sea ice levels could reach extreme lows. But the University of Bremen physicists said there was uncertainty in July about whether the ice melt would surpass the previous record.

They said their studies indicated that continuing ice decline was related to man-made global warming.

"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences," researchers said in their report.  "Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced."

Arctic ice levels hit historic low, researchers say &#8211; This Just In - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 12, 2011)

jaxa was revised 20 thousand upwards....453k now. melt season is over. I was reading discussion that Jaxa may not have the ability as bremen has in seeing the smaller area's, oh, well. this is backed up by the offical ncis that is now going up.

I predict for the max 13.4 million km^2

I've come to the conclusion that extent is very much control by weather(wind and clouds)...Yes it is important for a open ocean absorbs the energy and warms up, but only for that. Even a half of a meter of ice is not much different then 3 meters in its ability to reflect energy off the ice(sure maybe slightly faster melting being the former is most likely first year ice). 

Volume is WHAT is important. No it doesn't matter that much in the ability to reflect solar energy as discused above, but it is the true nature of the ice.

Lets imagine what I'm saying for a second

2007 had 4.2 million km^2, but thickness of 3-4 meters upwards of 5-6. 2007 had 6.4 million km^2 in total volume of the ice...So the thick ice was far more compacted within a smaller area pushed by the winds. 

2011 had 4.35 million km^2 on the offical nsic. But had 4.3 million km^3 of volume. You better believe it is spread out big time. You can see it within the "extent maps" with far less deep purples and more lighter colors spread over a larger area.

---The volume was taken in August...It could be some what lower for September---


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 14, 2011)

Up we go

09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4589844
09,14,2011,4578594

Should be revised to 4,590,000 something tomorrow morning.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> jaxa was revised 20 thousand upwards....453k now. melt season is over. I was reading discussion that Jaxa may not have the ability as bremen has in seeing the smaller area's, oh, well. this is backed up by the offical ncis that is now going up.
> 
> I predict for the max 13.4 million km^2
> 
> ...







Hmmmm the plot thickens......


"Any theories about this? NSIDC shows a huge loss of multi-year ice (green) around the pole, Greenland, and the Canadian Archipelago since the end of July. Given that temperatures in those regions have been quite cold since the end of July, Im having a really tough time understanding what happened.

Much of that region has been below freezing for essentially the entire period.

Satellite data showed essentially no ice loss in that region since the end of July, much less loss of thick multi-year ice. Multiyear ice doesnt just disappear without open water appearing. There was never any open water in most of the affected areas.

What their maps show is that the ice got younger, not melted. How does ice get younger?"



NSIDC Multiyear Ice Disappears | Real Science


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 15, 2011)

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.
*
This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers* (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Do you people have any idea how tiny 160 thousand square km are when dealing with arctic sea ice? That is less then two days of melt within July. If the pattern hadn't gone straight to hell in July into early August or were better for September...We would of easily beaten it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > jaxa was revised 20 thousand upwards....453k now. melt season is over. I was reading discussion that Jaxa may not have the ability as bremen has in seeing the smaller area's, oh, well. this is backed up by the offical ncis that is now going up.
> ...



What else would one expect from you, Walleyes? If an area for the time of instrumental measurement has had ice three years or more thick, in words you can understand, ice layers for three years or more, then this year, it only has layers for two years, it has gotten younger. It is two year old ice, it has layers that represent only two years of accumulation.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 16, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 17, 2011)

The Antarctic anomaly chart shows something big...We hit the peak in 2009, but have turned around since and are now based on my "black means" line to the point we were in the late 1980s or early 1990's within the past year or so. We need a few more years, but this appears like a reverse to me. YES, I'm saying it is possible the last 2 years wiped out the increase we had all the way back to the early 1990s.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Different magnitudes of projected subsurface ocean warming around Greenland and Antarctica : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

The observed acceleration of outlet glaciers and ice flows in Greenland and Antarctica is closely linked to ocean warming, especially in the subsurface layer1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Accurate projections of ice-sheet dynamics and global sea-level rise therefore require information of future ocean warming in the vicinity of the large ice sheets. Here we use a set of 19 state-of-the-art climate models to quantify this ocean warming in the next two centuries. We find that in response to a mid-range increase in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, the subsurface oceans surrounding the two polar ice sheets at depths of 200&#8211;500&#8201;m warm substantially compared with the observed changes thus far6, 7, 8. Model projections suggest that over the course of the twenty-first century, the maximum ocean warming around Greenland will be almost double the global mean, with a magnitude of 1.7&#8211;2.0&#8201;°C. By contrast, ocean warming around Antarctica will be only about half as large as global mean warming, with a magnitude of 0.5&#8211;0.6&#8201;°C. A more detailed evaluation indicates that ocean warming is controlled by different mechanisms around Greenland and Antarctica. We conclude that projected subsurface ocean warming could drive significant increases in ice-mass loss, and heighten the risk of future large sea-level rise.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Holy shit we're going down again!!!

09,15,2011,4700000
09,16,2011,4680156
09,17,2011,4665469


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 18, 2011)

Here is the annual average for Arctic sea ice from the Walsh & Chapman dataset:












More Cherry Ice from Joe D&#8217;Aleo | Open Mind

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

Up until 1920-1930 time frame the minimum was near 10.5-11.0 million km^2! HOLY SHIT...We're less then half that! You'd have to be out of your mind to think the sea ice hasn't decreased big time in the past century.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2011)

Lordy, those charts look grim. The right end is totally off the curve.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 18, 2011)

09,18,2011,   4,648,438

Down again! 121,563 thousand away from the minimum of the 9th...Doubt we make it.


----------



## Chris (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 20, 2011)

damn both passage have been open for over a month or more.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 20, 2011)

A new study by researchers at the University of Washington indicates that total Arctic sea ice volume actually hit a record low level in 2010, even though the square mile extent last year was slightly higher than the record low extent in 2007. Factoring in the thickness of the ice showed that the well documented ongoing decline in ice cap thickness is more than compensating for the slight variations in the total area covered by the ice to indicate a continuous decline in total ice volume. The ice is three dimensional so cubic volume is a more accurate metric than square mile area measurements. Minimum Arctic sea ice area at the end of the melt season in recent years has been fluctuating around four and quarter million square miles compared to around seven million square miles in the early 70's and some experts think that the reason sea ice extent has declined so rapidly in recent years is because the thickness had been declining for decades.

*Total Arctic sea ice at record low in 2010: study*
Mon Sep 5, 2011 
(excerpts)

*(Reuters) - The minimum summertime volume of Arctic sea ice fell to a record low last year, researchers said in a study to be published shortly, suggesting that thinning of the ice had outweighed a recovery in area. The study estimated that last year broke the previous, 2007 record for the minimum volume of ice, which is calculated from a combination of sea ice area and thickness.

"(It fell) by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record," said the authors in their paper titled "Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume." "The real worrisome fact is downward trend over the last 32 years," said Axel Schweiger, lead author of the paper, referring to a satellite record of changes in the Arctic. The researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle checked the model results against real readings of ice thickness using limited submarine and satellite data.*


----------



## gslack (Sep 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> A new study by researchers at the University of Washington indicates that total Arctic sea ice volume actually hit a record low level in 2010, even though the square mile extent last year was slightly higher than the record low extent in 2007. Factoring in the thickness of the ice showed that the well documented ongoing decline in ice cap thickness is more than compensating for the slight variations in the total area covered by the ice to indicate a continuous decline in total ice volume. The ice is three dimensional so cubic volume is a more accurate metric than square mile area measurements. Minimum Arctic sea ice area at the end of the melt season in recent years has been fluctuating around four and quarter million square miles compared to around seven million square miles in the early 70's and some experts think that the reason sea ice extent has declined so rapidly in recent years is because the thickness had been declining for decades.
> 
> *Total Arctic sea ice at record low in 2010: study*
> Mon Sep 5, 2011
> ...



So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..

So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time? As the claim you guys maintain goes, the atmosphere warms then the oceans. And if that is indeed the case wouldn't it get thinner and less expansive? Also since it was a recovery from the record low year, wouldn't thinner ice be expected? Ice volume is an indicator of new or old ice more so than current temp variations. That would mean the ice after a recovery from a record low year would be thinner.

Just another case of bullshit over substance... Ya know what I find amazing.. That you people will take anything that says we are killing the planet and call it gospel despite it lacking logic, reason or common sense, repeatedly and with no more thought than you gave it the last time they made a fool of you...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..
> 
> So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time?


I see you're completely clueless, slackjawed, as usual. The funny thing about that is the way you project your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. You really are retarded enough, it seems, to imagine that everyone, including the PhD scientists who study this stuff as a career, is as clueless and confused as you are. Your attitude seems to be that if you can't figure it out, then it must be bullshyt. LOL. All of your conjectures about "well, if this does that, then wouldn't this other thing have to happen" are just nonsense pseudo-logic based on your own ignorance of science and how things work and your general stupidity. You continue to spew BS even when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.







gslack said:


> Just another case of bullshit over substance...


That's what you're all about, slackjawedidiot, and you're the master of it, as your every post proves.


----------



## zonly1 (Sep 21, 2011)

> *World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists *
> 
> (Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.
> 
> ...



With articles such as this article continues to build up this myth of man-made global warming.  It's scientist with grants vs non grants, or integrity vs non integrity.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2011)

zonly1 said:


> > *World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists *
> >
> > (Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.
> >
> ...




Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT!  You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...


----------



## zonly1 (Sep 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> > > *World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists *
> ...


Matt, that's like blaming the Rich hasn't payed fair share enough or regardless of the excuses.  I think the two were challenging their intergerty when comes to science.
It's integrity that is in question and the banishment is the after affect.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT!  You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...



If Greenland's ice sheet is melting at anywhere near the rate claimed by climate pseudoscientists, why is sea level falling?  Where is that water going?


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Matthew said:


> zonly1 said:
> 
> 
> > > *World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists *
> ...



Yeah, it's always something, but I really doubt it's the "map maker".... it's more like "garbage in, garbage out".


----------



## Liability (Sep 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT!  You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...
> ...



Hey.  I was a little thirsty.  Ok?


----------



## wirebender (Sep 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



OK.  So long as we can account for it.  Do you happen to know anything about trenberth's "missing" heat?  Did you commandeer it to keep your tootsies warm or something like that?


----------



## Liability (Sep 21, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Well, look.  I cannot take or accept personal responsibility for every damn AGW manifestation.

But I have found it necessary to use an extra blanket or two recently.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2011)

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2011)

http://masgc.org/climate/cop/Documents/SeaLevelChange.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2011)

Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of National Park Units to Sea-Level Rise


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2011)

Real science, done by real scientists. So show me where anyone here is stating that the sea levels are not rising. You are treating this the same as you treat the temperature. Every time we hit new average highs, anytime the temperature dips below that high, you scream "it's cooling", ignoring that the new 'cooler temperature' exceeds the old high temperature. Same with sea level.

The Moving Shoreline : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## gslack (Sep 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..
> ...



Look crybaby don't get mad at me because they treat you like an idiot and you lap it up like a moron..

Scientists : The ice may appear to be growing but thats just an illusion, in reality its getting thinner but longer and covering more area linearly...

TrollingBlunder : I knew that.. Yeah I did and everyone else is too much of a dummy dumb head to get it...

Scientists : Yes retard; I mean smart guy you understand science. Please continue to support us we will not do you wrong this time.. After all we are far superior to you and everyone else, its best to do as we say and not think too much..

Trollingblunder : Yeah thinking BAD!!!!



Ya know the logical part of my post that you cut out and ignored? Its still there and you couldn't even bother to think on it, you just basically told me how dumb I was for questioning what you tell me...

Could you be any MORE of a sheep?


----------



## gslack (Sep 22, 2011)

old rocks said:


> coastal vulnerability assessment of national park units to sea-level rise



spam spam spam!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Oh, slackjawed, I'm not "_mad_" at you......'pity', 'amusement' and 'impatience with fools' would about sum it up, I think. You *are* usually good for a laugh on a slow day.






gslack said:


> Scientists : The ice may appear to be growing but thats just an illusion, in reality its getting thinner but longer and covering more area linearly...
> 
> TrollingBlunder : I knew that.. Yeah I did and everyone else is too much of a dummy dumb head to get it...
> 
> ...


Oh my....you've reached the point of making up conversations between two of the idiot voices in your head and imagining that it means something. Are you off your meds again? Ask the nice nursie in your ward for some more - quick.







gslack said:


> Ya know the logical part of my post that you cut out and ignored? Its still there and you couldn't even bother to think on it, you just basically told me how dumb I was for questioning what you tell me...


Actually you're apparently just dumb enough to imagine that any part of your previous post was "logical". I was trying to point out to you that it was all so retarded as to be completely meaningless. Just like you, slackjawedidiot.







gslack said:


> Could you be any MORE of a sheep?


Oh yeah, easily, like if I listened to FauxNews, Rush Limpdick and the stooges for the fossil fuel industry that brainwashed you. Fortunately for me, I trust the actual scientific data and evidence and the testimony of the world's scientific community.


----------



## gslack (Sep 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..
> 
> Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.



And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

*Arctic sea ice at minimum extent* 
*The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado*
(excerpts)

*Overview of conditions*

*On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

*


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..
> ...








I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Oh walleyed, how could you ever see "_open water_" when your head is jammed so far up your ass? 'Brown water' maybe, plus a few turds (or maybe those are other members of your denier cult, it's really hard to distinguish them apart).


----------



## gslack (Sep 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..
> ...



You argue your own experts moron, so why do you think anyone cares that you are a mad linking spam artist? Sir Spam-a-lot!


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







Nice picture.  Where is it?  Sure isn't the North Pole.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2011)

westwall said:


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



It's somewhere in the depths of the Arctic Circle. It doesn't much matter just where. There are even more polynyas and areas of thin, broken ice now all across the remains of the Arctic ice cap, including the "North Pole", than there were back when your precious submarine photo was taken.

The thing is, walleyed, you just never could quite comprehend the information you've been repeatedly shown concerning Arctic 'leads' or 'polynyas'. I doubt you'll be able to understand  it now either but here's the info anyway, just to let everybody else know what a clueless fool you are about this.

*Leads*http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-ice-lead.htm
(excerpts)

*One might think that with the extremely low temperatures near the North Pole, the ice must be hard, thick and smooth - making travel over the Arctic Ocean quite easy. Not so! The ocean is up to 3 miles / 4.8 km deep in some places, and currents cause constant movement and changes on the surface ice. This movement pulls sections of the ice cap apart, creating open lanes of water called "leads".

For anyone travelling across the ice, a stretch of deep open water in -40° temperatures (C or F - take your pick) is a formidable obstacle. Anyone slipping into a lead could drown, or quickly freeze to death. These channels can open suddenly and without warning, so much so that some early Arctic explorers would not sleep in sleeping bags for fear of drowning if a lead opened up while they slept.*


*The ICE Bridge Arctic mission - March 24th, 2010 - Following Arctic Leads *
(excerpts)

*The land based air flights of the ICE Bridge mission are following the tracks and dates of earlier ICE Sat flights to mirror the data for comparison, bridging the gap in information between the two satellites. We will be measuring change in both Arctic sea ice and glaciers. Looking out the window, I am amazed at the number of leads (a term for a sliver like break in the ice that exposes ocean water) and open water for this time of year  the end of winter.*








*Arctic sea ice images collected by U.S. government intelligence sources*


*International Polar Foundation - The Last Pictures of the Arctic arc
*


*Boundary layer over leads* ( DFG - funded project, 2007 - 2010)

*The physics of turbulence over Antarctic leads and polynyas and its parameterization: a joint study using observations, LES, and a micro-/mesoscale model* - Principal investigators: Christof Lüpkes (AWI), Siegfried Raasch (Universität Hannover, IMUK)

*In regions with large sea ice concentrations there are always open water areas called leads or polynyas depending on their shape. The length of leads varies between a few kilometres and tens of kilometres and their width ranges from several meters to kilometres.*


----------



## wirebender (Sep 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> Nice picture.  Where is it?  Sure isn't the North Pole.



You wouldn't expect for thunder to see the obvious mountain made of stone there and come to the conclusion that  it isn't at the North Pole would you?

You have to remember that someone can only come up with a lie that they believe is good enough to fool themselves.  That is, after all, the limit of their intelligence.  The lies people tell is a pretty good indication of how smart they really are.  Thunder posts a picture that he believes should fool you into believing that there is open water at the North Pole.  He doesn't generate the intellectual wattage required, however, to see the mountain in the picture and connect the requisite dots required to realize that the picture is obviously somewhere else.  He wants to show you open water at the pole and is focused on an image of open water and completely unable to see the obvious flaw in his lie.  Perhaps you might really enjoy pushing his buttons and ask him to describe which mountain chain that mountain might belong to if it was taken, as he claims, "deep" within the arctic circle.  You might also point out that at least one of his rebuttal photos was taken less than 100 miles off Prudhoe Bay, just barely within the arctic circle.   It is a perfect demonstration of how smart rolling thunder really isn't.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....





westwall said:


> Sure isn't the North Pole.



I just found something that someone with your "_North Pole_" obsession (do you have a thing for Santa Claus? Or just big 'poles'?) certainly should find interesting. Arctic scientists from NOAA actually attach a webcam to the ice at the actual North Pole and record the summer melt season. Here's the pictures from this year.

*NOAAPMEL's Channel - YouTube*
*Deployed on an ice floe at the North Pole in Summer 2011 as part of the North Pole Environmental Observatory.*

C'mon now, walleyed, I dare you to watch it and still say: "_I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water...._"


***


----------



## wirebender (Sep 23, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> C'mon now, walleyed, I dare you to watch it and still say: "_I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water...._"
> 
> 
> ***



I see a puddle, where is the open water.  Geez guy, the people who made the film acknowledge that the camera is still sitting on ice.  They had to go prop it back up because it fell over.  Maybe you have never been up there and don't quite get that puddles form on the ice but the ice is still there.  Also, when you are dealing with people who are trying to promote the hoax, one must wonder whether the camera was at teh geographic north pole or at the magnetic north pole.  More than a few miles separate them you know.

And more importantly, you are still left with no evidence whatsoever that man is responsible.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2011)

*All this silly arguement about water at the north pole is simply a diversion by the denialists. What matters is that the melt has produced a situation where ships will soon be able to ply the Arctic Ocean, Northwest and Northeast Passages at any time of the year. The thinning ice will allow this even in the depths of winter. And there is a lot of money being bet that this is the case.*

http://bev.berkeley.edu/Arctic/The Arctic Ocean is melting ForeignAffairs.doc

Arctic shipping could also dramatically affect global trade patterns. In 1969, oil companies sent the S.S. Manhattan through the Northwest Passage to test whether it was a viable route for moving Arctic oil to the Eastern Seaboard. The Manhattan completed the voyage with the help of accompanying icebreakers, but oil companies soon deemed the route impractical and prohibitively expensive and opted instead for an Alaskan pipeline. But today such voyages are fast becoming economically feasible. As soon as marine insurers recalculate the risks involved in these voyages, trans-Arctic shipping will become commercially viable and begin on a large scale. In an age of just-in-time delivery, and with increasing fuel costs eating into the profits of shipping companies, reducing long-haul sailing distances by as much as 40 percent could usher in a new phase of globalization. Arctic routes would force further competition between the Panama and Suez Canals, thereby reducing current canal tolls; shipping chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca would no longer dictate global shipping patterns; and Arctic seaways would allow for greater international economic integration. When the ice recedes enough, likely within this decade, a marine highway directly over the North Pole will materialize. Such a route, which would most likely run between Iceland and Alaska's Dutch Harbor, would connect shipping megaports in the North Atlantic with those in the North Pacific and radiate outward to other ports in a hub-and-spoke system. A fast lane is now under development between the Arctic port of Murmansk, in Russia, and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill, in Canada, which is connected to the North American rail network.
In order to navigate these opening sea-lanes and transport the Arctic's oil and natural gas, the world's shipyards are already building ice-capable ships. The private sector is investing billions of dollars in a fleet of Arctic tankers. In 2005, there were 262 ice-class ships in service worldwide and 234 more on order. The oil and gas markets are driving the development of cutting-edge technology and the construction of new types of ships, such as double-acting tankers, which can steam bow first through open water and then turn around and proceed stern first to smash through ice. These new ships can sail unhindered to the Arctic's burgeoning oil and gas fields without the aid of icebreakers. Such breakthroughs are revolutionizing Arctic shipping and turning what were once commercially unviable projects into booming businesses.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 23, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fucq5BoEfEI]Boeing 787 makes maiden flight - YouTube[/ame]

Damn, those wings look pretty in flight.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 23, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOqdsirGg8o]Boeing 787 Dreamliner Landing at AirVenture Oshkosh - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 23, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmRKSv73lZg&feature=related]Boeing 787 Dreamliner Taxi and Thrust Reverser Test - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 23, 2011)

09,21,2011,4747031
09,22,2011,4771875
09,23,2011,4778125


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 23, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCdVO7QJaE]FlightBlogger - Cold Soaking 787 - April 22, 2010 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 23, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> FlightBlogger - Cold Soaking 787 - April 22, 2010 - YouTube



Rat in the hat, why are you destroying my data thread  Please start your own thread to discuse the airplane. Thanks.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 23, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > FlightBlogger - Cold Soaking 787 - April 22, 2010 - YouTube
> ...



Old rocks decided to destroy the 787 thread with global warming posts, so i decided to move these posts into the last thread he is posting in.

If he and his allies will leave that thread alone, I'll leave this one alone.

And besides, why are you calling this your thread when Chris started it?


----------



## gslack (Sep 23, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



Sorry had to point that out....


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



LOL.  Well, welcome, now can you contribute anything that has evidence for you point of view, whatever that may be?


----------



## gslack (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You first!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

Ocean Acidification

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2011: +0.33 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## gslack (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia
> 
> ...



GOOGLEMAN!

LOL, you have used them before tool.. we want evidence not your BS pseudo-science.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
> As  for balance the south pole  ice caps are growing.
> Dont tell Chris.





Exactly..... thats NEVER mentioned b/c it dont fit their agenda.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 25, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> ...



Go here with a open mind my friend and read what ever topic you wish to learn about. It is scientific and is pretty even handed with the science...One of the best places for in depth learning of the science. You can disagree, but if you do then you can argue it with very intelligent people there. Skeptical Science: Recent Comments

I hope you have fun either way!


----------



## gslack (Sep 26, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I have been to that site before, and I think its a propagandist site.

Heres why.. From their "myths page"



> The skeptic argument...
> There is no consensus
> The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)
> What the science says...
> ...



That is utter nonsense. We all know this by now. There still is arguing going on over this and only politically and financially motivated groups and so-called "national bodies" of science (national as in governmental funding as in political) even try and use this as a real point. 

A consensus is not a statement of fact, and even if it were there is no consensus that is not financially or politically driven. 

That explanation of scientific consensus and their "myths" section alone should be enough to tell anyone they are just another PR blog playing scientific. Every single one of their "popular arguments" is pro AGW theory..

Gimme a break...


----------



## wirebender (Sep 26, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Go here with a open mind my friend and read what ever topic you wish to learn about. It is scientific and is pretty even handed with the science...One of the best places for in depth learning of the science. You can disagree, but if you do then you can argue it with very intelligent people there. Skeptical Science: Recent Comments
> 
> I hope you have fun either way!



SS is nothing more than a chapel of the church of CAGW.  No differentiation with dogma is allowed.  They pretty much showed what they were all about with their recent treatment of Pelkie Sr.  They lost any credibility they may have had.


----------



## IanC (Sep 26, 2011)

Peter Cook seems to have lost control of his guard dogs like dana1981. it was bad before but it is full blown dogma now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
> ...



Poor dumb fucks, just cannot keep up with the current events. Like events in the past decade

UCI study: ice-sheet melting speeding up - OC Science : The Orange County Register

Ice sheets at both of Earths poles are melting rapidly, and the pace is accelerating, a new, 18-year study by scientists at UC Irvine and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows.

The sheets are melting so quickly that they are likely becoming the number one cause of rising sea levels, moving ahead of both ice caps on islands or other low-elevation surfaces and mountain glaciers.


UC Irvine professor Eric Rignot. Courtesy UC Irvine.

They are on pace for a solid contribution to sea-level risea little bit ahead of schedule, said Eric Rignot, a research scientist at both UC Irvine and JPL. This is real. Its not based on a few years of fluctuations. Its based on 18 years of observations of the ice sheets.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> ...



Oh my, USGS, NOAA, Dr. Roy Spencer, AIP, all dispensers of pseudoscience. 

In the meantime, your real dispensers of science, a drugged out obese radio jock with barely a high school education, and an ex-tv weatherman are the real dispensers of scientific knowledge. 

But what else to expect from ol' G-string.


----------



## gslack (Sep 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



National bodies receiving political money and a proven BS artist.. yeah thx socks..


----------



## Chris (Sep 26, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Chris said:


>



So the northern Greenland glaciers have melted?

Seriously CHris...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOL. Why don't you send Dr. Spencer a letter of protest concerning his support of the Global Warming Conspriracy.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why bother he is the BS artists I talked about.. And you one of his faithful...


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



hahaha. could someone give gslack a dollar so he can buy a clue.

and Old Rocks is no better for confusing Watts and his science information blog for the actual papers and news stories he writes about. it must piss Old Rocks off that Anthony Watts actually has peer reviewed papers published and referenced to.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Ian you going to pout across multiple threads now? I am sorry someone knew something you didn't wasn't my fault.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a tool according to oldsocks not even a worthy scientist. He was being an idiot I gave it back using his logic. 

Now why don't you go and prove wires math wrong for a change instead of just calling him wrong and stomping your foot?


----------



## Chris (Sep 27, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Sep 27, 2011)

Northwest Passage open as sea ice falls to lowest cover ever recorded

September 12, 2011

Arctic sea ice cover fell to its lowest level on record, report researchers from the University of Bremen. 

Analyzing data from NASA's Aqua satellite, Georg Heygster and colleagues found that Arctic sea ice fell to a record low of 4.24 million square kilometers on September 8, about 27,000 square kilometers than the previous record set roughly four years ago. 

Northwest Passage open as sea ice falls to lowest cover ever recorded


----------



## wirebender (Sep 28, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Dark green represents sea ice that was present on September 26,2011 that wasn't there on the same date in 2007.  Red represents sea ice that was present on September 26, 2007 that was not present yesterday.  Somehow your incessant charts simply don't inspire fear.  What is it about them that you find so frightening?


----------



## Chris (Sep 29, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2011)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?


----------



## gslack (Sep 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?



MENSA boy, you screwed up your link.. And aww look its an anomalies graph...

Oldsocks tell us what an anomaly is... IN your own words explain it please..lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2011)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2_CY.png?<?php echo time()?

OK, the volume in cubic kilometers.


----------



## IanC (Sep 30, 2011)

does anyone besides me think it is odd that the ice loss reported in newspapers and such for the 20's isnt reflected in the official records? I am not saying that there was less ice then than now but just that it should be a noticeable dip. ice has been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age for natural reasons. Why do the CAGWers act like it is all attributed to CO2?


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV (Sep 30, 2011)

ianc said:


> does anyone besides me think it is odd that the ice loss reported in newspapers and such for the 20's isnt reflected in the official records? I am not saying that there was less ice then than now but just that it should be a noticeable dip. Ice has been retreating since the end of the little ice age for natural reasons. Why do the cagwers act like it is all attributed to co2?



fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear!!!!


----------



## Chris (Sep 30, 2011)

Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in new research.

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say. Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes. The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life and changes the look of Canada's coastline.

Luke Copland is an associate professor in the geography department at the University of Ottawa who co-authored the research. He said the Serson Ice Shelf shrank from 79.15 square miles (205 square kilometers) to two remnant sections three years ago, and was further diminished this past summer.

Canadian Arctic Nearly Loses Entire Ice Shelf - ABC News


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

interesting that the Navy site is now offline. it certainly doesnt agree with PIOMAS. especially on age of ice and total ice volume. prehaps it will come back on line with a 'corrected' version like what happened with UCAR's sea level site


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 5, 2011)

4.0 million km^3


----------



## Chris (Oct 8, 2011)

Researchers say ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic are breaking up and changing at an unexpectedly fast rate.

They say the region lost almost half its ice shelf extent in the last six years. This summer alone saw the Serson ice shelf almost completely disappear and the Ward Hunt shelf split in half. The ice loss equals about three billion tonnes, or about 500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

&#8220;This is our coastline changing,&#8221; says Derek Mueller, from Carleton University&#8217;s department of geography and environmental studies. &#8220;These unique and massive geographical features that we consider to be a part of the map of Canada are disappearing and they won&#8217;t come back.&#8221;

The researchers say the reason for the change is a combination of warmer temperatures and open water. The ice shelves were formed and sustained in a colder climate. The researchers say their disappearance suggests a possible return to conditions unseen in the Arctic for thousands of years.

Arctic ice shelves are old and relatively rare. They are much different from sea ice, which is typically only a few metres thick. Ice shelves can measure anywhere from 40 to 100 metres in thickness. They formed over thousands of years as a result of snow and sea ice build-up, along with glacier inflow in certain spots.

Canadian ice shelves breaking up at record speed - North - CBC News


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 10, 2011)

cool


----------



## Chris (Oct 11, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Interesting graph. Note how the ice area is moving downward stepwise in five year increments since 1990.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## gslack (Oct 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting graph. Note how the ice area is moving downward stepwise in five year increments since 1990.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png



Sure but can we see the animated one he used to put up again? LOL

Why did he stopped posting that one? You remember the one with all the pics of each years all in order... LOL

I remember why he isn't posting those anymore. Because it didn't show continued consecutive ice loss year after year like his drawn on lines of averages give the impression of.. I remember pointing that out and then never seeing them again.

Funny how that works huh...


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2011)

Looks like the Arctic ice is rebounding pretty quick, quicker than it has in years...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Oct 13, 2011)

I love how the eco-nuts continually call people idiots but they use the word "melting" when in reality if what they were saying were true it would be "evaporation."

Yes, ice can and does evaporate - even in the coldest of temperatures  - as a matter of fact the colder the worse..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2011)

Nick, must you continually show yourself to be an ignoramous? The word for the ice to gas phase change is sublimation, not evaporation. And it get less as the temperatute declines.

Phase Diagrams


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Looks like the Arctic ice is rebounding pretty quick, quicker than it has in years...



No, dumbkopf, the graph just shows that it is rebounding, at present, quicker than it did in 2007.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting graph. Note how the ice area is moving downward stepwise in five year increments since 1990.
> ...



Funny how fucking dumb you are to miss the point of the sentence. Look at the graph. Note that in the last five years, four of the five minimums were near 3 million square kilometers. Then in the prior five years, four of the five were near 4 million square kilometers. But such a simple observation is beyond your abilities.


----------



## gslack (Oct 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Go suck a wind turbine asshole.. I understood the point far better than you do.. Fact is its a graph that shows ups and downs over a time period thats it. Whatever else you take from it is up to. IN other words you are taking variation and calling it evidence for something other than variance...

Socks I can think on more levels while typing up my reports and assessments, than you can while focusing on just the one task you give yourself; Propaganda... Dude all you have to do is cut and paste shit that makes a case for AGW, and doesn't make things worse or you look like an idiot. Yet you fail at this routinely. How can a self-proclaimed MENSA member fuck up simple cut and paste so often?

I know, its because you don't care about truth only about spreading your belief system. You only care that it helps your agenda, truth is not even a factor for you. And that kind of single-mindedness leads to carelessness and lazy research habits, like not reading fully what you post.

MENSA man..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2011)

LOL. Basement levels are your forte, G. LOL


----------



## techieny (Oct 13, 2011)




----------



## gslack (Oct 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Basement levels are your forte, G. LOL



Well happily basement levels are enough to show you for the sellout fake you are. Right windy??


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. Basement levels are your forte, G. LOL
> ...



You are so totally busted as a lying troll, you might as well haul your lying fraudulent dumbazz to another forum where no one knows you.

As you've had to do before at other forums where you got banned for being such a troll.


----------



## gslack (Oct 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Really? Well then you can point out all those other forums then? Sure ya can tool sure ya can..

Fraudulent? As in fraud? as in somebody affiliate linking and lying about it? Or could that be like a guy who gets on an internet forum under multiple identities all with the same MO? Oe could it be like a guy who hot links to a software or service that bloats up links? Hmm, all of that sounds like you...


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You are so totally busted as a lying troll, you might as well haul your lying fraudulent dumbazz to another forum where no one knows you.
> ...



Here's where the ol' slackjawedidiot got his clock cleaned and once again very clearly demonstrated just how big a liar he is and how extremely reality challenged and flat out crazy he is.  *Post from other thread.*


----------



## gslack (Oct 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Linking to thread where you try to cover your ass using word play doesn't help you moron. It makes you look desperate.. Appealing to the forum is pathetic as well.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are soooo busted. Your lies and idiocy and fraudulent statements are exposed for everyone to see. You are a lying troll with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Crawl back into the hole you crawled out of, you silly slackjawedtroll.


----------



## gslack (Oct 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Dude you are ridiculous...

Go outside, its not good to live online dude...


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...







It's funny how TB come on and spews insults and invective and thinks he's "winning"

Priceless


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 17, 2011)

North Polar Ice once more below a -2 analomy. The only other time it has been this low is 2007.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



It's really funny how the walleyedretard comes on any thread and spews retarded drivel and idiotic nonsense and thinks he's said something. Worthless!


----------



## gslack (Oct 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> North Polar Ice once more below a -2 analomy. The only other time it has been this low is 2007.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png



Please oldsocks please explain what that means..

Do you need another lesson in what anomalies are?


----------



## gslack (Oct 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Not as funny as you calling anyone else worthless.. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 18, 2011)

Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers, Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He warns of the inevitable consequences to the Arctic and to sea levels if mankind does not take swift action to drastically reduce carbon emissions.

*The Vanishing Arctic*
Stefan Rahmstorf
2011-10-17
(excerpts)

*BERLIN &#8211; Largely unnoticed, a silent drama has been unfolding over the past weeks in the Arctic. The long-term consequences will far outstrip those of the international debt crisis or the demise of the Libyan dictatorship, the news stories now commanding media attention. The drama &#8211; more accurately, a tragedy &#8211; playing out in the North is the rapid disappearance of the polar ice cap, the Arctic Ocean&#8217;s defining feature. In September, the sea-ice cover on the Arctic Ocean melted all the way back to the record-low level recorded in September 2007. At 4.4 million square kilometers, it was the smallest ice cover since satellite observations began 40 years ago, with 40% less ice than in the 1970&#8217;s and 1980&#8217;s. Back in 2007, the record low stunned climate scientists, who considered it an outlier in an otherwise much slower decline in sea-ice cover. We blamed unusual wind conditions in the Arctic that year. But satellite data since then have proven us wrong. This year, we reached the same low level without exceptional wind conditions. It is now clear that we are not just seeing a steady decline of sea-ice cover, but a rapidly accelerating decline.

If this continues, we will probably see an ice-free North Pole within the next 10-20 years. Yes, that sounds shocking. But there is good reason to fear that the rate of decline will indeed continue to rise, and that satellite images of a blue polar ocean will grace the covers of news magazines sooner rather than later. The reason is that the ice is also getting thinner. This is harder to measure than the area of ice cover, which is easily viewed by satellites. But various data, including measurements from ships and aircraft, confirm that the ice has thinned by roughly half since the 1980&#8217;s. This also makes physical sense, given the rapid warming in the Arctic. If the ice cover simultaneously shrinks and gets thinner, then the shrinkage in area is first steady but then accelerates towards the end, when the remaining ice becomes ever thinner and more vulnerable to melting. This is what I fear is happening now. Yearly estimates show that 2011 set an all-time low for overall ice volume &#8211; which is computed from area and thickness &#8211; in the Arctic Ocean. Ice volume is already down to about one-third of what it was in the 1980&#8217;s. If the downward trend in ice volume of the past 20 years merely continues at a constant pace, practically no ice will be left in 10-15 years.

This loss of ice will not only turn the Arctic ecosystem upside down, affecting many animals that are adapted to a life with sea ice. It will affect all of us. If the Arctic ice disappears in the summer months, we will lose a giant mirror that reflects solar heat back into space and helps keep the planet cool. The ice loss will amplify global warming and upset weather patterns. But the ice loss will amplify warming especially in the Arctic &#8211; indeed, this is already happening. Moreover, disproportionate Arctic warming is already affecting one of the most important components of the global climate system: the Greenland Ice Sheet. If this giant structure melts, sea levels worldwide would rise by about seven meters. And this melting, it appears, has already begun. As NASA data revealed earlier this year, the Greenland Ice Sheet is losing mass at an accelerating pace. As tide gauges from around the world show, sea levels are indeed rising. The warmer it gets, the faster the sea rises. While sea level was nearly constant for centuries after the Middle Ages, it rose at an average rate of almost two centimeters per decade during the twentieth century. Over the past two decades, the rate has exceeded three centimeters per decade. While future sea level is hard to predict, most experts would agree that unabated global warming could lead in the coming centuries to a rise measured in meters, threatening the very existence of many coastal cities and entire island nations. Already at the end of this century, sea level could well be one meter higher than it is now, unless we act rapidly and decisively to curb our greenhouse-gas emissions.*

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.

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


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers, Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He warns of the inevitable consequences to the Arctic and to sea levels if mankind does not take swift action to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
> 
> *The Vanishing Arctic*
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> ...








Jeez, if it's "vanishing" why is the current extent greater then both 2007 and 2008 for the same time?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers, Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He warns of the inevitable consequences to the Arctic and to sea levels if mankind does not take swift action to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
> ...



LOLOL....you really are dense as a brick, walleyed. Did you just read the title and skip the article? Oh, well, only to be expected from you.

To answer your question about why the Arctic ice is considered to be vanishing, how about the 40% reduction in ice extent and a large reduction in ice thickness since the 1970's with total ice volume still falling fast year to year.....


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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








Ohhh gee a 30 year survey...big whoop!  Look at the Arctic over a 200 year period and this is normal cyclic behavior.  Something a brainless tool like you wouldn't or can't understand.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2011)

Really? Care to show where in the last 200 years that the ice extant has been what it is now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Care to show where in the last 200 years that the ice extant has been what it is now.





There is no record that goes back further than maybe 1880 for the arctic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2011)

There are records concerning the freeze up of the Balkan Sea, and other areas in Europe that would give a fair idea of the degree of cold at the time. Also the ice core records give us a good idea of temperatures in Greenland for the past 200 years. None of these records show anything like the melt that we have seen in the last ten years.


----------



## gslack (Oct 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers, Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He warns of the inevitable consequences to the Arctic and to sea levels if mankind does not take swift action to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
> 
> *The Vanishing Arctic*
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> ...



TRoll, ya just flat know better by now ... Seriously you don't think I will not check your source? I always do first thing...Are you this thick or are you an agent of disinformation playing ECO-mentalist?

Your article you claimed  _"Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers,..."_

Really? Well lets check that shall we?

Well according to wikkipedia 



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Rahmstorf said:
			
		

> wikkipedia]
> 
> Stefan Rahmstorf (born 22 February 1960) is a German oceanographer and climatologist. Since 2000, he has been a Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University. He received his Ph.D. in oceanography from Victoria University of Wellington (1990). *His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change.[1]*
> *He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.*[1]



So his work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change.. So then hes not as you put it *"...one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers"* LOL, maybe if ya stopped trying to sell this shit to us and just gave it as it was we may buy some of it...LOL 

But the fun didn't stop there kids.... Oh no, no, no...LOL It gets WAAAAY better.. The place you linked to for instance... Its an OP-ED site.. Thats right, not scientific, not news, just OP-EDS all the time...

From their about us page..

Project Syndicate - the highest quality op-ed ( opinion-editorial ) articles and commentaries



			
				http://www.project-syndicate.org/about_us/who_we_are said:
			
		

> WHO WE ARE
> *Project Syndicate: the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries.* A unique collaboration of distinguished opinion makers from every corner of the globe, Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives on our changing world by those who are shaping its politics, economics, science, and culture. Exclusive, trenchant, unparalleled in scope and depth: Project Syndicate is truly A World of Ideas.



So an opinion piece from someone who is not one of the foremost arctic researchers as you called him, and a IPCC collaborator as well... I also looked and found All he writes about is Pro-AGW opinion pieces. Crap books telling people that the worlds going to end due to them, and fear mongering bullshit..

 And did you look at the contributing authors list? Dude its a politicians PR rag... LOL.. My god troll, you actually read this shit? No wonder you don't leave your moms basement, probably too scared to by the time you get done reading shit like this ..LOL

So once again, you lied.. He's not one of the foremost arctic researchers. hes one of the IPCC's paid stooges who drum up all the scary bullshit that gets shot down soon as it comes out. He is a pseudo-scientist in my opinion, but even if hes not, he still isn't one of the foremost arctic researchers...

 Too much...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2011)

PIOMAS Version 2 - Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Care to show where in the last 200 years that the ice extant has been what it is now.






Here's a newspaper article that states a belief of an ice free Arctic.  There was so much open water way back then that it was a fair assumption.  In other words even with their primitive level of observation there was WAY less ice then currently.  Well it appears the picture won't post so here's the link.  Oh yeah the ice extent was lower in 2007 and 2008....or did you forget that too?


http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ST18730328.2.20


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Care to show where in the last 200 years that the ice extant has been what it is now.
> ...



Some anecdotes from an obscure newspaper from 1873???? That's the extent of your evidence that the Arctic was "_ice free_"??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you are such a retarded clueless nitwit!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

Typical nonsense from Walleyes. And he actually claims to have been a scientist.


----------



## gslack (Oct 19, 2011)

Repost: So trolling blunder cannot hide from his lie in his post...



RollingThunder said:


> Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers, Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf , Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He warns of the inevitable consequences to the Arctic and to sea levels if mankind does not take swift action to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
> 
> *The Vanishing Arctic*
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> ...



TRoll, ya just flat know better by now ... Seriously you don't think I will not check your source? I always do first thing...Are you this thick or are you an agent of disinformation playing ECO-mentalist?

Your article you claimed  _"Here's some of the latest finding on the deterioration of the Arctic ice cap from one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers,..."_

Really? Well lets check that shall we?

Well according to wikkipedia 



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Rahmstorf said:
			
		

> wikkipedia]
> 
> Stefan Rahmstorf (born 22 February 1960) is a German oceanographer and climatologist. Since 2000, he has been a Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University. He received his Ph.D. in oceanography from Victoria University of Wellington (1990). *His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change.[1]*
> *He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.*[1]



So his work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change.. So then hes not as you put it *"...one of the world's foremost Arctic researchers"* LOL, maybe if ya stopped trying to sell this shit to us and just gave it as it was we may buy some of it...LOL 

But the fun didn't stop there kids.... Oh no, no, no...LOL It gets WAAAAY better.. The place you linked to for instance... Its an OP-ED site.. Thats right, not scientific, not news, just OP-EDS all the time...

From their about us page..

Project Syndicate - the highest quality op-ed ( opinion-editorial ) articles and commentaries



			
				http://www.project-syndicate.org/about_us/who_we_are said:
			
		

> WHO WE ARE
> *Project Syndicate: the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries.* A unique collaboration of distinguished opinion makers from every corner of the globe, Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives on our changing world by those who are shaping its politics, economics, science, and culture. Exclusive, trenchant, unparalleled in scope and depth: Project Syndicate is truly A World of Ideas.



So an opinion piece from someone who is not one of the foremost arctic researchers as you called him, and a IPCC collaborator as well... I also looked and found All he writes about is Pro-AGW opinion pieces. Crap books telling people that the worlds going to end due to them, and fear mongering bullshit..

 And did you look at the contributing authors list? Dude its a politicians PR rag... LOL.. My god troll, you actually read this shit? No wonder you don't leave your moms basement, probably too scared to by the time you get done reading shit like this ..LOL

So once again, you lied.. He's not one of the foremost arctic researchers. hes one of the IPCC's paid stooges who drum up all the scary bullshit that gets shot down soon as it comes out. He is a pseudo-scientist in my opinion, but even if hes not, he still isn't one of the foremost arctic researchers...

 Too much...

You lied troll!


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Typical nonsense from Walleyes. And he actually claims to have been a scientist.






Valid observations and I am STILL a scientist.


----------



## gslack (Oct 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Typical nonsense from Walleyes. And he actually claims to have been a scientist.
> ...



I find it telling of those two that they deem a newspaper clip from 1873 regarding events of that time, to be some how less reliable than an online Op-ed PR rag.... WOW..

Tell me they do anything else BUT hang out in web forums...

If they can't google it, It isn't true...LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Typical nonsense from Walleyes. And he actually claims to have been a scientist.
> ...



And on what day may I expect to see you on the lectern at the 2011 AGU Conferance, presenting a lecture on why everything that has previously been presented there concerning this subject is incorrect? Come on, you claim to be a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. You are up to that, are you, ?Scientist?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

gslack said:


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



vig links, dopey, vig links.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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







Probably never, they don't like scientists who actually follow the scientific method and havn't been co-opted by the green cult.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

Lol


----------



## gslack (Oct 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Who you callin dopey dumbass? You can't even copy a correct name when its posted here its Viglink shithead.. The company is called viglink. 

And still going to pretend you friend and you didn't show yourselves for the liars you are... Wow must be nice to able to deny anything thats uncomfortable for you.. Must be a thing with trolls..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

Hey G-idiot, have you checked my links? Hell, I might be making all kinds of money off of you. LOL


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey G-idiot, have you checked my links? Hell, I might be making all kinds of money off of you. LOL



Aww you feeling left out is that it? I haven't been giving you the attention you deserve lately have I... I am sorry little man, I will make sure I do from now on..

Care to share with us all what happened now? No? Turns out your pal did what i said to do and bingo saw the code just like i said he would... So that makes me...whats that word again.... oh yeah RIGHT AGAIN!


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey G-idiot, have you checked my links? Hell, I might be making all kinds of money off of you. LOL
> ...


...'Total loon' is the word you're looking for, you brainless dipshyt. You hysterically accused me of inserting funky redirect code in my links but you waited about 30 posts before revealing how you were getting those links to show up and then it turned out that code was in many people's links. YOU WERE WRONG, you clueless retard. You were too stupid to check to see if that code was showing up in other people's links before going postal and wrongly accusing me of inserting that junk.


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Fact is tool you were the first and at that time only one I saw the redirects in. I asked you about it and you denied this happening. So I looked into it and found out about viglink and the code in the their scripts that were attached to YOUR POST... The script that causes the redirect was in YOUR POST. got that yet? You again denied this, and even after I told you numerous times how to see the code you still denied its existence claiming you did the same things I did and didn't see it.

Then you finally did do it the way I said to and BINGO you saw it too. But of course it was only after many posters confirmed the same things and you had no choice but to admit its existence. Dude you even tried to claim I put it there...LOL seriously? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The codes not in direct links to regular URL's unless you call the script in transit or from another service or site.. I already explained this many times to you and your pal.

Now, I said the code was there in your links you said it wasn't , I was right. I said how to find it, and you claimed you did the same thing and you lied. So far I am batting .1000 with you on this troll, if I were you I would take your friend leave it alone now. I still don't see USMB saying they use it and its coming from somewhere originally. 

Personally I think its you or someone or thing you are working for or with doing it, and I think you are doing it in many other forums too. I can't prove this, so I let it go. But thats what I think, and from the way you and your troll patrol have been acting since I pointed it out, you give me good reason to think so...

Now best to drop your bullshit and leave it alone.. You had the code in your link just as I said you did. You repeatedly lied about it not being there, and only when others came out and said as much did you recant your tale... So do yourself the biggest favor you can do and drop it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 20, 2011)

gslack said:


> I said how to find it, and you claimed you did the same thing and you lied.



Hey moron, everybody can still go look at that and see that you did not "_say how to find it_". You told me to do things that did not work on a firefox browser for two pages until you finally suggested using 'send link'. As soon as I could actually find the code in the links, I did what you should have also immediately done when you first discovered this, and looked at other poster's links. The same vigilink stuff was in links provided by the walleyedretard and the kookster. You are a hysterical paranoid reality challenged idiot and this whole affair has just reinforced that perception in everyone's minds.


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I said how to find it, and you claimed you did the same thing and you lied.
> ...



LOL, sure you want to go with that story tool?

I remember expressly telling oldsocks and you how to do it using firefox and google chrome. Matter of fact i told you a few ways to do it. Before you claimed I didn't tell you a way that worked yet you said yourself the last way I told you did work.. Matter of fact you made several posts using bold font telling me I told you to do the same thing you were saying you did. Remember? You should you made big bold claims that you did the same thing I did and didn't get the code... LOL

The fact is tool, viglinks script affiliates links. Its a script, it checks for links that go to partners or affiliated places on a page and attaches to them if it can.. I read that today on their page..

VigLink - FAQ

_"So what's happening underneath?
After you embed the VigLink library on your page, it monitors when visitors click on a link pointing to a different site. *The library checks to see if the URL of that link can be affiliated; if so, the link is automatically affiliated.*"_ 

So it was on your link first which is where I noticed it, then due to the script already being here from your link it affiliate's any link it can. THATS WHY ITS ON OTHERS LINKS NOW... Fact is the script came from somewhere and USMB isn't saying anything, and you are the first I saw with it... Whoever IS using it better speak up soon because not disclosing its use is illegal as well as BS. 

Once again if you got any sense at all you will drop this with me... I can't prove you are doing it, and I can't prove you aren't. And at this point I don't care, I already opted out of viglink crap. You or whoever won't get pennies from me now. 

If you are running firefox i would recommend you install the noscript extension and or web developer tools, to prevent scripts like this or allow you to spot them in the future. AND BTW, if you were running firefox why couldn't you see the code the same way I was seeing it? Google Chrome is a stripped down version of Firefox. the submenus have many of the same features maybe a different wording but same functionality.

Fact is you told people to check the source by clicking "properties" and you just showed you knew better.. tell us whats in the right-click submenu in firefox? Where is the "properties" option in the submenu? There isn't one...

Now stop talking shit, stop trying to claim I was lying, and stop picking at something you had best leave alone.. You were lying from the start, and you are still lying now.. This is the last bit of explaining I am going to do on this, make one more false accusation or try and tell one more lie about me and I will no longer let it go...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 20, 2011)

Wah.....wah..... sob, snivel, wah.......wah


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Wah.....wah..... sob, snivel, wah.......wah



Thats exactly what you two are doing.. So socks care to elaborate on my being right again?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Wah.....wah..... sob, snivel, wah.......wah






I used to think you were maybe 12, I see I must revise your age estimate down by about 10 years.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Liar...colossal retarded liar.....as anybody who looks can see for themselves.....maybe you believe your own lies, slackjawed, but you can't change all those posts on the two threads.....there for all to see.....


And by the way, fuck you, troll.


----------



## gslack (Oct 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Why yes they can see them, matter of fact I wish they would... Truly they can see them, they can see you denying the codes existence over several pages, they can see you trying over and again in two separate threads trying to claim you were doing the same thing I was and didnt see the code and claiming your methods was identical to mine even calling me dumb for it, even got your lying little weasel of a pal socks to confirm it, and they can see you acting like a weasel about it and only admitting the codes there after several people saw it too. And after I said I was done, they can see you and your pal lying about what happened and trying to provoke me into another argument over it even after I said to drop it.... 

Now let it be...

Only you and oldsocks will continue to talk shit AFTER getting busted.. IF either of you get caught lying (all the time) you both just keep on talking and lying. its like it never happened with you. You two have been that way since I been here and I didn't think you would change now...


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 21, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Anyone can look and see for themselves what a retarded liar you are, you silly cretin.


----------



## gslack (Oct 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yes they can see what a retarded liar you are, you silly cretin.

So far...

1. The code was there just as I said it was.

2. You had the code on your link just as I said you did.

3. You admitted the codes presence only after so many people told you they see the same code there.

4. You claimed you were doing the same thing I told you to do and you weren't seeing the code, even got your friend and known lying weasel to try and back your claim. Furthering that by making big bold claims that I was so stupid I was saying to do the same thing you said to do. You carried this claim over to another unrelated thread. When all along you were not doing so, AND admitted as much once a number of other posters confirmed they got the same code doing as i explained to do.

5. You deny this happened despite the evidence and all the posts showing it undeniably did happen just as I have described here.

6. You further try and confound the truth by attacking me after the fact, with lies and innuendo.

7. You keep claiming I am lying when the evidence shows I was right about the code, right about it being on your link, right about you not not using the proper method to see the code, right about your attempts to hide the codes existence by telling people to check "properties", right about your friend not using the proper methods to see the code, and right about the way you acted over it.

So please continue on your rant to try and save face again. how many times you had to do this here? With me alone this marks at least a third time you resorted to playing "it didn't happen" and stomping your foot. Next you will go get one of your clones and attack me again, same as you usually do..

Now for the last time let it be...


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> 1. The code was there just as I said it was.


The code was there but wasn't visible using the methods you specified. You claimed that I was the one inserting the code for my own profit which was a lie.



gslack said:


> 2. You had the code on your link just as I said you did.


Other people had the code on their links so your accusations against me were lies.



gslack said:


> 3. You admitted the codes presence only after so many people told you they see the same code there.


I was unable to see the code until you finally suggested using 'send link'. It had nothing to do with other people. The other people I contacted couldn't see the code in the links either using the methods you suggested up to that point.



gslack said:


> 4. You claimed you were doing the same thing I told you to do and you weren't seeing the code, even got your friend and known lying weasel to try and back your claim. Furthering that by making big bold claims that I was so stupid I was saying to do the same thing you said to do. You carried this claim over to another unrelated thread. When all along you were not doing so, AND admitted as much once a number of other posters confirmed they got the same code doing as i explained to do.


More of your lies, dipshit. I was using the methods you were talking about and the code was not visible. I only found it after you finally posted the correct method which you had not done up until then, you flaming dumbass. You started your baseless accusations about this crap in your post #37 on page three of the 'Vanishing Glaciers' thread but you never revealed a way for me or some  others to see the vigilinks code until your post #137 on page 10 of that thread. I asked repeatedly how to see the code and you gave me wrong answers for six pages. You are a liar and I am going to prove it. Here's the exact chronology of your crazy paranoid run. LIAR.

From post #60 in the other thread


RollingThunder said:


> Here's my links in this post, visible to anyone who hits 'quote'. Or right-click on the link and hit 'properties' if you have that function or hit 'copy link location' and paste it somewhere and look at it.


Then your posts #63 & #66


gslack said:


> You are done there it is for all to see, right click on it and select open in new tab and you can see the API vigilink redirect right there.





gslack said:


> right click on his link and press "copy link". then paste it into notepad or a simple plain text editor and look at the link..


My post #68


RollingThunder said:


> I really urge everyone to right click on that link and hit 'copy link location' and then paste it somewhere and look at it. This is what you get:
> //www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle


And that *is* what shows up using firefox.
Then your clueless post #69


gslack said:


> I even told you I right clicked the link and chose "copy link address" and pasted it in a plain text editor (notepad, gedit, et al) and got that link exactly word for word character for character as I posted it. BTW, I am running linux kernel 3.0 with gnome-shell desktop.


My post #70


RollingThunder said:


> I again urge anyone who wants to see ol' slackjawed's insanity first hand to just do as he says and right click on the link and paste it somewhere. Ii is a simple direct link to grist.com and that's it.


Your response post #71


gslack said:


> I urge everyone to do the same... And make sure you select "copy link address" and then paste it in a plain text editor like notepad or gedit. That way it is exactly as written in the actual link. If you do you will see the following in about half of his links before I outed him for it.


But doing it that way, most people *don't* see the code. You still are too stupid to check other people's links before accusing me of doing this and since the methods you've mentioned for seeing the supposed links haven't worked for me and others, we can't check the links provided by other people yet to see if it's there.
Then the toadster chimed in with post #81


Toddsterpatriot said:


> When I view the source in post #1, I see this. //api.viglink.com-etc.


To which I responded reasonably in post #83


RollingThunder said:


> Perhaps you could explain how you got that crap? When I right click on the link and hit 'copy link location', I get this: h ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27894721/ns/us_news-environment/t/himalaya-glaciers-melting-much-faster/#.Tph31V2D2uI
> Just how are you supposedly "_viewing the source_" as you claim?


He responded in post #84


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right click then click "Properties"


But that actually doesn't work to show the code in Firefox either so....
I responded in post #86


RollingThunder said:


> I did just that and this is what anyone can see if they do that: *h ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27894721/ns/us_news-environment/t/himalaya-glaciers-melting-much-faster/#.Tph31V2D2uI*


There is no more discussion of methods to see the links until my post #131


RollingThunder said:


> I went and asked two different friends to get on this forum and check my link code and both of them found only a straight link to the site I was quoting. So it's not some code on my computer that is masking the links from me when I look for them (or inserting them when I post). So, I guess I have to ask, where did you get that supposed "_very recent link address_"? I have tried, and my friends tried, to find it and we can't dig it out of the links at all. If we right click and hit 'copy link location' or 'copy address' (depending on browser) and then go copy it somewhere, there is only the direct link. How are you generating that mess you just posted? How is this code supposedly being hidden? If you hit 'quote' on a post, you can see all of the code in that post. How am I supposedly hiding it on the forum's server so it is invisible?


We had this response from 'Rat in the Hat' in post 133


Rat in the Hat said:


> I use Opera as my browser. I copied the link location, and pasted it into notepad, and that was the result I got.


And then finally, after 7 pages of false accusations and loads of your drivel....
you finally in post #137, reveal the secret of getting to this hidden code.


gslack said:


> If you run Firefox right click the link and then from the pop up menu select "send link" that will copy and paste the entire code to an email using your preferred email client or software. Don't send the email or anything just look at the mess it will put in the email message boddy.


Rat in the Hat points out that the code is your posts too in post #138


Rat in the Hat said:


> Houston, we have a problem...
> Here is what I get for your Project Syndicate link, gslack. - //api.viglink.com/api/click?...
> Maybe it's the board doing it? dunno:


You made a couple of confused posts still trying to blame me and ol' Rat in the Hat came back with post #141


Rat in the Hat said:


> Actually, I was suggesting it's being added here. And after checking links from a few other posters, it looks like that is the case.


After finally getting a workable method out of you for actually seeing the hidden code, I found it in my links and then, doing the obvious, found it in everybody else's that I checked at that time. I later found that it wasn't in all of the links, just most of them that I checked. So I set you straight in post #146


RollingThunder said:


> Ah, you stupid twit. I knew the links I was posting didn't have any code in them when I post them and all of the methods (copy link address and paste) you suggested earlier did not reveal any funky code so I thought this was just your usual insanity and general disconnection from reality. However when you finally, a few posts ago, mentioned the 'send link' trick, which you hadn't suggested before, that whole mess of code with the vigilink stuff in it showed up. I immediately did the obvious thing, the thing you would have done long ago, before wasting so much time on this, if you had more than two brain cells to rub together. And that was, of course, to try the same 'send link' trick on somebody else's links, so I went to a thread the walleyedretard had started and, sure enough, his link in the OP showed the same vigilink code. So I checked a few more people's links and guess what, dimbulb, all of the links from everybody have that code so it must be added by this site. I sure wish you'd grow a brain sometime and check things out first before making such a fool out of yourself with your paranoid accusations. I'm sure the folks at vigilink had some fun laughing at your silly shyt. I know I do.


Then you, in post #147, still stupidly try to deny you made a mistake and still trying to blame me for this whole incredibly worthless waste of time you started. 


gslack said:


> If you weren't so damn defensive you could have helped sort this shit out before, instead of claiming it wasn't there like a damn moron. Instead you sat there lying your ass off and throwing a fit. Either way you were the first I noticed it from, and you claimed it wasn't there...  hell dude you could be the typhoid mary of viglink.


You follow that with some of your usual historical revisionism in post #150


gslack said:


> 2. I showed it was there and told multiple ways to see it, and you denied it being there and claimed repeatedly you were doing the same thing I was doing and did not see it. But now you admit to doing it the way I explained and you see it now too...


Then Rat in the Hat tries futilely to reason with you in post #152


Rat in the Hat said:


> C'mon buddy, give them a break. If they're using FireFox or Chrome with AdBlock Plus or Java Script Block, they can't see the codes we see with Opera or I-Exploder.










gslack said:


> 5. You deny this happened despite the evidence and all the posts showing it undeniably did happen just as I have described here.


That is either more of your lies or more of your retarded insanity. It did not happen as you have described. Anyone can go look for themselves and see your lies.



gslack said:


> 6. You further try and confound the truth by attacking me after the fact, with lies and innuendo.


You discredit yourself with your own lies and refusal to admit that you screwed up and accused me of something I didn't do because you were too stupid to check to see if that code was in other people's links too.






gslack said:


> 7. You keep claiming I am lying when the evidence shows I was right about the code, right about it being on your link, right about you not not using the proper method to see the code, right about your attempts to hide the codes existence by telling people to check "properties", right about your friend not using the proper methods to see the code, and right about the way you acted over it.


You were right about the code being there but you were too stupid to check to see if it was other people's links so you lied about me being the source of the hidden code. You're lying about telling me the right way to find the code which I just demonstrated that you didn't do for seven pages of wrong methods and fraudulent accusations. You are lying now about what I told people to do to check the codes, which was both clicking on 'properties' and doing the same thing you were telling them, 'copy link address' and paste it somewhere. All of this is obvious in the recorded posts I just listed. You are 'wrong' in far too many ways to list.

Now for the last time, fuck you, pinhead. You're a troll and not worth wasting any more time on ever.


----------



## gslack (Oct 22, 2011)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Get a grip tool, you are busted...LOL

1. You said you use Firefox, I gave firefox directions that were correct and still are. but now you say you couldn't see the code doing it my way.. If you are using FIrefox you would... SO which is it now? Are you using FIrefox or not now?

2. I said you were probably either doing it yourself (the viglink afiliate linking script) OR were doing it inadvertently albeit irresponsibly from either some software, service or someone else's doing it and you being the sap. I said this on numerous posts.

3. You know as well as I do now how the viglink script works I explained it, even linked to viglinks explanation. Once its on a page from a link, it afiliates any links it can on that page. Thats why there are so many with the script calls in their links now that were not there before... If you want I can repost the viglink explanation and their link.. I did so a few times now no problem to do it again troll...

4. Where is this "properties" in the right-click menu in firefox? Come on man I asked you this before and you ignore it... So I ask you again where is this "properties" option in the right-click menu in Firefox? Or in Google CHrome? So tell me tool how is it you were telling people the right way when you couldn't have using the method you claimed before and even mentioned again above?

_"Here's my links in this post, visible to anyone who hits 'quote'. *Or right-click on the link and hit 'properties'* if you have that function or hit 'copy link location' and paste it somewhere and look at it."_

So where is the "properties" option in the right-click menu in firefox then? And why did you tell them to hit "quote" to see its not there? I told you and so did viglink that will not show the code. That option isn't in firefox right-click on a link sub menu.. 

Also, you told them to hit "copy link location" when I explained full and well that this will not work because it will only copy the link location to the clipboard, not anything else just the links end destination URL. I explained this time and again. The key is in the words "copy link location" get it yet? As in where the link eventually goes. Any script will not show using that method.

I gave full and correct instructions on how to see the code, several people saw it doing the methods I gave. Yet you flatly refused to use the methods I gave and repeatedly gave alternate false instructions and tried to imply at least one of them was identical to mine when in fact it was not. 

5. You continue to whine and cry like a little baby because YOU screwed up again. If you had checked like I said to in the first place you would have seen it, but you instead had to try and be a deceptive, lying little weasel to try and cover your ass. You only admitted the codes existence after many people spoke up that they saw it too. You had no choice then...

6. I also told you early on that you can see the redirect when you right click and open in new tab and quickly switch to that tab while its still loading. And that works in both Firefox and Google CHrome.... yet you again claimed I made it up and it wasn't there...


Again you can simply tell me where the "properties" option in the right click menu on a link in firefox is now... If you use firefox you would know its not there.. 

Now you have been shown once again to be a fraudulent, lying little weasel and I strongly urge you to leave this be now. You were caught lying, about the viglink redirects, the viglink codes existence, about how to see the code, about the methods used to see the code, about my explanations on how to see the code, and even about "properties" in the firefox right click link menu as well... And now we can add lying about what happened to that as well...

Again, last warning from me troll.... If you do not stop lying about me, about what happened, and being a general whiny little punk, I will have no problem in making your humiliation complete...


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 22, 2011)

gslack said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Get a grip tool, you are busted...LOL
> 
> ...


You feeble-minded little twit. 'Properties' *is indeed* one of the options in the pop-up menu people get when they right click on a link using Firefox if they are using the older version. They eliminated that in the newer version. I did a quick google search so this might help you believe it - *Here* - "*One of my favorite features of Firefox was that it was the only browser that had a built-in security feature of helping users identify bogus web links. Previous versions had a right-click menu item called Properties that allowed users to view the actual URL associated with a Web link. This feature prevented users from unknowingly clicking bogus or malicious web links. And, it makes absolutely NO sense why such a valuable and unique feature would have been removed!*"

I just showed the sequence of posts in which you failed to accurately reveal the technique for seeing the hidden code for seven pages. You can spout your historical revisions and personal fantasies of what you wished you'd said all you want but the actual record of exchanges between us is still there for all to see. You are a liar and a fraud. Your attacks on me for putting hidden redirect code in my links were lies based on your stupidity.


----------



## techieny (Oct 22, 2011)

my nipples are getting ....oh NO....HARD!!!


----------



## gslack (Oct 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> ...



STOP LYING WEASEL...

First the link you pointed to is about rolling back to a previous version of Firefox which you can't do.. Its open source and no ones working on it anymore, which means no security updates, no support, etc...

IF you are using and outdated version, you need to upgrade before you try and correct me on it.. get it tool? You are using and out dated, no longer supported version of software and telling people to do something they can no longer do in current and up-to-date supported versions.. And trying to correct me telling the right way using the current software...

You absolute, total nincompoop! If you get your head out of your defensive ass for a second you can see the problem...Stop trying to play save ass and use for damn head. You are using software features that do not exist in current software versions and trying to correct my method...

Right now there is no "properties" option in right click submenu over links in FIrefox. So you couldn't very well tell people accurately the right way to check the link you idiot.. 

Lastly, that was not a security feature to check links in this manner the obscure question posted in their forums you linked to was from some guy who doesn't understand what the feature did. he thinks it was security but it was only there to allow people to use their windows "properties" dialog on a link. Any meta-tags, code, redirects, or anything in a script called to when the link is clicked (like viglink) will not show because its not in the actual links destination its in a script that fires when the link is clicked...

Now tool , you cannot weasel your way out of this with half-ass bullshit and word play. You are busted lying again... Now go cry punk.


----------



## gslack (Oct 22, 2011)

BTW, oldsocks you have now neg-repped me on the 19th and the 22nd... Care to man up any time soon? Or you going to continue your little childish bullshit?

Your pal is a liar and you lied for him. You know it, I know it.. If his method as he claimed was used YOU COULDN"T HAVE! You fraud... What you going to give me some lame excuse that you are using the old unsupported firefox now too?
 Sure tool, sure....You two are the most useless people on this forum. The fact you pull this shit like a little punk is no surprise at all...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 23, 2011)

LOL. G-idiot continues to lie about the vig links that were even found on his posts. 

LOL. You accused, without reason, other people. Now eat crow, fool.


----------



## gslack (Oct 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. G-idiot continues to lie about the vig links that were even found on his posts.
> 
> LOL. You accused, without reason, other people. Now eat crow, fool.



Oh really? So then care to explain how you managed to use trolls method to not see the code when his method doesn't work?... Didn't think so fraud... You are a known and proven (multiple times) liar.. And that was before this happened. 

You socks LIED about his link, and lied about using his method to see it.. YOU are now busted once again being a fake... Now go and neg-rep me again you little weasel...


----------



## Meister (Oct 23, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. G-idiot continues to lie about the vig links that were even found on his posts.
> ...



Old socks negged you?  Let me pos rep you.


----------



## gslack (Oct 23, 2011)

Meister said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



THX Meister!


----------



## Meister (Oct 23, 2011)

gslack said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Anytime


----------



## konradv (Oct 27, 2011)

Meister said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Proof postive that "rep" is nothing but a CON circle-jerk.  What can you say when the powers-that-be are in on it?!?!  Yeah, they're SOOOOOOO ethical.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



actually I think the libbies are more prone to form 'rep' circle jerks. cons like to pretend that ideas are more important than popularity. Im not really sure if that is true though.


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Like the way oldsocks and his pal double neg-repped me? yeah... FU junior we put up you 3 ganging up on people all the time..


----------



## konradv (Oct 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



So now you're going to whine about things that didn't even happen?  Sorry "we're ganging up on you", but as far as "rep" goes, I don't play the game, because it's obviously rigged.  When some of the most worthless posters have high rep numbers, it's obvious that the CONS are scratching each others' back without regard to whether rep was deserved.


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Whose crying????? Looks to me you are... 

It did happen douchebag and its happened before as well, they do it all the time.. Now go cry about the rep you don't care about..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Now G-vig, you are welcome to return the favor. And you will soon have more rep than me anyway. Even senile ol' nits like Walleyes have accomplished that. After all, people that actually post from science on this board are by far the minority. Useless yap-yapers like you dominate the board.


----------



## konradv (Oct 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Who is "they"?  You talked about three of us, but I've never repped anyone one way or the other, so do you just make things up?  Oh right, that's the denier M.O., my bad!


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now G-vig, you are welcome to return the favor. And you will soon have more rep than me anyway. Even senile ol' nits like Walleyes have accomplished that. After all, people that actually post from science on this board are by far the minority. Useless yap-yapers like you dominate the board.



No tool, you got very little rep because you are a lying fraud with an agenda.. oh and a sexist who will try and use a gender attack to pathetically save his own ass....


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



They as in oldsocks and his pal trolling blunder.. What you didn't know he has other friends besides you? Sorry you had to hear it from me, but yeah hes been steppin out on ya little fella... And they did double neg me, socks doesn't even deny it..

And when there is the 3 of you in a thread you 3 DO gang up like dogs... now try and keep up junior having to repeat things for your slow ass is getting old...


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Your comment might have some validity if it weren't for the fact that some of the highest rep counts belong to libs.  Nice libs for the most part, who post accurate, non biased (for the most part) reasonable comments.  I pos rep them all the time.  They pos me back sometimes. 

You, and olfraud and trolling blunder have low rep rates because you are ignorant trolls.  NO ONE LIKES IGNORANT TROLLS, be they liberal or conservative.


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now G-vig, you are welcome to return the favor. And you will soon have more rep than me anyway. Even senile ol' nits like Walleyes have accomplished that. After all, people that actually post from science on this board are by far the minority. Useless yap-yapers like you dominate the board.







  I have a higher rep then you because I post real science and can back it up, I don't barrage people with 3rd grade insults, and I am nice.  Unlike you and your clones!


----------



## polarbear (Oct 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now G-vig, you are welcome to return the favor. And you will soon have more rep than me anyway. Even senile ol' nits like Walleyes have accomplished that. After all, people that actually post from science on this board are by far the minority. Useless yap-yapers like you dominate the board.
> ...



So, still the "samo-cRock" of shit going on here..day in day out.
Never mind him..how have You been...?
Did You have a chance to dust off Your rock hammer and bust some real old rocks that might have some real information inside?
Now that summer is over and we too had sub-zero temps for > 2 weeks I can squeeze out a little time to sit in front of my PC.
I spent the summer adding as much CO2 to the atmosphere as I could afford, trying to delay the arrival of winter, but to no avail.
Other than that things in Canada are getting quite pleasant again...since the liberals here got totally decimated in our last federal elections.
The new conservative majority Government`s first act was to scrap the much hated gun registry...and of course to get going on the new oil pipe-lines from Alberta to the refineries in Texas.
The few remaining left threaded wing nuts are howling because their dirty political  underwear has been pulled into tight wedgies,...but no-one here cares any more about these crack pots. So now they pitch tents and "occupy" this or that...
Or so they claim. In reality they pitch tents, leave them for show in some city parks and sleep off their dope hang-overs in well heated cushy hotel rooms. These phonies are now totally outraged after a few police videos shot with thermal imaging cameras were shown on the news and you could clearly see, that almost all  of tents  were not occupied @ night.
Same in your face  M.O. no matter if it`s "climate science", gay "rights" or whatever...
Oh yeah speaking of the latter...there is a new ice cold wind blowing too through our streets. Fags & lesbians have been informed, that freedom of speech can no longer be sabotaged with "gay right" law suits...if anyone says something that these perverts find "offensive"...
As promised during the election campaign Canada`s conservative Government is delivering after this long overdue land slide victory. 
In addition to that the number of jobs has gone up to a point were some Provinces have to raid for labor from other Provinces (>30 000) ...as our Oil Industry is gearing up to supply 100 instead of just 60% of the U.S`s needs.
So how many "green" jobs has Obama delivered so far...?


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


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






You know I actually did!  I and some of my friends from the Desert Research Institute trekked out to deep desert to do some digging around for a project they're working on.  I'm not at liberty to relate what the work is about but it was fun to get out and bust some rock again!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

gslack said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Got him, too.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 1, 2011)

gslack said:


> BTW, oldsocks you have now neg-repped me on the 19th and the 22nd... *Care to man up any time soon? Or you going to continue your little childish bullshit?*
> 
> Your pal is a liar and you lied for him. You know it, I know it.. If his method as he claimed was used YOU COULDN"T HAVE! You fraud... What you going to give me some lame excuse that you are using the old unsupported firefox now too?
> Sure tool, sure....You two are the most useless people on this forum. The fact you pull this shit like a little punk is no surprise at all...



What else can You expect from these dim wits?
And him "neg repping" You, that`s as good as an honor badge, considering where it`s coming from. 
You have to view that from another perspective.
And to  what level of stupidity one would have to descend so that a complete moron  would agree.
I have read what You wrote about that viglink script. The idiot who argued with You about that is on my ignore list, and it`s of no interest to me at all what he has to say about it.
But You may want to take note, that the US message board has embedded that Java script code in their web site.
Go to the home page and if You are running firefox click on "view", then on the drop down menu click on "Page source".
It will show You that ~ half way down:
prTracker();</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> var DR_id = "773";</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src=*"http://cdn.viglink.com*/api/merged.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");

I guess they find it necessary to scrounge up whatever loose change they can and my guess is also that the gay who is on my ignore list lacks the intelligence to embed a re-direct into any of the links he posts.
He and his crowd is hard pressed to go beyond copy/paste nothing but crap let alone understand how to hide a re-direct Java script command inside a URLink using no more than the HTML editor this website allows us to use.

And there is absolutely no way this moron or any of his crowd would know how to use Java script + hack a website like the US Message board to embed malicious Java code...which is the only other way to get it in here, if You don`t have administrative privileges to the site.

Anyway you can block viglink with firefoxes "NoScript" along with all the other crap like the "double clicknet", "skimresorces" "yahooapis" etc etc and still log on in here.
But You knew that + posted this recommendation here already

It may be that all who signed  on here gave the US messageboard a blank check with the terms of agreement to hijack some of our PC resources behind our back without explicitly informing us.
I admit I did not bother to read these terms of agreement in detail and would not worry about it unless they try to install malicious software using Java script like "on mouse over" etc as some attack sites try and do it.

I write some Java code like re-directs like that viglink crap for a joke and occasionally embed the link to my web site where the script later sends these morons who can only indulge in insults and name calling belong.
Then they can exchange insults with the "cussing elephant" till the cows come home..
Here is the plain unhidden link

http://askbernhard.9f.com/indexredirect.html

 
and after 10 000 milliseconds a visitor is sent here:
no more fuck off


I suggest You also let him do the talking when these morons spew their garbage at You again




This is the code :
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript"> 
<!--
 function getgoing()
  {
    top.location="http://www.thecussingelephant.com";
   }

   if (top.frames.length==0)
    {

     setTimeout('getgoing()',10000);
     }
function getgoing()
  {
    top.location="http://www.thecussingelephant.com";
   }
//--> 


Enjoy !!!
And Hi + my best greetings to You from Canada


----------



## polarbear (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I should really arrange a ride for You and Your rock hammer from AFB Trenton to AFB Thule or to CFS Alert.
The stuff You..  a fully qualified Geologist,would find, would there not just amaze You  but probably me as well. 
There is a lot more than just the remnants of huge Forests buried in the sands on Greenland`s and Ellesmere Island`s coast line, especially along the Nares Straight.


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2011)

hey polarbear! welcome back. always fun to read a poster who actually says something while he is insulting someone. or is it the other way around, I can never tell. anyways give em hell.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







That would be fun!  So far I've only had the pleasure of flying over Greenland on commercial jets.  Getting on the ground would be an absolute treat.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2011)

Hi Bi-Polar, been a long time. See that you are still the same old idiot.


----------



## gslack (Nov 1, 2011)

Hey polarbear, don't think we've met but if oldsocks dislikes you I will consider you a good guy.. Nice to meet ya!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 1, 2011)

gslack said:


> Hey polarbear, don't think we've met but if oldsocks dislikes you I will consider you a good guy.. Nice to meet ya!


Likewise Sir, likewise
 And Hi to IanC, glad to see You again too.
 @Westwall,...:
 The best way to get You up there, since most of northern Greenland &  Ellesmere is difficult to access unless You are a member of the armed  forces is to sneak You in as a temporary employee of a defense  contractor.
 The problem is, that You`ll be stuck there like everyone else for 6 Months,...like a regular military tour of duty.
 And that may be for part of the (arctic) winter, when its 24/7 pitch dark and extremely brutal weather conditions.
 But then again the other months You`ll have 24 hours daylight to do Your  prospecting and the guys up there won`t be stingy to arrange for  air/ground transportation to some real "honey-hole" sites.
 There are exotic rock formations up there You won`t find so easily elsewhere.
 Right now I would like to post a few numbers concerning some  discrepancies in the numbers many of the latest alarmist press releases  quote, concerning arctic sea ice extent.
 As usual most simply quotes everyone else and most are vague about their  primary data source or use the usual "NASA Scientists said.."  line to  butter up the credibility of their claims.
 For example this guy, which was quoted here before this viglink stuff was discussed..:

The Vanishing Arctic - Stefan Rahmstorf - Project Syndicate

 He claims :


> In September, the sea-ice cover on the Arctic Ocean melted all  the way back to the record-low level recorded in September 2007.


 Then he goes on to say that this was 4.4 *10^6 squ.kms..., in September 2007.
 These are the only numbers this supposedly neutral "scientist" presents us with in his entire statement.
 He does not directly say, that we dropped to a minimum of 4.4 m.squkms  but he did say it "melted all the way back to the record low level  recorded in September 2007".
 That`s not science by any stretch of imagination, but blatant spin  doctoring, attempting to establish an alarming trend for the casual  reader who has now already been mislead to believe that we have dropped  this year to the same minimum of 4.4 million square kilometers.
 And that is a lie, a very deliberate lie....plain for all to see if You take the trouble to look at the raw data yourself:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

 first off the minimum for 09/24/2007  was way down to 4 254 531  squkms
 and secondly the minimum this year   was no where near down to the level of 2007...:
 09/09/2011 sea ice minimum : 4 526 875

 not only have 272 344 square kilometers been conveniently swept under  the rug to bolster a false statement, but yet again and most importantly  a false trend has been bent into shape to fit a false statement.

 Let me put this fraud into perspective. 
 This spin doctor let an area the size of Arizona  disappear. 
 The term fraud does not even seem to exist in climate "science", but I`m  quite sure if this trickster attempted to pull a similar stunt in a  real estate deal the United States Government would certainly notice if  the entire State of Arizona just disappeared.

 This guy, is just as  blatant ...:
Arctic Ice Coverage in Decline - NASA - NetNewsledger.com

 Same M.O....! more or less. He puts NASA emblems all over his blog,  including using the word NASA inside his URL and tries to dazzle the  casual reader with essentially using only one single number, almost but  not quite the same as the fraudster above here


> Arctic sea ice extent on Sept. 9, the lowest point this year, was 4.33 million square kilometers


 He lets 196 875 more square kilometers disappear at the minumum point in  September this year. That "real estate deal" short changes the  equivalent of the entire State of Minnesota, and then as usual expands  this number swindle into yet another whole page bold print vanishing ice  doomsday scenario, using the Word "NASA" and "scientists" more than a  dozen times.

 Amazing what these people manage to squeeze out of a single number,  first by falsifying it and then adding the usual garnishments like  "NASA" and "Scientists".

This is the usual crap-science,  custom-tailored for the copy & paste- copy cats to spread shit it all over the internet to bolster Google ratings enough to make it useful enough for the consensus press....the same consensus press which makes a big head-line deal out of a junk of ice the size of tiny Manhattan  floating in the ocean...yet the spin doctors, nor the dummies that fall for them don`t even bat an eye lid when it comes to something the size of the entire State of Arizona.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 2, 2011)

Yo Polar..........wtf...........where ya been??!!! Likely frozen somewhere up there in Greenland!!

Well.......while you've been gone, Ian, wirebender and Westwall have been putting a serious hurting on the nutter contingent. IN fact, I updated the scoreboard just the other day after several threads were posted up and all the nutters could do was post up the same 5 or 6 links they've been posting up for years. The level of misery in the nutters has risen to stratospheric levels as is clearly illustrated in the anger in the posts.

Anyway..........the updated scoreboard as of late last week....................







By the way Polar........this asshole Rolling Thunder is most responsible for the nutters going into the negative in the scoreboard.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 2, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Yo Polar..........wtf...........where ya been??!!! Likely frozen somewhere up there in Greenland!!
> 
> Well.......while you've been gone, Ian, wirebender and Westwall have been putting a serious hurting on the nutter contingent. IN fact, I updated the scoreboard just the other day after several threads were posted up and all the nutters could do was post up the same 5 or 6 links they've been posting up for years. The level of misery in the nutters has risen to stratospheric levels as is clearly illustrated in the anger in the posts.
> 
> ...



Where have I been..? 
Outdoors mostly. You could not explore all the Lakes & Trails here in
several livetimes , but I`m trying.
Right now I`m still working on an addition to my house, which will
be my new workshop, since I`ve decided to clear out the basement for a
rec-room and make room for a snooker  + Fussball-table & stuff like that.

I had to leave my lathe & the other machine tools behind when I moved south from the Yukon, ...soon I`ll be in the market for for a lathe and a vertical milling machine...and there is no way, I'ld even try to lug that much iron down a set of basement steps...so I relocated all my "boy-toys" up on ground level.

Say how did You calibrate Your frustration/anger measurements for Your score board?
Seems to me I better quit cussing, unless I do it in German.
like *"Himmelherrgottskruzifixnochamalsauhundverrecktesdreckschwein"*
It`s something I say on occasion when the hammer missed the nail.
I`ll buy You a case of beer if You can say that in one go..!!!


----------



## polarbear (Nov 3, 2011)

IanC said:


> hey polarbear! welcome back. always fun to read a poster who actually says something while he is insulting someone. or is it the other way around, I can never tell. anyways give em hell.



But You, Westwall & many others do not feel insulted by what I have  to say...and that`s because people who appreciate real science rather  than occult & pseudo science like man made GW don`t get offended by  facts and numbers. Real science does not pepper statements with  superlatives and expressions like "polar ice shrinks *dramatically*"...or vague statements like "*substantially higher*", " *catastrophic consequences*", "*destroy whole nations*" and try to awe the public after all that crap with the usual:
 "*Most scientists agree* that global warming presents the *greatest threat to the environment.    *"
 No..!!!...*Real science* simply states numbers and facts and leaves it up to You  if that was dramatic, sensational or whatever You want to call it.

 I`ll illustrate it with a few examples...:
Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?



> *Most scientists agree* that global warming presents *the greatest threat to the environment.    *
> There is little doubt that the Earth is heating up. In the last century  the average temperature has climbed about* 0.6 degrees Celsius* (about 1  degree Fahrenheit) around the world.
> 
> However, the biggest danger, *many experts warn,* is that global warming  will cause sea levels to rise *dramatically.* Thermal expansion has  already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (*10 to 20 centimeters*)


This  is not science, it`s a fire and brimstone religious fanatic sermon and  it`s the moron following that gets insulted by math & numbers to the  contrary and then embark on a verbal lynching campaign.

 So, lets see how many venomous hate responses by OldRocks and the rest  of that Al Goracle flock will get spewed out here again, if I do the math on what this  expert "scientist" has been preaching..
 He forgot to preach specifically how much oceans have warmed, but these  "experts" come a dime a dozen and it`s easy to find another doomsday sermon like "if you don`t believe us, *then you  are destroying whole nations*" where it`s been blared from the pulpit, ...:

Global warning | Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case climate change predictions



> *                     Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case predictions*
> 
> 
> The ocean is warming about 50 per cent faster than reported two years ago, according to an update of the latest climate science.
> ...


 So Okay let`s do the math
 Since all the "experts agree" with each other I take the liberty to use  the 700 meters and the 0.1 Deg Celsius from this "expert scientist" and  the other 10 or 20 centimeters from the other "expert"..why not..? They  do claim they all agree with each other.

 I don`t need to consult any  of these "experts" to get the thermal expansion  coefficient for water. Science lesser than "climatology" and which is  said to have been corrupted by big oil money has measured that to be * 0.000207 per degree Celsius.

*They also say that the ocean surface on this planet amounts to 3.6 x 10^6 square kilometers.
 We need to find out the number of cubic kilometers the 700 meter thick  layer is, that the "experts" have agreed on warmed by 0.1 deg Celsius..
 so .7 X 3.6 X 10^8 comes out @ 252 000 000 cubic kilometers.

 Next we find out by how many cubic kilometers these 252 million cubic  kilometers actually will expand if you warm them up by 0.1 deg C
 and that would be :
 252 000 000 x  0.000207 x 0.1 = * 5216 *cubic kilometers

 Now lets convert the 20 cm rise in sea level the "experts" have agreed  on to a volume increase, using the 700 meter thick layer that as they  say has gotten warmer by 0.1 C...:

 so now we have .7002 x 3.6 x 10^8 = 252 072 000
 in their "climate science math" a 0.1 deg Celsius rise has expanded this body of water by *72 000 cubic kilometers..*.

 So in "climate science" water has a *14 times greater *or should I say *catastrophic  *expansion coefficient than physics has been using before the Al Goracle era.






 No matter which of their statements,...if You take a few minutes and do  the math You find exaggerations not just the usual verbal hype, but also in the  numbers and in the graphs with super expanded Y axis data and splice points to let inconvenient reality simply vanish..
 Like the ice coverage the size of Arizona are summarily "averaged" under the rug  and well established physical constants like the one used here are over bloated by 14 times...
 If OldRocks is as he claims a "mensa member" he should have spotted this kind of stuff without me rubbing his face into it


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2011)

*The* *Polar* *Bear* *is*............


*BAAAAAAAAAACK!!!*



Prepare for ENVIRONMENT SCOREBOARD armagheddon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




By the way Polar........the nutters on here are more pissed than ever given the big zero with greenhouse gas emissions legislation now going on over 3 years. As I keep pointing out.........nobody cares about the science shit anymore. But they keep on posting up the same stupid-ass links on glaciers and temperatures..........the same ones that have been around forever


----------



## polarbear (Nov 4, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *The* *Polar* *Bear* *is*............
> 
> 
> *BAAAAAAAAAACK!!!*
> ...



You probably meant to say "nobody cares about this shit-science anymore" instead of science shit.
After all real science has a lot to do with bringing this shit to it`s well deserved end.
I noticed that  this crap does not get the usual easy ride in the news media any more. So now it shows up in just about every other kiddy cartoon that my great grand kids are watching.
In cities like Toronto which is one of the few remaining liberal cluster-fucks left in Canada they have this asshole "Dr." Suzuki preaching it to little schoolkids. This usurp has zero background in Math, Physics or Chemistry.
He is an otherwise insignificant (Insect) Biology major who`s been sucking up multi million $$ "green" grants while the liberals were in power and spread this garbage on his do-goody TV show called "The Nature of Things"....which nobody watches any more.
Typical...there are hardly any adults, except the most naive getting sucked in by this crap any more...so now the GW activists target little kids at the kindergarten & elementary school level wherever the opportunity presents itself...
In Canada this has given rise to a backlash and many parents are protesting against this as vehemently as against that gay-brainwash garbage some of these teachers are trying to foist on innocent young minds....rightly so, I think, because I also think that this GW crap is down at the same level, installing a guilt complex in little kids, who in today`s weird world have already enough trouble coping...don`t You think...?


----------



## polarbear (Nov 4, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *The* *Polar* *Bear* *is*............
> 
> 
> *BAAAAAAAAAACK!!!*
> ...



Well I think You`ll like this science shit:

If You just want to get to the science part , then jump down over this text 
to the   ===  *Heat Transfer Experiment* ==== line

Real science is based on the study of reality, while GW attempts to dazzle us with wildly inaccurate
 computer models. The only thing that impresses me about these computer models is their co$t
certainly not their performance.
It is a lot of fun though to rip them into pieces and discover the flat earth "science" these
are based on..but we have discussed that already at length, before I went off on my summer vacation...

"calculations are based on a theoretical  flat black-body 1 square meter, near the
equator at constant pressure and humidity"...!!!

This crap be found buried deep  in the fine print that most don`t bother to read

Just consider how radically these computer models had been updated as real time lines
have caught up with the predictions and  none of these materialized....
There is not a single computer model that had it right to date.

Which in itself is quite outrageous, considering that these clowns still expect even today, that all the claims
they had made based on these older and admitted as faulty models should still stand, considering
the economical damage these quacks have caused during their hay days and the kind of
vendettas and smear campaigns they have unleashed on anyone who dared to be critical.

Meanwhile the real science, that  GW critics  used to disprove these quack CO2 GW
hypothesis needed no updating whatsoever.
The problem was, that the general public was in no position who was right and "climatologists"
used that to their full advantage devoting much time & many resources for self promoting P.R. 
 and equally as much launching vicious personal attacks on anyone who had scientific
prove to the contrary.
But the not so general public especially people who have a background in Physics, Chemistry & Math
had no trouble at all seeing past the smoke & mirrors.
But even amongst Physicists there is only a limited number of people who had expertise and
experience in Infrared Absorption and IR spectroscopy , coupled with a strong background in
general Physics, especially in Thermodynamics and the Math of statistics & trend evaluation.

So, the general public was a "soft target" to borrow a phrase from the war against terrorism
and the IPCC gangsters were fully aware of that fact.

I use this phrase because I do think that their tactics and their aim is as damaging to
society as run of the mill terrorism if  not greater.


I have cited the facts about how little IR radiation CO2 can absorb , have posted actual experimental
Data by some of the world's foremost experts, ...have posted many calculations showing
how & by how much the GW fraudsters have cheated, slanted and spliced statistics data etc etc.

But perhaps it's better to post a physics experiment here, that anyone can carry out, to settle once and
for all how our globe really  warms, when it does so after emerging from an ice age.
There is not a single GW (..is caused by CO2 )  advocate who will not claim that the "ice sheets are shrinking
at an alarming rate"...due to CO2 in our "unusually warm" atmosphere.
So what are they saying...?  that the ice at both poles are melting from the top down.
But by now almost everyone knows that  once a junk of ice has calved into the ocean
9/10th  of the mass is submerged and once the mass becomes top heavy as the water it is
submerged in has dissolved enough mass below the water line,...ice bergs roll.
When they do, it is spectacular and You`ll have no trouble at all finding such footage on Youtube.

Would they melt from the top down,  then there would be no cause for any ice berg to roll !!!

So GW preaches predictably, that the oceans have been (excessively) warmed and that this warming has been
enhanced by us raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Lets get one thing straight. GW preachers will  taint anyone who argues about the CO2 having caused
the warming of our oceans immediately as a "denier" even if You never even argued that the oceans
or the atmosphere did get warmer... and You only  argue  what caused it

They deliberately blur the point of contention to evade the onus of proof,  which would compel them
to prove that this ocean warming was caused by the additional CO2 and not just by solar activity.
..which by the way *is a constant in every single one of their idiotic computer models*


=========== *The heat transfer experiment *==========================

Well , I can suggest  an experiment that can settle that once and for all.
If You think I cheated, do it yourself or submit it to "Mythbusters".
Actually the latter would not be a bad idea, then we could all watch this GW crap getting stamped  
"BUSTED" and see it croak on TV...if they had the guts to address the subject...but taking a look
how  politically correct  the crew make-up is, I  don`t see any guts

Never mind them, this You can easily do at home.
All You need is a thermometer, a blow torch,...a $ 15 plumber's butane soldering torch will do fine.. 
a 100 watt heat lamp and a suitable  container for water , ...I used a 12 by 8 inch , 6 inch deep
square plastic container, and some water at room temperature.


CO2 GW  quacks are telling you that  the oceans are being heated excessively by air that is unusually warm because
of the elevated COO content ....+ some more blah blah blah 
Real scientists will tell you, that if the oceans have gotten warmer that this is due to increased solar
activity and has absolutely nothing to do with CO2....minus any blah blah blah

All it takes is the items I listed and 2 hours of Your time to find out in 2 steps  who is right.

Step one:
fill the container to a 2 inch water level with water that you have allowed before to equilibrate
with the ambient room temperature.
Lay the thermometer flat  in the container, so it is submerged at the bottom.

So now lets see what it takes to make this submerged thermometer register an increase in
temperature by trying to heat this small body of water from the top, not just with unusually
warmer air, fuck we`ll use a wide open blow torch..!!!

I think after trying one or more hours You get the point...the  thermometer indication
does not even budge...

Take it from me it won`t budge even if You use a > 2000 degree hot Oxy- Acetylene torch instead
of a Propane or Butane & air torch flame.

In my experiment the initial volume of water was  3.15 liters and it was at  26 deg Celsius..
So why would the thermometer at the bottom stay pinned at 26 deg C...?

The answer is easy and even visible if You keep Your eyes peeled while You try this.
Instead of heating the water below the immediate surface the energy is expended by
evaporating the water at the surface.
Water has a rather high "latent heat" value, ... 9700 cals per Mol (= per 18 grams H2O) or
2260 K-Joules per Kilogram, @ 100 deg C or about  2500 K-Joules /Kg between -40 and + 40 deg C

You can see the evaporation and You can even measure it.
In my experiment the water level was down by  7 millimeters after one hour.
But the submerged thermometer *did not climb one iota up from the 26 deg.*

Instead of  the water heating up when You apply  "hot air"...even in the form of 
> 400 deg Celsius hot gas from a  blow torch,  water just evaporates from the
surface, while the bulk of water below the surface stays pinned.

In my experiment, a 7 mm drop in water level  corresponded to a drop in
volume from 3.15 liters to 2.75 liters after torching for 1 hour...and
try it yourself, the thermometer just 2 inches below the surface stayed pinned @ 
constant temperature.
The energy absorbed by the water through evaporation from the blow torch was 
216 of Kilocalories...= 250 Watts...!!!


Now let`s see what happens  if instead of trying to heat the water from the
top with a (really hot) gas or hot air, we heat it by irradiating it with less than
half  the energy with a 100 watt heat lamp...much the way what happens
as sunlight is absorbed by water..:

Well in my experiment the heat lamp was 1 foot above the water surface
and after only 45 minutes I was already past  40 degrees Celsius


But,...You may ask....what happens with the energy contained in the water
vapor that my blow torch has evaporated.
Yes in a closed room that would matter and near the ceiling over
top of your experiment a thermometer would  register a higher temperature

However out in the open the fact that moist air is way lighter than dry air 
convection  updrafts develop rapidly.
Convection up draft speeds of  ~  3000 feet per minute are common.
This speed increases with altitude...and as the altitude increases and
this air de-compresses it cools down and the evaporation thermal energy  
will be  largely expended by lifting a corresponding weight of air and water  over this distance
against the force of gravity...and that of course consumes it`s exact energy equivalent in 
calories or Btu`s of as many foot pounds mechanical energy was
required to lift this mass to this height.

The height will be wherever the moist  air crosses over the dew point conditions.
Once these conditions are satisfied the water will condense from the vapor phase
back to the liquid phase and form clouds

Whatever energy remained at that point appears again as
heat energy when the water vapor condenses as "latent heat".

But as reality has it, this heat energy is now re-dissipated
at high altitudes...where the ambient temperatures are subzero
and  has already been carried way above the corridor where GW quacks are
trying to con You into believing that the CO2 is trapping
secondary "black-body IR"  near the surface and that
therefore CO2  "amplifies" the solar heating component and
that therefore this unusually hotter air warms also
our oceans unusually faster...

So, after trying to heat water from the top with a blow torch and 
later with a heat lamp and compare the results You no longer
need to believe ...You can draw Your own conclusions

And once You have, use the blow torch and please do  light a fire under
some asses..!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

