# Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2012)

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Maybe that's why  *James Lovelock has retracted his alarmist views on global warming. *Noted author of the Gaia hypothesis garnered attention in 1979 with his views on the globe as a self-managing system. He now recants his position that the world is headed for catastrophic change in climate. According to an MSNBC report, Lovelock admitted, all right, I made a mistake. He admits that global warming is not happening as he expected. What did he expect? Along with other alarmists like Al Gore, Lovelock expected rising temperatures to force folks to live in the Arctic, the only place on earth for tolerable temperatures. 

Gaia author James Lovelock recants on global warming - Worldnews.com


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2012)

AGAIN... I really would like AlGore et.al. "Glaciers are melting so fast that the coasts of Florida and other water fronts will be under water before 2040"  ..
explain how even with the glaciers melting that add annually the equivalent of  .000056% of all the water in all the oceans!

There are 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

The addition of 385 billion tons of water by melting glaciers would add 
OK... the equivalent of  .000056% of all the water in all the oceans!

This is the same as 23 ounces of water in an 648,000 gallons of an Olympic pool!


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 3, 2012)

Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Listening (Jun 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists - CSMonitor.com



Hey stupid !

This article compares melting to 10 years ago.

The OP is comparing to 80 years ago.

Wow......you just don't get it.  You've got the Kool-Aid needle stuck so far up your arm you can't bend your elbow.  Pay attention and digest the difference.

Or is that possible for you ?


----------



## Clementine (Jun 3, 2012)

It is always wise to look at the big picture.   Gore seems more interested in making billions and redistributing our wealth through cap and trade policies than global warming.   If he and his ilk were concerned, they'd be walking the walk.   They wouldn't jet around and own several large mansions.   They make a huge footprint compared to most and yet they want us to believe they are concerned. 

I look at what they do, not what they say.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

Nature Geoscience 5,37&#8211;41(2012)doi:10.1038/ngeo1349Received 21 June 2011 Accepted 14 November 2011 Published online 11 December 2011 

During the early 2000s the Greenland Ice Sheet experienced the largest ice-mass loss of the instrumental record1, largely as a result of the acceleration, thinning and retreat of large outlet glaciers in West and southeast Greenland2, 3, 4, 5. The quasi-simultaneous change in the glaciers suggests a common climate forcing. Increasing air6 and ocean7, 8 temperatures have been indicated as potential triggers. Here, we present a record of calving activity of Helheim Glacier, East Greenland, that extends back to about AD&#8201;1890, based on an analysis of sedimentary deposits from Sermilik Fjord, where Helheim Glacier terminates. Specifically, we use the annual deposition of sand grains as a proxy for iceberg discharge. Our record reveals large fluctuations in calving rates, but the present high rate was reproduced only in the 1930s. A comparison with climate indices indicates that high calving activity coincides with a relatively strong influence of Atlantic water and a lower influence of polar water on the shelf off Greenland, as well as with warm summers and the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Our analysis provides evidence that Helheim Glacier responds to short-term fluctuations of large-scale oceanic and atmospheric conditions, on timescales of 3&#8211;10 years.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate. 

All else is just human speculation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register
> 
> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!
> ...



*So, let's look at the whole article by the scientists.*


Analyzing the images, the researchers found two events that stood out most over the past 80 years: glacial retreats in 1933-34 and from 2000 to 2010. In the 30s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning they had no contact with the sea. 
But those that were melting were retreating at the average rate of 65 feet per year and up to 1,225 feet per year. More than 50 percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates in the 30s than they do today.

While melting rates are not occurring as fast as they were in the 30s, more glaciers are retreating today. And, while the average ice loss is around 150 feet per year, that is because a few glaciers have very fast melting rates, driving the average up.

Source: redOrbit (80-Year-Old Photos Aid In Greenland Ice Melt Study - Science News - redOrbit)


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html

Widespread retreat of glaciers has been observed along the southeastern margin of Greenland. This retreat has been associated with increased air and ocean temperatures. However, most observations are from the satellite era; presatellite observations of Greenlandic glaciers are rare. Here we present a unique record that documents the frontal positions for 132 southeast Greenlandic glaciers from rediscovered historical aerial imagery beginning in the early 1930s. We combine the historical aerial images with both early and modern satellite imagery to extract frontal variations of marine- and land-terminating outlet glaciers, as well as local glaciers and ice caps, over the past 80 years. The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 3, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register
> 
> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!
> ...



Well Lovelock is wrong! He should have stuck with his original statement.

And you should watch this....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1]HOME - YouTube[/ame]

If you don't have the patience to sit for 90 minutes or so and hear things that rock your beliefs you can catch good VIDEO and hear SCIENTIFIC evidence of the catastrophe looming in the arctic at 1:01:15 in this video.

Give the whole thing a view though if you can. You could learn a lot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.
> 
> All else is just human speculation.



I see. The worldwide deglaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the differance between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 3, 2012)

A brief cooling period starting in the mid-20th century allowed new ice to form, with melting starting to accelerate again in the 2000s, says Jason Box, associate professor of geography and researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.





Greenland in the early 1930s.

Discarded photos of Rasmussen expedition show pattern of glacier melt | TG Daily


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html
> 
> Widespread retreat of glaciers has been observed along the southeastern margin of Greenland. This retreat has been associated with increased air and ocean temperatures. However, most observations are from the satellite era; presatellite observations of Greenlandic glaciers are rare. Here we present a unique record that documents the frontal positions for 132 southeast Greenlandic glaciers from rediscovered historical aerial imagery beginning in the early 1930s. We combine the historical aerial images with both early and modern satellite imagery to extract frontal variations of marine- and land-terminating outlet glaciers, as well as local glaciers and ice caps, over the past 80 years. The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.



Because the ocean warmed up. And just to let you know the warm currents that are natural in the ocean shift and go through geographical cycles. 

Or you can just be silly and blame it on your car exhaust.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.
> ...



The glaciers have advanced and retreated hundreds of times throughout history. Which of course was long before humans ever came to be.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

The great lakes and their basin was created by advancing and retreating glacial activity.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 3, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.



Very scientific.

NOT!

There is plenty that scientists DON'T know I'll admit that. But they've got a pretty good fix on what is "natural" and what is not on this planet.

Almost unanimously all CREDIBLE scientists agree that the rate the climate has been changing in the last 50 years does NOT fit any "natural" cycles of the planet.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.
> ...



Nonsense. This planet is 4.6 billion years old and our scientists can only go back so far through ice cores. We can only speculate what the human impact has been. Shit New studies are now saying that gas from decaying dinosaurs and thermal vents along with the flatulence of dinosaurs was far greater than that produced by man thus far.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 3, 2012)

Mars was once in the distant past a geologically active planet with liquid water on its surface. No cars to kill the planet. No humans to pollute it, yet it is now dead. 

Our own moon is slowly drifting away from our planet just as we are drifting away from the sun. Is that man's doing too? 

Your unproven alarmist scare tactics are just that....UNPROVEN.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

It's good to see the OP sensibly ditched this train wreck!


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> ...



And you should please discredit then glacier melt water adds the equal to one cup of water being added to a swimming pool.

Supposedly 385 billion tons of ice equal at 2,000 lbs/ton at 64 oz per gallon a total of 
12,031,250,000,000 gallons  (12.03 trillion)

But with 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

that is equal to 0.0000351%  or equal to adding a cup of water to a swimming pool!


Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.



Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Lordy, lordy. You really are that stupid. No one is saying that Greenland will lose all it's ice by 2035. What they are talking about is the possibility that by present trends of melting, the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free for part of the summer by 2035. Really, you should ramp up your reading comprehension.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.
> ...




I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in. 

All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.



Good lord. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Quite on the contrary, you are not open to any science that contradicts your political ideology. Reality has a way of trumping ideology, usually to the chagrin of the ideologues.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.
> 
> All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?



Yes, I can argue that point. However, in a scientific arguement one has to go to the source of the evidence. That you object to that simply demonstrates that you have no such evidence for your side. Just political yap-yap.

A 100 ppm increase, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, in CO2 caused the continental glacier to melt. During the last interglacial, the CO2 level hit 300 ppm and the sea level was roughly 10 meters higher than today. 

Now we are at 390+ ppm of CO2. While the glaciers cannot respond quickly to the rise, they are responding. And the melting of the continental glaciers will raise the sea level far higher than the last interglacial. Not in my lifetime, nor those of my children, but it will happen. And the cost will be major, far more than it would have cost to address this issue 40 years ago.

By the midpoint of this century, I expect the CO2 level to be around 500 ppm, and the CH4 to be near 4 ppm.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Mars was once in the distant past a geologically active planet with liquid water on its surface. No cars to kill the planet. No humans to pollute it, yet it is now dead.
> 
> Our own moon is slowly drifting away from our planet just as we are drifting away from the sun. Is that man's doing too?
> 
> Your unproven alarmist scare tactics are just that....UNPROVEN.



Holy shit dumbest post of the day. Congrats!

What any of what you listed out has to do with Global warming or whatever loose connection you are trying to make is fucking hilarious. You idiots never cease to amaze and entertain.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Post your 'scientific' sources, asshole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
 Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;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&#8212;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&#8211;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.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Fuck you, you foil-hat piece of shit.  The reason this doesn't get discussed on radio is because radio appeals to tinfoil-hat fucktards who would be cartoon-ostriches because _real ostriches_ don't put their heads into the sand.

Sure let's listen to Rush, and sort anything out.  At every forum like this are loads of skeptics, who won't add up the big picture, how CO2 went all the way to 400 ppm, how it forms carbonic acid in water, how methane is added in, how warming and acidification are accelerating.

You are just the latest asshole, to try to rant up a fight, with your ass in traffic.  The skeptics all try to get a thread like this, in any forum I've seen, operate with wingpunk-wingmen, post a load of shit, all dealing with foil-hat theories and junk science.  Meanwhile, warming and acidification and species die-offs are _accelerating._

Monkeys will wind up as Bush-meat, asshole.  If the oceanic food chain goes, the food chain on land is next.  Humans can lose population and habitat.  And over at the other threads, the wingnuts are spamming with a lot of junk science, about how GHGs actually function, like ozone, but their quote in quote in quote is really only a lot of cheerleading, with their heads up each others' asses, and their tinfoil-hat science is in the shitter.

Who cares who thinks he is liberal or conservative?  We re-green, biomass and all, or we risk death, loss of habitat, and extinction.  Shove your Rush-show radio up your butt!  

You ought to head on over there, to the other threads, Pissmonkey.  The wingpunk posses are tired.  One of them, Q-bag, admitted he's gay, when I pointed out how the wingpunk posses were all like the queers of the 1970s and 80s, who wanted to keep bath-housing, shooting speed, and tricking, while HIV moved quickly, to full-blown AIDS.  Eat shit and die, Pissmonkey.  Your monkeylove is queer as a three-dollar-bill.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.
> ...



The only one to bring politics into this IS YOU. Science trumps politics because its based in FACT while your politics is based in EMOTION. 

I have yet to see anything but CLAIMS of proof of anything in this thread. Nothing but emotional hyperbole disguised as fact. 

I will also admit that it is likely we are having an impact. Difference being to what degree and of course the fact that I'm not willing to settle for some bullshit lifestyle so some schmuck 2000 years from now doesn't have to deal with a one or two degree increase in temperature. You guys are the same wackos that would stop driving cars if you thought it would save some exotic species of grasshopper in South America.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

AGU Responds to Op-ed

AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012 

03 February 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, &#8220;Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.&#8221;

As we look at the ever-increasing attacks on those whose research has established the fact that climate change is real and human activity is most probably the cause, Moynihan&#8217;s sentiment still holds true. There are those who would want us to believe that climate change isn&#8217;t happening and that human activity isn&#8217;t playing a role, but unfortunately wishful thinking won&#8217;t make the facts disappear.

Attacking the character and motives of a scientist or organization because they stand behind a conclusion that is politically charged &#8211; that the Earth's climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming &#8211; is counterproductive and short sighted. Likewise, we ignore the scientific evidence for climate change at our peril because it will have an impact on national security, the economy, our food supply, and many other areas that affect our health and well-being. 

The research and discovery process that has led scientists to these conclusions is governed by well-established and widely accepted practices designed to ensure the integrity of scientific findings. These same methods have also brought civilization profound achievements like human flight, life-saving vaccines, electric power and the Internet.

As leaders from around the world tackle the challenge of addressing and mitigating the impacts of changing climate, there are three things they can be assured of: (1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Real science from the world's largest scientific society of physicists'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> AGU Position Statement
> 
> ...



This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse&#8208;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register



According to a guy who thinks man can influence the global climate:



> It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.
> 
> Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.





> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!


 Are you unable to read?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Bobgnote, 

Welcome to ignore fool. I should neg you, but wont stoop to your level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> ...



Only because of the ban on CFCs. 

Ozone Hole Watch: What is the Ozone Hole?

Are you ever going to research anything before you post foolishness?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Damn. Not what I would expect to see posted from someone with any intellect at all. And it is not one or two degrees in a thousand years. It is four or more degrees by the end of this century.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.
> ...



I'm not disputing your facts. I'm questioning your conclusions. 

And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics. Politicians on both sides spew nonsense if they think it will garner them favor.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



A sustained rise of that nature would be catastrophic. Many tropical rain forests would turn to deserts and the ocean levels would rise to levels that would engulf all coastal regions. 

I've seen the argument for that case as well as the opposing views.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.



I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Politicians on both sides spew nonsense if they think it will garner them favor.



They do.

But geographers don't, physicists don't, and spcialists in glaciers don't. 

And they all firmly back Old Rocks argument.

Here are just 3 of more than 50 statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science

 As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

    The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[48] 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.

European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[50] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

    The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

    It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
    CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGU Responds to Op-ed
> 
> AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012
> 
> ...



That would be valid.. IF the entire world's temperature taking was the basis.. BUT 
with 12.5% of the World's land mass NOT being included in the temperature stations around the world.. HOW could any scientist conclude the data inclusive?
Consider this.. if you have 5 kids each 5 ft tall and 1 kid 3 ft tall what is the average?
4.6 is the average.. BUT when you drop out the 3 ft kid.. average  increases to 5 !

I know this is very simple BUT evidently you and other global warming supporters are
dealing with SKEWED data...


     The number of [Siberian ]stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
     then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present Only four stations,
     those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

    IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
    populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
    more frequently than the correct data of remote stations

    The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions  
     for Russia accounting   for 12.5% of the worlds land mass.

    The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order  
    to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

*The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region.* Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). *PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules.* PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



OK...let's go with your current statement here.

BTW, there have been five major glaciations in the history of the earth....not hundreds.

Approximately 20,000 years ago the last ice age was at its peak. How do scientists know this? By studying chemical isotopes in existing sediments, geological evidence in the form of structures and core samples from ice and sediment, and paleontological evidence.

Based upon this, scientists know this interglacial period we humans have lived in began about 11,000 years ago. The natural cycle (based on the earth's evidence) is for an interglacial period to last anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 years.

So you see....there is just NO way to explain the rate of glacial melting away on "natural" cycles. Nature requires thousands of years for changes like we've seen in just the past 50 to occur.

We DON'T have much more time for skeptics like you to mess around with debating on whether the science is "real." This argument was formulated by industry to protect the profit driven interests of industry. It's all about the status quo and short term fortunes. It is disengenious of you to simply assume the role of unwitting mouthpiece for these interests but that is what you and others like you are doing even though you may not even have any vested interest at all of your own in their agenda. It is NOT a "liberal" versus industry argument!

We MIGHT already be past the point of no return in this climate catastrophe. If you're as old as me you might just get out of here in time. If you have any children and grandchildren though....forget about it. They are doomed!


"However, climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000
have been higher than even the highest predictions,
Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster
than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become
more rapid.* Feedbacks in the climate system might lead
to much more rapid climate changes."*


http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

*In this context, the kind of material used by climate-change skeptics to cast doubt on global warming  whether it be a handful of emails stolen from an East Anglian research facility or a few errors in an IPCC report  are meaningless.* The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world.

Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that global warming is real. The time to start working on solutions is now.

Scientific consensus on global warming | Environmental Defense Fund


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

NASA - Ozone Levels Drop When Hurricanes Are Strengthening

In a recent study, Xiaolei Zou and Yonghui Wu, researchers at Florida State University found that variations of ozone levels from the surface to the upper atmosphere are closely related to the formation, intensification and movement of a hurricane. 

They studied ozone levels in 12 hurricanes and looked at total ozone levels, that is, from the ground to the upper atmosphere. Now scientists have clues on how a hurricane behaves when the ozone levels are high and low. 

Zou and Wu noticed that over 100 miles, the area of a hurricane typically has low levels of ozone from the surface to the top of the hurricane. Whenever a hurricane intensifies, it appears that the ozone levels throughout the storm decrease. When they looked at the storm with ozone data a hurricane's eye becomes very clear. Because forecasters always try to pinpoint the eye of the hurricane, this knowledge will help with locating the exact position and lead to better tracking.


Now im no genius but im pretty sure hurricanes arent fueled by freon


----------



## Saigon (Jun 4, 2012)

> And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics.





> Liberalism is a disease



Grampa - 

Perhaps you should have changed your sig line before you posted the first quote here....?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Actually to be technical about it there have only been 3 major ones. However there have been hundreds of mini ice ages


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Point taken, but it has nothing to do with science and my opinions or level of knowledge on it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

If anyone would tell me how to make this graph appear rather than text I would appreciate it


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AGU Responds to Op-ed
> ...



Your post is a PERFECT example of  the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com


----------



## FJO (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.
> ...



Only to a liberal free-loading and hypocritical excuse of a human being would the existence and activities of humans seem no "natural".


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

FJO said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Actually in nature it does happen "naturally" for species to "foul" their own nests so to speak. Higher organisms usually move on to fresh new surroundings when it happens.

I have heard of some bacteria that actually poison themselves with their own wastes until they simply die off.

Back to the former, our dillemma is that we can't simply "move on" from our planet once we start experiencing the large scale die-off that results from fouling our "nest."


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature
> 
> *The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region.* Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). *PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules.* PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.



Old Rocks?

You asked, I gave, you disappeared..........


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg


So were the vikings driving too many cars? Their temperatures were warmer than ours.....


----------



## Saigon (Jun 4, 2012)

FJO said:


> Only to a liberal free-loading and hypocritical excuse of a human being would the existence and activities of humans seem no "natural".



Um....you might want to go away and think about that one a bit, and then get back to us.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg
> 
> 
> So were the vikings driving too many cars? Their temperatures were warmer than ours.....



It's funny...I think this kind of statement here must have been addressed at least once a week for the past year. 

Yes, there were other warming periods - but that does not mean that they were all caused by the same thing, does it?

If you research something like the Minoan Warming Period, you'll find explanations as to what caused it, and how we know what caused it.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg
> ...



These people don't want to "research" anything!

They are on a "loop" of illogical talking points....like a record stuck in a groove.

They don't know WHY they say the things they do. They've been programmed and they're determined to keep saying the SAME things no matter what EVIDENCE they may see to the contrary!


----------



## FJO (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your first sentence convinced me not to indulge in a conversation/debate with you.

EVER!!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Another cause of temperature fluctuations

Rossby wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

FJO said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



thats why I instantly put him straight to the ignore list


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. 
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!




How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?



The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism


----------



## FJO (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> ...



Nature always repair itself. Two years after the eruption of |Krakatoa, only Al Gore and his acolytes would argue otherwise. Same thing about Mt. St. Helens.

Nature only has problems when self-promoting idiots try to interfere.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.
> ...


Most of the shit you eat is from your head being up your own asshole, Punkmonkey.  You throw murk from your own ass, cuss at the onlookers, and now you are pussing out on me, oh, fucking-wow.  Dumbshit.  Read O.R.'s content.

If you come up with a smart rant, don't forget to thank Old Rocks, for loaning you a brain.


----------



## FJO (Jun 4, 2012)

Nothing to worry about. The ocean levels will NOT rise.

After all, the new Messiah of mankind told us so, during his presidential campaign in 2008.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Crawl back under your rock loser. This website as well as this thread will do just fine without your pointless hate and off topic posts.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



I was with you until right here. A weather system off the coast of Africa can be mild yet spawn some of the worst storms on earth by the time it hits the US. Then you have the jet stream which can take a warm body of air and shift it north to mix with a cooler airmass thus resulting in thunderstorms that suck all the heat out resulting in much cooler temperatures.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...





*It is 12.5% of the WORLD's land mass not one continent.
Of the 57,491,000 square miles: 36,794,240,000 acres of the entire world,

7,186,375 square miles NOT included in these reading!*

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

_*The readings are from FIXED sites around the world.  Except for 12.5% of the world's land mass is "cold biased".. i.e. discounted because it is too cold!  Too cold!*_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Aw, Murkmonkey throws monkeycrap, gets roasted, and now, you think you aren't Bush-meat, for some reason.  You're my bitch, Murkmonkey.  Glaciers are receding, warming and acidification are accelerating, and you are a punk, who wants to wear a tinfoil hat and claim that will make any problems go away.

But your logic is circular, since your head is up your monkey-butt, eating your own monkey-crap, and when you pull your stinking, little head, out of your butt, you toss turds, instead of logical discourse, so eat your own shit, and die.

Your posts have moved from stupid and hostile to stupid and wussy, since I started posting.  And then there is the matter of your shit, about Rossby waves, which is part shit, part clue.  Rossby waves refer to variations in a closed system, which is warming, even if the jet stream stays on the same course (Bushwacks!) or varies.

Warming may affect Rossby waves and therefore the jet stream.  Siberia is melting, fires killed a lot of Russians in 2010, and Bangladesh and Pakistan caught an even wetter shitstorm, than usual, from jet stream migration and stagnation.  Rossby waves do not affect the overall equation, of warming and acidification.  But species die, and humans might be on the endangered list, from warming phenomena, including weird jet-stream variance.

The planet is still heating up, Murkmonkey.  The glaciers are receding.  When your head is up your own butt, eating your own monkeycrap, I will be happy to keep posting, to inform you about all this, since you dissed Old Rocks, who posted better links and discourse, without flames, than you posted, with flames.  You need to read my posts, to get you to the perfectly barbecued state, which you deserve.  Eat your own shit and die, punk!


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



I THINK we are on the same page and understanding one another?

You just restated my point though I think.

The little micro-episodes in the atmosphere like thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ect. are simply the result of the laws of physics. The atmosphere is constantly seeking a balance of energy. Because of differential heating between the poles and the lower latitudes, land masses and water, and the spinning of the earth combined with it's tilt on its axis, an equal amount of solar insolation is never provided to all spots on the globe at exactly the same time. This creates imbalances of energy so the atmosphere is in constant motion trying to mix itself up again all the time seeking equilibrium....which it never finds. Again....that is why we have what we call "weather."

The only relationship that weather has to the long term trend of global warming though is that the more "energy" that is reaching the planet and being reflected back into the atmosphere from the surface the more of these "weather events" will occur.

Global warming skeptics like to point to unusually mild winters or slow hurricane seasons as "proof" that the energy increase in the atmosphere is a "myth." It doesn't work that way though because they aren't looking at longer term trends.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Huffing the Rustoleum a bit early aren't you?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register
> 
> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!
> ...



Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead.  Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> ...



You lose all credibility.

Antarctic ozone hole still there.  Climate Change: News

Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been gradually declining as the result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone layer. That international treaty caused the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals, which had been used widely in refrigeration, as solvents and in aerosol spray cans.

However, most of those chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades. Global atmospheric computer models predict that stratospheric ozone could recover by midcentury, but the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist one to two decades longer, according to the latest analysis in the 2010 Quadrennial Ozone Assessment issued by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with co-authors from NASA and NOAA.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



I think we agree there for the most part.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/temp_2012_MERRA_SH.html


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Again, the atmosphere over the particular landmass doesn't stay there!

EVER!

It moves away to mix with rest of the atmosphere which IS being measured at other points around the globe.

You don't seem to understand that.

Even if your argument had any merit (which it doesn't) what would it mean?

12.5% of the LAND on the planet doesn't appear to be warming while the other 87.5% of the surface of the earth IS warming?

It's not possible but even if it were so what?

The earth's atmosphere is STILL warming....we know that greenhouse gasses contribute to this....and we know that WE as a species contribute to greenhouse gasses at a rate which the planet cannot process naturally (like say....natural volcanic eruptions, ect.)

Gee, maybe we can just move the entire 7 billion population of the earth to that magical little 12.5% of land and then we can continue to foul the entire atmosphere and everybody will survive anyway?

Or better yet we can ignore the FACTS and just depend on that little patch of Siberia to magically reverse the trend and COOL the rest of the planet at the last minute!


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

FJO said:


> Nature always repair itself. Two years after the eruption of |Krakatoa, only Al Gore and his acolytes would argue otherwise. Same thing about Mt. St. Helens.
> 
> Nature only has problems when self-promoting idiots try to interfere.


You pompous punkhole.  When volcanoes erupt, nature is not repairing the human habitat.

Sure, nature will adjust.  Species die, when their habitat won't support them, any longer.  Fuck you, if you think the way to deal with climate change is to let the seas acidify, rise, claim coastal cities, and then tides massage up some eruptions, so the volcanoes get to settle all this, you incredible, dumbfuck moron.

Let's roll tide all the way to bacteria blooms, so Yellowstone will hurry the fuck up, where the 25 by 35 mile wide magma chamber is pushing up the land an average of 1", per year, and this big fucker will take out the US breadbasket, for years at a time, when it blows.  

Of course!  Let's let carbonic acidification take out the oceanic food chain, right away.  Nature will fix THAT, won't she.  She'll fix it faster, the more you fuck her up, punk.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



The conditions

Decomposition of the CFC's leads to chlorine monoxide radicals (ClO).  These can then react with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to form chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) or with nitrogen monoxide (NO) and methane (CH4) to form hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3).  We will not focus on the chemistry here, but it is important to know that both HCl and ClONO2 do not react with ozone but are rather stable compounds and remove chlorine from the ozone destruction mechanism. 

It is only under certain meteorological conditions that ozone holes form.  It took over two years of research at the British Research Station at Halley Bay in Antarctica to finally understand what these conditions are.

1.  One factor is the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. During the night temperatures can be as low as -80 oC over Antarctica.  Under these conditions, nitric acid and water form stratospheric ice clouds.  On the surface of the ice, hydrochloric acid and ClONO2 react with each other to form nitric acid and molecular chlorine (Cl2). 

2.  Molecular chlorine (Cl2) is a stable molecule which does not react with ozone.  However, it is easily broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the Sun to form two chlorine radicals which can then attack and destroy ozone.

So high levels of molecular chlorine (Cl2) can be produced in the stratosphere at the poles during the winter.  In the spring, the Sun reappears and levels of solar ultra-violet radiation increase.  This ultra-violet radiation breaks down the Cl2 into chlorine radicals, these then destroy ozone and an ozone hole forms.   As a result, we see the ozone hole at the same time each year and ozone levels don't recover until the ice clouds thaw and the chlorine radicals are removed by other reactions.

- ozone hole & CFC's


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Thanks for making my point. The holes form every September then recover (naturally)


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Ozone Hole Gone | Musings from the Chiefio

An intresting read on the ozone...

snip:

IMHO, the &#8220;Ozone Hole&#8221; has gone away. At best, it&#8217;s now a &#8220;chaotic density&#8221; pattern. More likely, it&#8217;s just packed up and left town. To me, the ozone pattern does not look at all like a diffuse atmospheric phenomenon from a set of &#8216;well mixed gasses&#8217; and it looks a whole lot more like something being driven by external forces. UV from the sun, Birkeland Currents from the sun, perhaps even cosmic ray variations.

Why do I say this? Look at these two maps of the South Pole view of Ozone. First up is the 16th of May, then the 17th of May, 2011. In particular, notice that the &#8220;deviation&#8221; is, on average, about nil. There are a couple of spots a bit high, and a couple a bit low, net nil. 

Second off, notice how rapidly the concentrations of Ozone change in the &#8220;hot spots&#8221; by the next day. The one near New Zealand is almost gone. Overnight. Things changing that fast are not due to a gas that takes 50 years to diffuse to the upper atmosphere. They are due to flux changes of some highly rapidly changing thing. &#8220;Southern Lights&#8221; particles from space. Birkeland currents. UV blocked by clouds. Whatever. But not a &#8220;well diffused gas&#8221; with a 50 years residency time&#8230; 



I suggest you read the entire thing and look at the maps before just blowing it off.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> ...




I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
     into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
     1.4 INCHES!!!!!  Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS  there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet in the near future. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



You can lead a horse to water but you just can't make them drink........


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Why do you continue to blast Al Gore?

Because that's what your POLITICAL PARTY has taught you to do!!!

They learned pretty fast it's easier than trying to refute with SCIENCE!

Speaking of science, the estimates out there predict sea levels rising several METERS within the next ten years at the current rate of thawing. That is not even considering the "what ifs" of ALL glacial and polar ice melting.

BTW...how much water is locked in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica?

Yes....Antarctica!

Don't try to deny it. More and larger icebergs are breaking off of the Antarctic ice shield every year and being reported in the ocean of lower southern latitudes previously unheard of.

Back to rising sea levels. Since most coastal cities are right at or slightly above sea level even a rise of a few meters would flood them.

Most of Florida would be underwater.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



The horse must first be thirsty.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 4, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the two sides of Gore.

On one side you have a man who appears to care about the issue.

On the other side you have a man who has profitted massively from the matter while at the same time not practicing what he preaches.


No matter what affilliation he holds any man under such circumstances should have his feet held to the fire.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Where did you get this BOGUS math anyway? 

Let's look at your swimming pool analogy....

You addad enough water to the swimming pool to raise the water level roughly 1/78th of its original depth.

The average depth of the ocean is 12,430 feet. Shouldn't your rise in sea level according to your own analogy be 1/78th of that?


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



And so should political hack corporate apologists who STILL try to deny global warming with faulty "logic."


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
> A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
> into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
> 1.4 INCHES!!!!!  Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???
> ...


OK, since you didn't flame, I won't flame you, even if you are not very well-informed, and your logic is not good.

The CO2 and CH4 increases will increase warming, which will cause release of landed ice, to water systems, which will raise sea levels.  We don't know how much, but Canadian and Russian tundra is losing permafrost, while 97% of all Antarctic, Greenland, Alaskan, and other glaciers are receding.  Former landed ice and water ends up in the atmosphere, in bodies of water, and in the ground.

Both warming and acidification will affect living creatures.  If bacteria bloom, instead of algae, more CO2 will be released, and we will eat shit, literally.  If algae bloom, we don't get to use the water, then, either, but this releases O2.  This is expected, see also University of Alabama Crimson Tide, Tulane Green Wave, etc.

The sea level will rise, but how much?

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

Flood Maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

"If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century."

The problem of rising seas is concurrent, with other problems you ignore.  Subsidence of landed areas is dramatic, as humans exhaust groundwater.  As sea levels rise, the waters are warming, which will intensify the rise.  Tides will get heavier, which can trigger volcanic eruptions, at which time ice will reform.  But we will be backed away from current coastlines, by then.  We will eat shit, and die.

You go ahead and guess just how much the sea level will rise, since whatever that is, by the time all the sequestered methane enters the atmosphere, our ice is going.  And the CO2 will yield carbonic acid, which will stop food chains.  We can be forced to eat and swim, in shit.  Don't eat or swim, in shit.  Re-green.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
> ...




It's not a guess!  There are 6.35 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers.  Fact.
There are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
That works out to 1.79%...  less then 2% of all the oceans and you tell me Florida will be under water as Gore /and other chicken littles claim.. even though water depth off Florida is less then 100 feet for 100+ miles!  
1.79% is 1.79 feet.
I live less then 20 feet from the gulf of Mexico waters and am so in fear of 1.79 foot rise!

Also regarding CO2... 
Obviously YOU are totally unaware that the USA is a NET Carbon Sequester?

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sinkit sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. 
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2012)

SUMMIT COUNTY &#8212; Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



How do you get a positive sequestration out of the fact that we took up about 15% of the carbon we emitted? That is a negative 85% according to your article.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



On the contrary.

What are the Major Ice Ages of the Earth's History?

The Earth has experienced at least five major ice ages in its 4.57 billion year history: the Huronian glaciation (2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago), the Sturtian/Marinoan glaciation (710 to 640 mya), the Andean-Saharan glaciation (460 to 430 mya), the Karoo Ice Age (350 to 260 mya) and the most recent Ice Age, which is currently ongoing (40 to 0 mya). The definition of an Ice Age is a long-term drop in global temperatures from the historical norm, accompanied by an extension of continental ice sheets. Each Ice Age is cyclical, generally on timescales of 44,000 and 110,000 years, during which glacial ice rhythmically extends and recedes.

The precise causes of historical Ice Ages are unknown, but likely emerged due to a variety of factors, including: positions of the continents, atmospheric composition (greenhouse gases), volcanic activity, the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), variations in the Earth's distance from the Sun (Milankovitch cycles), variations in solar output, and asteroid impacts. When the right variables are in place, an Ice Age begins, and once it gets started, positive feedback effects come into play. The strongest is simply that ice is more reflective than land or forest, so large areas covered in ice sheets reflect away the Sun's rays, causing further drops in temperature and increased glaciation.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Old rocks that would mean that we're warming up towards earth's 'means' temperature? Right. So life on this planet developed in conditions about 6-8c warmer than  today(15.8c, while 22-26c was seen in history). 

I wouldn't worry about life dieing out on this planet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Map shows 542 million years until 60 million years within a small space, but shows the last 60 million way more detail...But overall the vast majority of the last 500 million years has been warmer than today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.
> ...



Start here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

AGW Observer

A23A

The last is a lecture from the 2009 AGU convention by Richard Alley, one of the world's leading glaciologists. There are many other lectures available from that year and the following years on this subject.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Old rocks that would mean that we're warming up towards earth's 'means' temperature? Right. So life on this planet developed in conditions about 6-10c warmer than  today(15.8c, while 22-26c was seen in history).
> 
> I wouldn't worry about life dieing out on this planet.



LOL. Never said that I was worried about life dying out on this planet. What I have said is that I was worried about the impact on agriculture with a human population of 7 billion +. That number could be significantly lowered if the change is rapid enough.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> SUMMIT COUNTY  Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.
> 
> Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice



Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

But there are still valid concerns about variability that could leave some valleys dry, at least on a seasonal basis.

The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier, said Tobias Bolch, of the University of Zurich and Dresden University of Technology.

Bolch said the earlier predictions were based on erroneous mapping. The newest study, published in Science, is based on satellite data showing that glaciers in the Himalayas and Karakoram cover a total area of about 40,800 square kilometers  about  twenty times larger than all glaciers of the European Alps put together,but as much as twenty percent smaller than was previously assumed.

Along with satellite data, the researchers added all  existing measurements of length, area and volume changes and mass budgets into their calculations.

Some of the measurement series on length changes date back to 1840, and measurements of glacier mass budget that instantaneously reflect the climate signal are rare. Overall, the researchers recorded average length decreases of 15 to 20 metres and area decreases of 0.1 to 0.6 percent per year in recent decades, as well as an average 40 centimeter lowering of glacier surfaces.

The detected length changes and area and volume losses correspond to the global average,  Bolch said.

For the regions in the northwestern Himalayas and especially in the Karakoram Range, the researchers noted very heterogeneous behavior in the glaciers. Many of them are dynamically unstable and prone to surges that largely occur independently of climatic conditions.

For the last decade on average, even a slight volume increase was detected. Based on their analyses, the researchers assume that glacier shrinkage will not have a major impact on the water drainage of large rivers like the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra in the coming decades.

Bolch and his colleagues also said they see a very serious threat to the local population in newly formed or rapidly growing glacial lakes. The deluge of water and debris from potential outbursts of these lakes could have devastating consequences for low-lying regions. According to the scientists, increased efforts are urgently needed to monitor the lakes as well as changes in the glaciers and the climate in the Himalayas.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



My understanding is that Gore made his wealth in investing in Google and other high tech stocks shortly after he lost his Presidential bid. From what I have read, he gave most of the money he made from lectures and the movie to others to promote understanding of what the scientists are telling us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

FJO said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Lordy, lordy. Have you never heard of extinction periods? Nature did repair itself. After a few million years and with a completely new suite of critters. 

The K-T Extinction is an extreme example of an extinction period created by the very rapid accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. A point here, the rapidity of todays accumulation is greater than that before the K-T extinction.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.
> ...



you're half right. 

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

Just more evidence here why the green movement has hit a brick wall in recent years..........far too much uncertainty. But they continue to want to play roulette with the peoples money.........based upon a guess.

Thankfully.............its not happening, though the k00ks will continue to embrace the fantasy.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

IanC said:


> you're half right.
> 
> who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?



You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Do you think humans got busier than you did, and you didn't find out, or you ignored it all?

You are aware the human variables include not only increased emissions, but also defoliation?  Since you can smell your own farts, you are aware of the presence of your own shit, in methane, since the methane is odorless?  You are aware of the methane, now accelerating the warming, while the CO2 accelerates acidification?  Go Crappy, go Crappy!


----------



## wirebender (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?



Industrial age glaciers?  What the hell are you talking about.  

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water.  When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2.  You really are clueless aren't you.  It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries.  Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?
> ...



You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above *300 ppm, *but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.  

That little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year? Can we agree that it's human driven? Even through it may cause *NO effect* on the climate. For a second lets say co2 is no harm and is in fact good...Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?
> ...


Wiener, you learned about cold water CO2 affinity from reading about ten of my posts, including the OP of the thread I wrote, so now you finally mention this.  I guess the part where I wrote how you are like every other queer, who used to try to get a dose of HIV all the way to AIDS must have got every bit of your gay attention, but since you are also brain-dead, you forgot I know you are a neo-con queer, trying to rant, like a gay person.

You really are a fucktard, no doubt.  Anything you say, Wiener.  Hmm.  I can see they don't let you outside very often.

The Ordovician Ice Age happened, when the first plants _dropped CO2 levels,_ after the CO2 level was really high, according to modern studies:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21417-first-land-plants-plunged-earth-into-ice-age.html

"Never underestimate moss. When the simple plants first arrived on land, almost half a billion years ago, they triggered both an ice age and a mass extinction of ocean life.

The first land plants appeared around 470 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, when life was diversifying rapidly. They were non-vascular plants, like mosses and liverworts, that didn't have deep roots.

About 35 million years later, ice sheets briefly covered much of the planet and a mass extinction ensued. Carbon dioxide levels probably fell sharply just before the ice arrived &#8211; but nobody knew why.

Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK, and colleagues think the mosses and liverworts are to blame."

High-carbon ice age mystery solved - environment - 08 March 2010 - New Scientist

Attention Wienerbitch:  "How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It's a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO2 levels were not that high after all.

The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO2 levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO2 concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.

Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University in University Park says earlier studies missed the dip because they calculated levels at 10-million-year intervals and the ice age lasted only half a million years.

The dip, he says, was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks. These draw CO2 out of the air as they erode. As the ice spread, however, it gradually covered the silicate rocks, slowing the erosion and so allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere once more. This eventually would have warmed the atmosphere enough to end the ice age, says Kump."

Will that be all, fucktard, wingpunks, and hostages?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?
> ...




First land plants plunged Earth into ice age - environment - 01 February 2012 - New Scientist

When Lenton added this effect of non-vascular plants to a climate model of the Ordovician, the CO2 dropped from about 22 times modern levels to just eight times modern levels. That was enough to trigger an ice age in the model of Ordovician Earth.


*As for your other nonsense, the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, which caused the release of CO2 and created the warmth that we enjoy today. Without the CO2, the change would not have been great enough to melt the continental glaciers. In fact, there have been a couple of times in the geologic history of the earth that the CO2 level has dropped to the point that the oceans froze nearly to the equator.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

Once again...........Wirebender schooling the environmental radicals.


Shit this guy is good..............


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

Oh..........by the way Bob-0............all this science shit you keep babbling about...............


Nobody cares........................but dont take my word for it!!!!









LMAO.......in 2010, global warming was 21st on the list. Now? Doesnt even make the list!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)




----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Suckassbil doesn't care.  He just posts spam.  OK, Suckassbil.  The rest of the tea-room rangers ran off, so here you are, covering for Wienerbitch, who went and posted a report about the acid-related oyster die-off, without realizing it was the same event I posted as an OP at a thread, only I put up the current report, without the ambiguity.

OK, Suckassbil, the rest of the retards have their special homework, so here you are.  What do you got?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...





wirebender said:


> ...And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water.  When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2.  You really are clueless aren't you.  It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind. The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries.  Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.



Old Rocks posts the facts and the denier cult retards spew clueless nonsense and then call others 'clueless'. LOL. 

*CO2 'drove end to last ice age'*
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent 
BBC News
4 April 2012
(excerpts)

*A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals. A paper describing the research appears in this week's edition of Nature. "At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun. "So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate." The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was the time when the planet was emerging from its last deep chill, when the great ice sheets known to cover parts of the Northern Hemisphere were in retreat.

The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature. This runs contrary to the record obtained solely from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores which had indicated the opposite - that temperature elevation in the southern polar region actually preceded (or at least ran concurrent to) the climb in CO2. This observation has frequently been used by some people who are sceptical of global warming to challenge its scientific underpinnings; to claim that the warming link between the atmospheric gas and global temperature is grossly overstated. But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent. By contrast, their new climate history encompasses data from all around the world to provide a much fuller picture of what was happening on a global scale. This data incorporates additional information contained in ices drilled from Greenland, and in sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes. "Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun, who conducted much of the research at Oregon State University but who is now affiliated to Harvard and Columbia universities. "You put these two points together - the correlation of global temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 - and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the ice age," he told BBC News.*

BBC © 2012

_(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.)_


----------



## IanC (Jun 6, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


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



I have noticed that you increase the size of the font in proportion to how flawed your citation is. 

if you think so highly of Shakun12 why didnt you have anything to say on the thread specifically about it?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 6, 2012)

Matthew said:


> You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above *300 ppm, *but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.



I am entirely right and what is disturbing is the fact that I think you know that I am entirely right.  The fact that you asked why it has not gone above 300 ppm in the past 800K years tells me that you probably know that I am right and why.  We have been in, and coming out of an ice age for the past 800K years Matthew.  You know as well as I do that if you go back much more than 800K years to a point where the climate was still decending into the ice age, that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations quickly go above 300ppm, and 400ppm, and 500ppm, and 600ppm.  

I am pretty sure that you know that the earth started decending into the present ice age with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at, or slightly above 1000ppm.  



Matthew said:


> little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year?



Why?  Because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water.  The little ice age didn't do much in the way of cooling the oceans.  It didn't last long enough.



Matthew said:


> Can we agree that it's human driven?



No, I don't think we can.  The evidence is there to tell us that it isn't human driven.  Go back to the beginning of the present ice age and atmospheric CO2 levels were at, or above 1000ppm.  That being right there in front of our faces, upon what hard evidence do you base the paltry increase we have seen in our lifetimes on the activities of man?  Think about it Matthew, the entire CO2 output of man isn't even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.



Matthew said:


> Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?



We can agree that humans are putting some small bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, but as I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year and more importantly, we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age and will be for a verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyy long time to come.  We know that the atmospheric CO2 was at least 1000ppm upon entering the present ice age and there is no reason to suspect that when we finally get out of it, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should not be at least that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2012)

IanC said:


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



I have noticed that you increase the amount of bullcrap you spew in proportion to how solid the evidence is against your denier cult lies and pseudo-science.

If you think there is a problem with Dr. Shakun's research results, why don't you have anything specific to say about it, wiredwrong?

Oh right, I forgot, it's because you're a clueless brainwashed retard with delusions of scientific competence but no actual knowledge or understanding of science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers?  You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since  billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?
> ...



The glaciers that we had at the beginning of the industrial age, as compared to those of today. Seems pretty straight forward, if one has basic level reading comprehension.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above *300 ppm, *but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.
> ...



*As usual, you are full of shit, Bent. It has been more than 25 million years since CO2 was at 1000 ppm. In fact, maybe more than 30.*

http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and ®nd an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

What a great link, O.R.

"Change in the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is commonly regarded as a likely forcing mechanism on global climate over geological time because of its large and predictable effect on temperature 48. Our d11 Bcc proxy for pCO2 broadly confirms the
prediction of Arrhenius 1 that early Cenozoic pCO2 levels were often several times modern values, and that a strong greenhouse effect probably contributed to global warmth at that time. These `super-greenhouse' conditions (pCO2. 1,000 p.p.m.) also imply considerably lower surface-ocean pH, higher alkalinity and higher levels of SCO2. We find that there was considerable fluctuation in these variables in the Palaeogene, but since the earliest Miocene the system seems to have been much more constant and more closely comparable to the present, despite continuing climate cooling. This suggests that other factors, such as complex feedbacks initiated by tectonic alteration of the ocean basins, were also important in determining global climate change."

http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf


----------



## IanC (Jun 6, 2012)

Matthew said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



I was going to say that it is obvious that humans are raising the CO2 levels and what sane person would deny it but......

I really dont think many people have looked at how these proxy records work. they are far from exact, only give info relative to other parts of the proxy record, and have a lot of leeway as to the absolute value.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

All you have to do to understand human interaction with CO2 is humans deforest and defoliate, while increasing burning, of fossil fuels, dramatically, since the 19th Century began, which coincides with CO2 proliferation, carbonic acid concentration in water, and die-offs.

What sane person would deny human complicity and responsibility, to re-green, given deforestation and defoliation?  The answer happens to be _no sane person would deny human participation and responsibility, to re-green._

But in a given sample of forum participants, only a few sane people persist, among a lot of  crazy fucktards, supporting skepticism of all kinds, against global warming.  All kinds of spam comes from the skeptics, who are like now-dead homosexuals used to be, at their bath-houses, tricking, shooting speed, and tricking, until their doses went from HIV to full-blown AIDS to death.  The sane people are gaining, even at USMB.  We are still too few.


----------



## Zander (Jun 6, 2012)

Must have been all those SUV's in the 30's. It's clearly the fault of humans. They are the problem. If we just let animals run things we'd have lots of ice and stuff.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

Zander said:


> Must have been all those SUV's in the 30's. It's clearly the fault of humans. They are the problem. If we just let animals run things we'd have lots of ice and stuff.


If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters.  If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster.  I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.
> ...






Correlation does not prove causation.

The number of soft and furry little kittens has also increased over this period.

There are more electronic recording devices now than there were before.

The number of storage shed in back yards is way up.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.
> ...





Reliable instrument records only state in about 1980.

Prior to that, for all of the planet's long history, it was proxies and estimates for most of the world.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.
> ...






Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate.  We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





And the fact that the Arctic Ice has stopped receding?

This year is currently tied with 2009 and has more ice than either 2010 or 2011.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure2.png


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.
> ...





Always the prediction of the dire consequence.

Have you found those photographs that show the increase of the sea level on the shores of the major coastal cities of the world?

There should be plenty.  Start with Houston.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.
> ...


CodePunk, the CO2 will kill, by carbonic acid; the CH4 is _*methane*_, where the real runaway warming will originate.  Demonstrate a brain, bitch.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> All you have to do to understand human interaction with CO2 is humans deforest and defoliate, while increasing burning, of fossil fuels, dramatically, since the 19th Century began, which coincides with CO2 proliferation, carbonic acid concentration in water, and die-offs.
> 
> What sane person would deny human complicity and responsibility, to re-green, given deforestation and defoliation?  The answer happens to be _no sane person would deny human participation and responsibility, to re-green._
> 
> But in a given sample of forum participants, only a few sane people persist, among a lot of  crazy fucktards, supporting skepticism of all kinds, against global warming.  All kinds of spam comes from the skeptics, who are like now-dead homosexuals used to be, at their bath-houses, tricking, shooting speed, and tricking, until their doses went from HIV to full-blown AIDS to death.  The sane people are gaining, even at USMB.  We are still too few.











s0n............you are far, far too few. In fact, you and the few nutters here who support the hysterical have little support. But we are the insane? Hmmm......Sammy above seems to disagree. Oh......and the poll from the Pew Institute confirms what Ive been saying for years. 

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14553/Dead-Last-Pew-Poll-Global-warming-finishes-22nd-of-22-top-policy-priorities-of-2012-A-quarter-of-Americans-now-find-climate-change-a-top-concern-down-from-almost-4-in-10-in-2007






The hyper-hysterical bomb throwers are indeed a fringe group.......which is why in the area of public policy, the prevailing science isnt mattering.


Just here to bring it back to Realville s0n...........


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

'The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth's climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years."

Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

Your link is off-topic, skookerasbil.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

The OP is part of propaganda, to discredit global warming, when in fact, Greenland has been warming up, and recent temperatures are record-setting:

Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress

Thick, perennial Arctic ice is melting at a faster rate, as opposed to the annually formed ice, which melts and re-forms:

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

Moreover, the expected runaway increase in global warming may only have to cause an increase, of 1.6 C, to completely melt Greenland's ice:

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming

When this happens, we may have to consider prison or mandatory birth-control, for skeptics.  At least, skookerasbil should get his off-topic posts over to some zone.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 7, 2012)

I understand that the co2 level was 1,000+ ppm before the ice age started around 30,000,000 years ago. Ice age=ice sheets at the poles.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

At that time, the geography of the continents was considerably differant. Which created quite differant ocean currents. Hard to make any judgements for or against that argueing for less or more change from increasing the levels currently. Just another item that is being studied as well as quickly as we can.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Bullshit. We have weather records for many places for at least a couple of hundred years with thermometers. And general weather records going back a couple of thousand years in Europe and the Mideast, farther than that in some parts of Asia.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



The source for 1 degree is???  Or is that something you have pulled out of your asshole?

Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Now if you look at the yellow line, you can clearly see that it is at the very bottom of the lines from the years since 1979. No, the Arctic Ice has not stopped melting, and the volume is less every year.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The OP is part of propaganda, to discredit global warming, when in fact, Greenland has been warming up, and recent temperatures are record-setting:
> 
> Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...





Shoot a PM to Old Rocks s0n.......he's the only one who gets it around here. He fights a noble fight but at least he's grounded and not living in Oz like every other nutty ass environmentalist on this site. Old Rocks knows the score........but dont take my word for it. Old Rocks knows that the state of the science is like beginners Chinese water torture for the public. All the volumes of science in the world are for naught if the public at large isnt impressed. But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.


But since Im in the business of having to illustrate analogies for liberals, its like this...............

If we liken "the publc" to a middle class homeower for a minute..........the middle class homeowner tends to his lawn every year. He uses fertilizer in the spring and then again in the beginning of summer. Keeps his lawn a bit long to avoid it getting burned. Uses fungacide. Waters freuently. But then.........sudddenly in late July, the lawn develops some brown patches. They are farily significant. The only recourse is to tear out the multiple spots and replace them with sod ( its too hot to seed ). But that will incur an expense........a fairly significant one. It might mean the late summer vacation has to be cancelled. Is it worth it? Trim down the holdiay plans coming up in a few months?


*Most* people in his position will just let the brown patches stay. A necessary tradeoff........it becomes a question of economics.


This is the way *most* people make decisions.........on the margin.


People on the far left dont ever, ever ever consider the margin..........a fact that rears its ugly head on these pages. But *most* people do think on the margin, a fact realized in the complete failure of Cap and Trade. The tradeoffs were considered. Paying double for electricity not a priority to embrace for *most*.



Far left people can piss and moan about the "deniers" all they want.........its obviously falling on deaf ears. Why? Because *most* people think on the margin.



In the bigger picture..........skooks posts are ALWAYS on topic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 
> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!



Sure - you're a confused and very ignorant rightwingnut who doesn't actually understand or follow the science but rather latches onto any misleading spun-up version of a science article he picks up from the denier cult propaganda machine. Here's the actual facts about the glaciers on Greenland.

*Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists*
*Greenland's glaciers are melting 30 faster than they were a decade ago, satellite images reveal.* 
The Christian Science Monitor
By Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff Writer  
May 3, 2012 
(excerpts)

*Greenland's ice sheet is on the move, with new images showing its glaciers moving 30 percent faster than they were a decade ago. Greenland and Antarctica are home to the two biggest blocks of ice on Earth. As climate changes, these glacier are shrinking and the water contained in them is moving into the oceans, adding to the already rising sea level. A glacier's velocity is a measure of how fast the ice on the surface of the sheet is flowing toward the edges of the sheet. This flow can be faster or slower, depending on how much the glacier is melting. The faster the flow, the more water and ice mass is lost from the glacier. "You can think of the Greenland ice sheet as a really large lake that has hundreds of those little outlet streams that are acting like conveyor belts to move ice from the middle of the ice sheet, where it's getting added by precipitation, to the edges," study researcher Twila Moon, a graduate student at the University of Washington, told LiveScience.

The researchers analyzed satellite images of the Greenland glaciers taken between 2000 and 2010. These annual images were put through a computer program to detect how quickly the ice is moving. In general, the glacial flow has sped up by 30 percent over the 10 years, Moon said. To get a better idea of the glacier's dynamics, the researchers looked at the area's more than 200 glaciers individually. Some of these glaciers end on land, some drop off into the sea, and the rest gradually extend their ice sheets into the water, creating an ice shelf. The researchers saw that the glacier's type has a big impact on how quickly it flows. Land-ending ice sheets can move 30 to 325 feet (9 to 99 meters) per year, while glaciers that terminate in ice shelves move much faster, from 1,000 to more than 5,000 feet (305 to 1,600 m) per year. The glaciers that drop off into the sea are flowing the fastest, Moon said, up to 7 miles (11 kilometers) per year and their speeds are accelerating. "The areas where the ice sheet loses the most ice are also the areas we are seeing the biggest changes," Moon said. There's no reason to think, from the new data, that the glaciers won't continue to gain speed. The result would be an increasing amount of ice and water adding to the sea level.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2012)

A decade old paper, but still relevant;

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.
> 
> But since Im in the business of having to illustrate analogies for liberals, its like this...............
> 
> ...



You are a ranting meth-head, who spams USMB, with freaky, off-topic shit.  Your stake in all this is you have a lab, which pollutes, or you know polluters, who poison the Earth with the chemicals, which are eating your fucked-up brain.  Read your highlights, up there.  What a load of shit.

O.R. posts the good shit, yes.  So you are over here, somehow not breaking into places and stealing all you can, which suggests you get your speed, no problems, shove it, and it shows in your way, way fucked up rants, which get over because USMB has no direct rule against off-topic posts.

On with it.  Greenland ice is melting faster, and the recent trend is all this way:

Extreme melting on greenland ice sheet, team reports; Glacial melt cycle could become self-amplifying

New melt record for Greenland ice sheet: 'Exceptional' season stretched up to 50 days longer than average

Complete Melt of Greenland Ice Sheet Closer Than First Thought | Planetsave

Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists - CSMonitor.com

Greenland's ice has been melting, faster than ever, with no recent deviation.  Any claims to the contrary are false.  Greenland has weather in the 70s, May 2012.  The OP sucks.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 11, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register
> 
> OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!



The glaciers in the photo are _land-terminating_ glaciers, which went under regression 80 years ago.  Your article is not new information.

_Marine-terminating glaciers,_ which are glaciers that spill into the ocean, have been regressing quickly in the 2000s. But don't tell wingpunk bitches that, because they don't want to hear it. 

Here are the glacial observations that go back to the 1930s. (a) is land-terminating glaciers, and (b) is marine-terminating glaciers. Particularly, look at the 2000s for marine-terminating glacier regression:







http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ngeo1481_F5.html

Greenland's melting down, bitches and scientists.


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





your own link says 1.1C per doubling!



> If nothing changes other than temperature, the response is straightforward. Emissions in general are proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and on Earth, with surface temperatures of about 288K and emissions to space of about 240 W/m2, we get about 0.3C for each W/m2 forcing. You can nail that down more carefully, but it does correspond closely to what you get with a radiation transfer calculation. It's called the "Planck response" in climate science. Converting forcing units, this corresponds to about 1.1C per 2xCO2.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 12, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.
> ...






Hey......what can I say s0n. I have real responsibilities in life. Im a bottom line guy........no time to spend hours looking at the multitude of science papers.

All that matters to me is to highlight the fact that my side is winning and your side? Not so much!! And as Ive astutely pointed out here numerous times..........very few Americans give a rats ass about this stuff, despite years of efforts from the bomb throwers.


s0n...........when you end up getting some real responsiblities in life,trust me, you dont get so angst about this trivial bs.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



_*But IanCrapforbrains and CodePunk, you turned one page and moved over one more thread, and you completely forgot how methane and more CO2 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly, in the Arctic.  That means hockey stick graphs, from accelerated warming effects.  It means head-up-butt, don't-know-shit, can't-remember-shit, and other syndromes affect you.  Seek professional help, if you want meds.

I don't know what attracts meth-freak Suckassbil to rah-rah with smileys and tweakage.  He apparently has some kind of life, as a professional retard, somewhere.  I am with people for scientific sharing, wingpunks.  I post truth on the internet.  You guys post shit.  Suckassbil posts tweaky shit.  What's your motive?  Do you like how your assholes feel, when you are in trouble?  I don't want other people to be like you shitty geeks.

If only you weren't wingpunk dumbshits, you wouldn't go chasing science, like dogs used to chase cars.  What happened to all those car-chasing dogs?  I guess puppies are smarter, now.

If wingpunk idiots had to play real hockey, congrats to the LA Kings, wingpunks would realize, hey, players have to wear protective gear, or the PUCK will get slapped, by the STICK, and wingpunk teeth will get knocked, right into wingpunk throat.  But wingpunks aren't playing hockey, even though look at all the white people, eh?*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 12, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*But IanCrapforbrains and CodePunk, you turned one page and moved over one more thread, and you completely forgot how methane and more CO2 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly, in the Arctic. *_


_*

Describe the mechanism by which you believe seeping CO2 and methane make any difference at all without violating a law of physics.  Surely you can describe how you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.  Would it be too much to expect that you could actually make such a description in your own words?  Probably but give it your best shot anyway.*_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 12, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Describe the mechanism by which you believe seeping CO2 and methane make any difference at all without violating a law of physics.  Surely you can describe how you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.  Would it be too much to expect that you could actually make such a description in your own words?  Probably but give it your best shot anyway.


_*Wienerbitch, I can't possibly imagine a law of physics to violate.  

Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.

Royal shitloads for Queen Wienerbitch to do, for his/herself:    
1. bitching
2. learn to read a graph
3. read a graph before bitching
4. do own calculations
5. ask Dr.Global Change and see if the staff doesn't blow you off*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.



Again, no answer and again, no answer was expected because bob, it has become abundantly obvious that you literally don't know jack.  You are a cut and  paste drone who doesn't understand the first part of what you put here.

As to which laws are violated by the greenhouse effect described by climate science, there is the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman law to name the four I stated that came to me off the top of my head.  

Now I don't expect you to know what those laws say or how they apply to climate change and I am afraid that you won't find anything to cut and paste from a "credible" source because climate pseudoscientists stay far away from ANY discussion of physical laws.

And of course, you can't describe the mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming because in all probablity, you don't even know what the word mechanism means and therefore don't even know what I am asking for.

I am going to copntinue asking you questions bob and I am going to continue to revel in, and point out your complete inability to answer even the most basic ones.

So again, by what mechanism do you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.

And since you pretended to be able to do math, here is a very simple one that cuts right to the heart of the agw scam.  Here is one of the primary equations upon which manmade climate change is based.  Take this away, and the whole hypothesis crumbles.  Show me, if you can, where backraditon might be expressed in this equation.






So show me how little you know by calling names, and who knows what other sort of ranting you may spew instead of simply answering the very basic and simple questions put to you.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*This 1998 article is fairly complete, to be reproduced, in part:*_



OK bob, I know that you don't do science and obviously don't know the first thing about science.  You are a believer and that is your place in the scheme of things.  But geez bob, you should know the defintions of day to day words.

  I asked you to describe the mechanism by which you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.  You post endless drivel that tells me what climate scientists assume causes warming.  Here, let me help you out a bit with a couple of defintions.

_cause - a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result_

_mechanism - the agency or means *by which an effect is produced *or a purpose is accomplished_

You see bob, you are not answering the question I am asking.  You are telling me what climate science assumes is causing warming and I am asking you how what you believe is causing warming actually accomplishes the task.  The what isn't really science.  The how is science and you don't seem to be able to come up with an answer. 

I know perfectly how climate science claims so called greenhouse gasses cause warming but like I said, their explanation violates several physical laws so I asked you to describe how it might happen without violating any physical laws and you come back stating that you can't even imagine physical laws.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 13, 2012)

*You have to be a busy queer on meth, to keep harping, when you get all your junk science from punk websites, which you won't reference.  

GHGs absorb radiation, which causes the atmosphere to act like a blanket, raising temperature.  The different gases have different radiative forcing effects, which leads to the GWP ratings, for the several gases, based on the level 1, for CO2, 24 for CH4, etc.

Handy radiative forcing chart and rleated links:*

Figure SPM.2 - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiative Forcing

The IPCCs 4th Report states a &#8220;very high confidence [9 out of 10 chance that it will happen] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to+2.4] W m&#8221; (see figure above).
In other words, warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human activity has produced this warming. This finding is couched in much stronger language than the 3rd IPCC Report and is no longer something requiring debate... Earth's temperature is rising due to our activity, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels.

_*Greenhouse gases put the radiative balance out of order.  Methane is fortunately measurable, in ppb, so it is not doing all the damage, which it will do, in the immediate future.  Methane is going to greatly increase, which with CO2 and sundry GHGs will trap heat.

Some scientists think GHGs will actually force cooling, some think the forcing effect will turn off, but I think what is happening is a radical change has been caused, by human interaction, and there is a lag, in forcing.  What will happen is a really unpleasant climate change, with the ultimate effect of drastic reduction, in the human population.

What we are seeing is denial, of any warming phenomena, by morons, who won't admit long-term changes are happening, now, in the short run, so temperatures and acidification are both due, for a relatively drastic rise.

The ten hottest years in the instrument record occurred, in the last twelve years.  What exactly is happening, with GHGs?  Crime pays, and it has a carbon footprint.

Wienerbitch, go ahead and prove how trends violate laws of physics, and we'll see what happens.  I will gradually research the subject, as the sea level rises, and die-offs show up.  You can go look at your queer porn pub sites, paste formulas, and fail to offer figures, and watch death approach.  Eat shit!  It'll make you big and strong!  Organisms which respirated on H2S used to thrive, in hot oceans.  Pubs have evolved, to eat shit and run around, ranting.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters.  If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster.  I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.



Describe the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans that occurred just prior to the earth entering the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm.  Tell me about it and give some hard evidence to support your claims.

While you are at it, tell me about the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans at the time that most modern marine invertabrates evolved with atmospheric CO2 levels above 3000 ppm.  Tell me about that carbonic acid poisoning and show me some hard evidence to support the claim.

By the way bob, computer models are only evidence of the incompetence  and bias of the idiots who are writing the software.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> At that time, the geography of the continents was considerably differant. Which created quite differant ocean currents. Hard to make any judgements for or against that argueing for less or more change from increasing the levels currently. Just another item that is being studied as well as quickly as we can.



Really rocks? Was the geography of the continents "considerably different?  Lets take a look.

This is what the modern world looks like:






This is what the world looked like 50 million years ago:






And here is what the world looked like 14 million years ago:






Not much change there at all rocks.  The only real difference noticable over the past 30 million years or so is due to sea level change.  At the time of the beginning of the last ice age, there was little, if any ice to be found anywhere on earth.  

Now knowing that before the beginning of the present ice age there was little, if any ice to be found on earth, and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm, what exactly is it about the current climate that has you wringing your hands.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 13, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



Yes 12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it.

It definitely is smaller then 87.5% for sure.
But let's use the analogy of 8 boys.
7 boys are 6 feet tall
1 boy (12.5% of the 8 boys) is 3 feet tall.
Total height 42 fee and average is therefore of 5 ft. 8 inches.
But if we say OH 12.5% of the boys is to short and we can't measure him..
let's drop him out..l!
So now we have 7 boys average height 6 feet.  Nice but we left out the 3 foot tall boy because it was inconvenient... otherwise the average would have been 5.8" 
Just as leaving out 12.5% of the world's land mass because it was too inconvenient to have equivalent temperature land mass reading stations in Siberia!

Prove to me that adding to the 30,000 reading stations the equivalent of necessary to cover Siberia with the same coverage as the other 87.5% of the world continues to increase the world's average temperature and then you have proven something.
But for 50 years and 1.5+ billion readings 12.5% of the land mass is missing???


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters.  If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster.  I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.
> ...



_*Computer models are sometimes used, to present outcomes, indicated by a lot of statistical data, you hermaphrodite.  Maybe by "carbonic acid poisoning" you are referring to this, Wienerbitch:*_

Permian-Triassic extinction event: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction. There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

----------------

_*Wienerbitch, if you think we are all descended from acid-resistant organisms, and we can all ride out eradication of species, dependent on shells or eggs, get this up.

But you aren't even as smart as the stupid, petroleum-reimbursed "scientists."*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...







Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions.  The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd.  Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.

But don't let a little thing called logic bother you.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions.  The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd.  Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.
> 
> But don't let a little thing called logic bother you.



_*What makes you think, with your head up your ass, how a little thing like logic is going to bother you?*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions.  The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd.  Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.
> ...








  Logic has never bothered me, you on the other run screaming from the room whenever logic rears its ugly little head.....or is that your ugly head?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*Computer models are sometimes used, to present outcomes, indicated by a lot of statistical data, you hermaphrodite.  Maybe by "carbonic acid poisoning" you are referring to this, Wienerbitch:*_



And there, bob old buddy, is where science turns into faith; where strict adherence to the scientific method decends into some sort of cult.  The output of a computer model is only as good as the software, and the software is only as good as the programmer's understanding of the system he or she intends to model, and the computer power available to run the software.  

At present bobo, we don't begin to understand the systems involved enough to write software anything like comprehensive enough to model the systems involved.  At present, the software you put your faith in is based on little more than flawed physics, assumptions, and the programmer's own bias.  That is why present day modelling is of less value than random guesses.

All of this claptrap you post is the result of computer modelling, not actual observation or observable, repeatable experimentation which is what real science is all about.  You guys take on faith that computer output is of some value when time after time, the computer models prove themselves worthless.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.
> ...








power across a temperature differential

using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as  P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.

cue for wirebender to say that this is the 'corrupt version', even though it is mathematically correct. we are to take it on faith that he is right, and even though one method produces exactly the same answer as the other, the 'corrupt version' is somehow wrong.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

IanC said:


> using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as  P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.



Physics much?  If you have any background in physics at all ian, then you should know that equations describe things that are happeing in the physical world.  You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality.  If you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation in physics you must first define a meaning for the use of the property.  



IanC said:


> cue for wirebender to say that this is the 'corrupt version', even though it is mathematically correct. we are to take it on faith that he is right, and even though one method produces exactly the same answer as the other, the 'corrupt version' is somehow wrong.



In physics ian, you are not simply looking for an answer.  Equations in physics describe physical reality.  Alter the equation and you alter the reality.  You end up with the same answer but you alter what is actually happening.  In physics, if you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, you have to define what the use of that property means and your definition must be specific.  There is no possibility of backradiation in the actual S-B equation.  Corrupt the SB equation via the use of an undefined, unspecified use of an algebraic property and viola, you have backradiation even though the 2nd law says it simply can't happen.  When confronted with that, then the warmist says that the 2nd law doesn't actually mean what it says even though the 2nd law is stated in absolute terms.

Yeah yeah yeah....I have heard it all before and am sure I will hear it again but the bottom line is that the laws of physcs, as they are stated and accepted support me ian, not you.  The scientific dictionaries support me, not you.  And the work being done by N&Z, Jelbring, and Graeff, et.al. suggest that those whose work I have believed was correct for a very long time is, in fact, correct and no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, either the real wack jobs or luke warmers like yourself exist.

The laws of physics have meaning ian whether you accept that meaning or not.  They are stated in absolute terms for a reason whether you like that or not.  They are called laws for a reason whether you like that or not.  And they simply won't cooperate when they are altered for matters of convenience and agenda whether you like that or not.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as  P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.
> ...



'my' version of physics says that every body above zero degrees kelvin radiates whether or not it is close to a warmer body. your version implies that there is some beancounting diety that watches every interaction in the universe to measure temperatures and decides which particles get to radiate or not. Im guessing that most knowledgeable people will decide to leave out Maxwell's Daemon and go with every particle radiates according to its temperature.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

IanC said:


> the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.



Talk about not getting the story straight.  I have never suggested that cool objects don't radiate, I have only said, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports me when I say it, that cooler objects can not further warm warmer objects.  I guess I have told yo that 10 times and you just keep offering up the dishonest description of what I have said.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

IanC said:


> 'my' version of physics says that every body above zero degrees kelvin radiates whether or not it is close to a warmer body.



So does mine ian.  For the life of me I can't understand why you keep telling that bald faced lie.  And "my" version is supported by the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamcis while "your" version is not.  Who is probably right?



IanC said:


> your version implies that there is some beancounting diety that watches every interaction in the universe to measure temperatures and decides which particles get to radiate or not.



Again, completely untrue even though I have explained my postion to you over and over.  What is this compunction you have to lie about me and what I have said simply because you don't agree with me.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.
> ...



_*Wienerbitch, since you are so awesome at physics, sort all heat and light radiation, in all directions, evident, during dissipation of all solar energy, by relatively warm and relatively cool subjects, with coefficients for spherical rotation phenomena, to account for radiation, which actually makes its way, back into space, and to account for all radiation, which is absorbed.

You have to sort all radiation absorption and re-emission tendencies, possible, from the get-go, or do a better job of throwing Ian over, which you haven't done, in three posts.

THEN you are a smart Wienerbitch, not before, since you are mucking in a can of worms, and you have proven, redundantly, you have no intention of defining any practical or theoretical problems, to expedite solutions.  That's Wienerbitch!*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*Wienerbitch, since you are so awesome at physics, sort all heat and light radiation, in all directions, evident, during dissipation of all solar energy, by relatively warm and relatively cool subjects, with coefficients for spherical rotation phenomena, to account for radiation, which actually makes its way, back into space, and to account for all radiation, which is absorbed.*_


_*

All that "sorting" isn't necessary bobo.  The laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzman law, and the law of conservation of energy tells you what is going to happen.  All one need know is the absorption spectra of the various so called greenhouse gasses.

You know so little bob that you don't even know how much you don't know.  

Now, how about you step on up to the plate and tell us how you believe CO2 causes warming; and do it without violating a law of physics.*_


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.
> ...



You're right about the second law of Thermodynamics. Only a warm object can add heat to a cold object...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 15, 2012)

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
 No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1] 
*Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system*, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 15, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Clausius statement
> 
> German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
> No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]
> *Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system*, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.



ian, among other luke warmers are operating under the belief that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't actually mean what it says and is rather a sort of statistical guideline.  If that were true, the statement would not be written in absolute terms.  If the second law were talking about net flows, then it would state net flows.  Alsas it doesn't.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

Matthew said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*So what are they talking about, Matthew?  Is it 100% convected heat?  Noooo . . .

Did they get to ALL the points about energy diffusion, refraction, absorption, radiation, emission, and convection, from all angles, to all angles, from all points and masses, to all points and masses, in any media?  Noooo . . .

Ian is trying to get asshole Wienerbitch to sort himself out, past trying to convince the world he is an expert at hermaphordite act-ups, so we should all let him take us off, since he's both mysterious and SMAAART!  Like a fart.  Wienerbitch happens to be completely full of shit.

You should check the Wienerbitch-weather-wire, and smarten up.  Where have you been, anyway, out chasing Negroes?*


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality.



You are, in fact, allowed to perform mathematical operations on mathematical equations in physics.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Clausius statement
> 
> German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
> No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]
> *Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system*, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.



CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *So what are they talking about, Matthew?  Is it 100% convected heat?  Noooo . . .*


*

It is clear that you don't have the slightest clue as to what ian and I are talking about bob.  It is so far over your head as to be unobservable.



bobgnote said:



			Did they get to ALL the points about energy diffusion, refraction, absorption, radiation, emission, and convection, from all angles, to all angles, from all points and masses, to all points and masses, in any media?  Noooo . . .
		
Click to expand...


And again bob, you need not talk about all of the possible means of heat transport.  The various laws of physics tell you what is going to happen.  For example, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about absorption, raidation, emission, or any other means of transporting heat, energy will not flow from cold to warm.  The second law says that it is not possible for energy to flow from cold to warm.  They are laws of nature bob, not laws of systems and they don't alter depending upon what sort of system you are talking about.



bobgnote said:



			Ian is trying to get asshole Wienerbitch to sort himself out, past trying to convince the world he is an expert at hermaphordite act-ups, so we should all let him take us off, since he's both mysterious and SMAAART!  Like a fart.  Wienerbitch happens to be completely full of shit.
		
Click to expand...


ian is wrong bob and the work of N&Z, Jelbring, and Graeff are proving him, and all warmers and luke warmers wrong and doing so via the laws of physics, observation, and repeatable experimentation.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality.
> ...



Of course you are but you must first define, and specify what the use of the property means.  I have looked and in the case of the S-B equations no such meaning has ever been specified.  Physics isn't just about getting an answer, it is about describing reality and therefore when you are going to alter an equation that represents a known reality, you must define the alteration.  That is, describe and justify the reality that the alteration of the equation suggests.

ian and I have been having this discussion regarding the use of the Stefan-Boltzman equations as used by climate science, which, by the way Nikolov and Zeller have proven to be wrong and the actual laboratory experimentation by Graeff has proven this error.

The actual Stefan-Boltzman equation is as follows:






This equation describes an energy change between a radiator and a background in which the radiator is of a higher temperature than the background.  The SB law is only valid when the temperature of the emitter is higher than that of the background.  

The altered S-B equation that is taught in climate physics but not classical physics and which has never had the use of the distributive property of algebra defined is as follows:






This equation allows T to be set to zero which is contrary to the S-B law which requires that the temperature of T (the radiator) be greater than that of the background.  It effectvely applies the SB law twice to the equation wherein radiation = the difference between the temperature of the ratiator and that of the backtround (then you make the background the emitter and the emitter the background) and subtract the temperature difference after you have made the cold background the warmer emitter and have made the warmer emitter the colder background. 

The bottom line is the same using either equation, but one describes a physical reality while the other does not.  Aside from all that, applying the distributive property to the S-B equation is just bad math.  Why would you rationally complicate an equation by applying the distributive property to an equation which was already in its simplest form?  The answer is to create the illusion of backradiation when backradiation is necessary to make your flawed hypothesis appear correct.

This misuse of the SB equations is a very fundamental part of the error cascade that has become climate science.  The flawed equation is actually being taught as if it were correct and is now simply assumed throughout climate science.  The problem is that it is wrong and therefore every climate model which uses it (and they all do) is wrong as evidenced by the fact that study after study has found that climate models are worse at predicting the climate than random guessing.

So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing.  In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant.  It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science.  Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.



The claim of climate science (aside from your own description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming) is that CO2 radiates IR from the atmosphere back to the surface where it is reabsorbed and causes warming.  

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Page 115 - Frequently asked question 1.3

"what is the greenhouse effect"

"The Sun powers Earths climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum. 
Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earths atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. 
Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth*.  This is called the greenhouse effect."

You like to go on about what you call "my" theories on radiation when your own ideas about how CO2 causes warming are off the reservation as well ian.  Climate science officilaly states that backradiation from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, not the (also impossible) "slowing down" IR in its exit from the atmosphere.

Now you didn't come up with the idea that CO2 slows down IR from exiting the atmosphere any more than I came up with the physical laws, science, and mathematics  that I use to support my position.  Those that I reference, however, are not only supported, but are predicted by the laws of physics. (which, by the way is the reason that I believe they are correct)  Those you use, on the other hand, are neither supported nor predicted by the laws of physics, and as you have shown repeatedly, you must alter the statements of the various laws in order for your position to even begin to make sense.  This is the pseudoscience that you have adopted because it supported your already held belief that CO2 somehow must have the capacity to cause warming.

You picked the wrong horse ian.  When will you admit it.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.
> ...



the reason why I always pipe up when you make incorrect statements is because the skeptical side must not make the same mistakes as the warmers. as soon as a skeptic makes an untrue claim that is enough for everything else that he says to be dismissed out of hand. 

I work from basic principles and let others do the grunt work of calculations. you look at the complexities and try to find conondrums that could be phrased in a way to appear be at odds with basic laws.

CO2 absorbs and scatters bands of IR which are part of the emission spectra of the earth's surface. this impedes the loss of energy to space. besides you and a few other crackpots everybody agrees with this principle and by denying it you make everything else you state come under suspicion. 

then you mangle the SLoT. the SLoT has nothing to do with individual particles and their absorbance or emission of photons. the second law only deals with large numer systems.






here are the blackbody curves for 3 temperatures. it _does not matter_ what the temps are because all the curves have the same shape and only the _x and y_ axis change. this graph explains the SLoT in a nutshell. when there are two body of differing temperatures the cooler on always has less radiation than the warmer one. the warmer one always has excess radiation with which to warm the cooler one. the common area under the curve is the amount of radiation is going in both directions and has a cancelled out effect. the radiation doesnt cancel out, it is still there but there is no effect because it is going in both directions. this is the visual image of -




the fact that we can calculate the radiation for T and Tc means that there is nothing wrong with-





are there complexities involved? of course! the earth's surface is a good blackbody, the atmosphere less so, CO2 alone even less. that does not negate the basic principles of CO2 absorbing and scattering IR, which leads to less IR being lost to space.

this now leads into another area in which we have butted heads over.

the sun doesnt care about our atmosphere, it just keeps on pouring in energy. if less energy is escaping then that energy is used to heat the surface until the temperature is high enough so that the radiation from the surface is high enough (less the impeded energy, so-called backradiation) to again match the input from the sun. _the atmosphere is not heating the surface, the sun is heating the surface!!!!!_. the atmosphere is only changing the equilibrium points in the system between where the energy comes in and the energy goes out.

I really dont know how I could it explain it in simpler terms. and I am only explaining one aspect of what is going on. if skeptics deny that these basic processes are going on then why should anyone listen to the rest of the skeptical points?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.
> ...



*Oh, wow, Wienerbitch went to an FAQ.  You got an estimate, for EFFECTS, of radiation, including backradiation, which diffuse, after you spammed up these threads, a couple of weeks ago, with crap, theorizing neat reflectivity, by clouds, as if the Earth's water works like a tin-foil hat.

Since you are so methodical, regal queen Wienerbitch, I see you have worked out "effect," to the degree needed, to go after FAQs, at a website, describing an "effect." 

Let's see if you can get to FAQs about GWP for all the different kinds of methane and other GHGs.  GWP looks like pretty good effect-theory, to me.  Of course, now that you are into effects, you can quote yourself and fuck yourself, and ask yourself, frequently, why don't you, Wienerbitch, take off with your wingpunks, and fly up each others' butts?

Don't forget to go over to Dr. Climate Change, and see if the staff will answer you, if you can't get to FAQs, where you've been doing that, finally.  I guess your FAQ trend means you, Wienerbitch are smart, for a stupid, posing queer.

You sure are an effete, bullshitting, chickenshitting bitch, trying to play "effects."  Calc this  *


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing.  In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant.  It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science.  Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.



It doesn't sound like your issue is with the use of Stefan-Boltzmann. It sounds like you're objecting to acknowledging or using the downward flux component of Schwarzschild's two stream equations in thinking about radiative transfer in an atmosphere (understanding the atmosphere itself to be a radiator). _That's_ how you end up with a simple surface budget in which a planet's ground temperature exceeds its no-atmosphere value.

I thought it was pretty widely understand by most folks that the planet's surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Is this now considered "bad" physics in some quarters?


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing.  In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant.  It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science.  Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.
> ...



thanks guy. well said


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

*I know you can't set up problems, you always bullshit, and now, others seem to be agreeing with me, Wienerbitch.

Got any more FAQs, in no particular order?  Where do you think you are going, to prove glaciers aren't actually receding?  You diverted a thread, by trying to baffle everybody, with bullshit, and now, your bullshit is getting examined, and it is being shown to be bullshit.

Got any reasons why you ALWAYS bullshit, Wienerbitch?  Gee, I guess Wally went to the beach, today.*


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> It doesn't sound like your issue is with the use of Stefan-Boltzmann. It sounds like you're objecting to acknowledging or using the downward flux component of Schwarzschild's two stream equations in thinking about radiative transfer in an atmosphere (understanding the atmosphere itself to be a radiator). _That's_ how you end up with a simple surface budget in which a planet's ground temperature exceeds its no-atmosphere value.



There is no downward flux component from the atmosphere.  I would be happy to give you the plans for a simple and inexpensive experiment (less than $40) that you can do in your own back yard to prove conclusively that there is no downward radiation due to CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor.



Greenbeard said:


> I thought it was pretty widely understand by most folks that the planet's surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Is this now considered "bad" physics in some quarters?



That's one of the problems with "wide" understanding.  The atmosphere keeps us from freezing at night, but during the day, it keeps us from frying.  Check out the daytime temperatures on the moon sans atmosphere.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

IanC said:


> the reason why I always pipe up when you make incorrect statements is because the skeptical side must not make the same mistakes as the warmers. as soon as a skeptic makes an untrue claim that is enough for everything else that he says to be dismissed out of hand.



The reason you always pipe up is because you are wrong and can't bear to admit it.  Then you go about distorting what I have said in an attempt to make me look wrong as well.



IanC said:


> I work from basic principles and let others do the grunt work of calculations.



Actually, you don't.  You work from distored basic principles which leads you to distorted understandings.



IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs and scatters bands of IR which are part of the emission spectra of the earth's surface. this impedes the loss of energy to space. besides you and a few other crackpots everybody agrees with this principle and by denying it you make everything else you state come under suspicion.



Been through that and it doesn't happen.  The only way CO2 could impeed the loss of energy to a degree which would mean anything at all would be if IR moved from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule.  IR moving at, or very near the speed of light having a single interaction with a CO2 molecule and then moving on can not cause the effect you claim and since one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule, your hypothesis goes up in smoke.



IanC said:


> then you mangle the SLoT. the SLoT has nothing to do with individual particles and their absorbance or emission of photons. the second law only deals with large numer systems.



A prime example of you working from distorted basic principles.  The second law is a law of nature, not a law of systems.  If it were a law of systems, it woudl state as much.  No example exists of a violation of the second law....period.



IanC said:


> here are the blackbody curves for 3 temperatures.



Irrelavent as the earth is not a black body.  Another problem with using the SB equations as N&Z have proven.  




IanC said:


> are there complexities involved? of course! the earth's surface is a good blackbody,



More flawed basic principles.  The earth's surface is not a black body at all.  Here, have a definition from the science dictionary:

black body:  (physics)  Also called: full radiator  a hypothetical body that would be capable of absorbing all the electromagnetic radiation falling on it.  

The surface of the earth is nothing like a perfect radiator.  You have missed the boat where the basics are concerned ian and doing so will invariably lead you to flawed conclusions.  Wasn't it just last week when you were suggesting that natural processes were reversible when in fact, natural processes are irreversible?



IanC said:


> the atmosphere less so, CO2 alone even less. that does not negate the basic principles of CO2 absorbing and scattering IR, which leads to less IR being lost to space.



Again, flawed basic principles.  Scattering IR is a mechanism for cooling, not warming.



IanC said:


> I really dont know how I could it explain it in simpler terms. and I am only explaining one aspect of what is going on. if skeptics deny that these basic processes are going on then why should anyone listen to the rest of the skeptical points?



You can't explain it at all ian, because you are wrong.  There is no such thing as backradiation any more than there is back convetion or back conduction.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *I know you can't set up problems, you always bullshit, and now, others seem to be agreeing with me, Wienerbitch.*


*

How proud they must be to be in agreement with the likes of you.

Hear that ian, you are in agreement with bobo.*


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

*Why wait, Wienerbitch?  Cop to your experiment, next post, since you jerked the thread, for pages.  It's an experiment.  So what in the world are you waiting for, if you have it, already?

Sometimes Wiener doesn't have what he claims to have, such as some amount of science, going, which exceeds dilettante-retard levels.

Don't forget to include some sort of valid premise, such as, to read a graph, you have to pull your Wienerbitchin' head out of your anus.*


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 16, 2012)

wirebender said:


> There is no downward flux component from the atmosphere.  I would be happy to give you the plans for a simple and inexpensive experiment (less than $40) that you can do in your own back yard to prove conclusively that there is no downward radiation due to CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor.



You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't _actually_, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.

That's a much more limited argument than you've been suggesting. "CO2 is not a strong absorber" is much different than "it violates the laws of physics for a slab of atmosphere to absorb and emit."


----------



## wirebender (Jun 17, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't _actually_, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.



The reason that downdwelling radiation is possible with water vapor is that water vapor can actually absorb energy and in fact become warmer than the surface in which case, the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy can move from warmer to cooler.



Greenbeard said:


> That's a much more limited argument than you've been suggesting. "CO2 is not a strong absorber" is much different than "it violates the laws of physics for a slab of atmosphere to absorb and emit."



No, it is precisely what I have been suggesting.  Water vapor is the only gas within the atmospere that absorbs and retains energy, therefore it is the only gas within the atmosphere capable of causing warming.  CO2, and the other assorted so called greenhouse gasses don't cause less warming, they don't cause any warming.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't _actually_, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.
> ...



_*The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG, since these must simply reflect all energy or absorb and re-emit, instantly, and directly out into space.  If emission by CO2 or CH4 issue at another atmospheric partical, this radiation shall not under any circumstances be absorbed, certainly not by the lower atmosphere or surface of the Earth, the end.

Wienerbitch physics formerly included the tinfoil hat theory, how water neatly reflects all radiation, into space, never mind 40 or so miles of atmosphere and several tendencies going on, all the way up and down and around the heated, lighted side, of Earth.

Wienerbitch, you can't load a good graph, half the time, and you are only one-for-two.  You can't think, you can't write, you don't come up with links, you don't know physics better than I do, and I didn't study physics, and you are a sorry dumbshit and an asshole of a hermaphrodite.  Have a good weekend, dumbshit.*_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 17, 2012)

Why do the warmer k00ks get so angry and miserable all the time if they are so sure they are 100% correct??


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG,*_


_*

You idiot, physical laws predict absorption and emission by certain molecules in certain wavelengths.  To bad there isn't a children's section on this board because you clearly don't know enough to talk with the adults.

It is more than clear bob that you don't have the slightest idea what we are talking about, much less understand the physics involved.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Why do the warmer k00ks get so angry and miserable all the time if they are so sure they are 100% correct??



Because they are kooks.  That's what kooks do.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _*The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG,*_
> ...


_*

Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.

You can't understand molecular and radiation issues, you pretended the Earth's atmosphere can reflect, like a tinfoil hat, you loaded a shit graph, with no labels on the plots, and you loaded a montage of La Jolla, purportedly showing sea level information, without tidal reference points.

Your qualifications at physics are you happen to be a retarded hermaphrodite, bitch.

So why don't you take your boyfriend suckass out for some 69 smilies?  A wiener retard, and a "winner," who is a complete idiot, eh?  You punks are made for each other.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _*Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.*_


_*

Obviously, you can't read bob.  But do feel free to bring forward any quote from me in which I said only warm objects can radiate.  Failure to do so will only serve to prove that you can't read. 

 Clearly bob, this is waaaaaaayyyyyyy over your head so why subject yourself to further public humiliation?*_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _*Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.*_
> ...


_*

What would that be over, Wienerbitch?  Fucktard physics, whereby you might swear atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms don't tend to cause a greenhouse effect?Would that be Wiener's theory of convection, which is magically the same as photon emission, leading to Ian's several pages of questions, for you?  

Would that be your gay graphics, where you loaded that piece of shit, on its side, without labels, for the plots, or a Holocene Period, both relevant?  Would that be your inability, to read a valid graph?

Would that be La Jolla beach boy oceanography, where you did an unscholarly load, of a photo-montage, with no tidal reference markers?

Would that be idiot inference, which you use, with your head, waaaaaaayyyyyy up your hermaphrodite asshole, while trying to think and type and masturbate, all at once, so you just dissed O.R. for linking a study, with satellite data?  Can you remember, to eat shit, and die?

See if you can shoot this, over Pig Shitz' head, since Ian is making you look like an asshole: the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional, to the angle of the bitch-dangle, times a constant, given constant Wienerbitch masturbation, during any hockey game, where bitch won't pick up a stick.

Go Wiener!  Go Wiener!  Go Wienerbitch.  Piss off, idiot.*_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 18, 2012)

Unable to provide the quote you attribute to me bob?  How completely unsurprising since I never said any such thing.  That can only mean that in additon to being a repressed homosexual, you lie.  You get less interesting all the time.


----------



## IanC (Jun 18, 2012)

> 11-29-2011, 04:51 AM
> wirebender
> Registered User
> Member #29079   Join Date: Mar 2011
> ...



is this the past explanation yo are talking about? hahahahaha. wirebender's clear, concise, and logical thinking on display.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


_*



Ya know fella's.........check out all the pet names!!!

Im becomming convinced we have a miserable, angry limpwrister on our hands here.......but its cool. He brings the good stuff we like to make fun of. If its a bit gay, so be it.*_


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Unable to provide the quote you attribute to me bob?  How completely unsurprising since I never said any such thing.  That can only mean that in additon to being a repressed homosexual, you lie.  You get less interesting all the time.



*I always was boring, Wienerbitch, and not very intriguing.  Didn't you say waaaaayyyy?

I don't know what you are denying, bitch.  One out of two at graphs, and you couldn't read the good one, which is gay graphics.  You didn't like O.R.'s sat data study on SLR, but neither did Ian, so you both go for fucktard physics.  You tried to convince everybody atmospheric water is like a tinfoil hat, on the Earth, so more fucktard physics came from YOU.  You loaded that La Jolla junk montage, which was beach boy oceanography, neat of any calibrated tide levels, which is queer, as a three-dollar-bill.  Eat shit and come out, bitch.

You are in denial, of warming AND AGW, like dead queers, who tricked and shoved meth, to push their HIV, all the way through AIDS, to death.  But now they're dead.  I bet you can hardly wait, to eat shit and die.  You will die, before you successfully convince anybody how you know something, since you are a complete bullshitter and trasher.

You hang around, like this is some kind of yard, where Q-bag came out, so what do you think you have going, without your own homosexuality being evident?  What do ALL the wingpunk queers do?  You guys post complete shit, without proper references.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 18, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Unable to provide the quote you attribute to me bob?  How completely unsurprising since I never said any such thing.  That can only mean that in additon to being a repressed homosexual, you lie.  You get less interesting all the time.
> ...







Proper references?









 Im laughing. And whats with all the rage s0n? All that rage is gay........makes you look like you're getting publically pwned s0n.


As Ive said many times......if the science you push is such a no-brainer, why then, is nobody listening? That fact is not debatable for single moment. Cap and Trade died two years ago........its not even brought to the house floor by even the k00kiest of representatives living in k00k districts. But nobody should take my word for it..............

Read it in the New York Times.............. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?_r=1



So who exactly is wearing the tin foil cap s0n? The climate crusaders are in such decline, its nothing short of laughable. Nobody.....and I really mean nobody cares about thsi climate change BS except the fringe nutty-asses on the internet. These dolts have literally posted up millions of hysterical posts about the the end of the world and where has it gotten them?

I'll tell you where it has gotten them.........................

*It

hasnt

added

up

to  

DICK* 





But knock yourself out s0n cursing the sceptics on here who pwn you in epic fashion. We all get a fucking kick out of it, in fact, I cant wait to get in here every night to see the hysterical awaiting me in here.


IDK how some of these people missed so many memo's in their formative years that they can consciously come back in here on a daily basis and make asses out of themselves. Its fucking fascinating. Brings me back to my college years long ago.......you'd always have the couple of jackasses show up at every party even though they got verbally abused the whole night. And they'd sure as shit show up at the next one like a perpetual side show.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 18, 2012)

Skooks, Wire, West, Frank, Fitz, Dave.......................


----------



## wirebender (Jun 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> is this the past explanation yo are talking about? hahahahaha. wirebender's clear, concise, and logical thinking on display.



Not at all ian.  And the fact remains that we have little idea of what is going on at the sub atomic level.  Billions of dollars are spent yearly in an attempt to just get the smallest glimpse of what is happening at that level.   We arent even close to understanding what is really going on down there.

Volumes, have been written however on the fact that EM fields can and do interfere, diminish, and cancell each other out.  

The harder you try ian, the more rediculous you look.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > is this the past explanation yo are talking about? hahahahaha. wirebender's clear, concise, and logical thinking on display.
> ...



*"Volumes," comma, have been written!  EMs "cancell" each other out.  No shit.

OK, spelling-bee rejects.  If two objects in the exact same place cause cancelling EM waves, these cancel.  If two fields interact, interference occurs, IN SPOTS, Wienerbitch.  If you and Ian do the 69, in a car moving down the street, and you guys bite each other, while fighting for the wheel, so what?  

You still can't drive for shit, and your writing sucks because YOU SUCK.

Molecules with three or more atoms tend to help trap IR in the atmosphere, close to the surface of the Earth.  Put a kid in a car in the sun, with the windows rolled up, and see if the cops don't arrest the neo-con punkass-bitch, who does this, but if you take a queer dog, like suckassbil, and try this, you might only get a warning.*


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2012)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > is this the past explanation yo are talking about? hahahahaha. wirebender's clear, concise, and logical thinking on display.
> ...




what? so now we dont know? but you were so sure I was wrong! and what about your magical explanation that remains hidden with John Smith's gold plates?

you refuse to define anything. everything is an 'EM field'. you make no distinction between reactive and radiative. you make a big deal out of photons being the smallest quanta of a EM field and yet you dont want to discuss why photons from electric or magnetic fields can be attractive or repulsive while other photons are just light.


you have all the pieces mixed up in your head and you have the timerity to call me ignorant.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> what? so now we dont know? but you were so sure I was wrong! and what about your magical explanation that remains hidden with John Smith's gold plates?



Dishonesty is such a poor debate tactic ian.



IanC said:


> you refuse to define anything. everything is an 'EM field'.



What is to define ian.  The IR radiating away from the surface of the earth is an EM field.  The IR that is emitted by a CO2 molecule is an EM field.  Are you unaware of what an EM field is?

I have finished talking to you till you demonstrate that you grasp the concept of addition and subtraction of EM fields.  When you can acknowledge that one EM field can diminish or cancel out another field and explain how that might happen without reducing the numbe of photons that made up the field then we can continue.  Otherwise, talking to you is like beating a dead horse.  You are wrong but are sure that you are right even though the laws of physics state clearly that you are wrong and all definitions from credible sources state you are wrong.  Of what possible use does further discussion serve?


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2012)

you are finished talking because you have nothing to say.

an electron placed in between two opposing magnetic fields is acted upon by both fields. the photons carrying force carry out their duty and when the final total is reached it veers one way or the other. the photons didnt disappear, they were expended on the electron (a bit of matter). if you place a neutron in the same spot no force will be transfered, the virtual photons radiated from the magnetic fields will simply be reabsorbed when their time runs out.

how is a radiative photon ejected to remove energy from an excited CO2 molecule similar to magnetic or electric fields? it is a real photon with no preconditions like the neccessity of a charged particle for interaction. please tell me why you think these two examples are the same.

you just have everything jumbled up in your brain


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 19, 2012)

Here's a flash of reality that is actually on topic.

*Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists
Greenland's glaciers are melting 30 faster than they were a decade ago, satellite images reveal.* 
Christian Science Monitor
By Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff Writer  
May 3, 2012
(excerpts)

*Greenland's ice sheet is on the move, with new images showing its glaciers moving 30 percent faster than they were a decade ago. Greenland and Antarctica are home to the two biggest blocks of ice on Earth. As climate changes, these glacier are shrinking and the water contained in them is moving into the oceans, adding to the already rising sea level. The researchers analyzed satellite images of the Greenland glaciers taken between 2000 and 2010. These annual images were put through a computer program to detect how quickly the ice is moving. In general, the glacial flow has sped up by 30 percent over the 10 years, Moon said.

To get a better idea of the glacier's dynamics, the researchers looked at the area's more than 200 glaciers individually. Some of these glaciers end on land, some drop off into the sea, and the rest gradually extend their ice sheets into the water, creating an ice shelf. The researchers saw that the glacier's type has a big impact on how quickly it flows. Land-ending ice sheets can move 30 to 325 feet (9 to 99 meters) per year, while glaciers that terminate in ice shelves move much faster, from 1,000 to more than 5,000 feet (305 to 1,600 m) per year. The glaciers that drop off into the sea are flowing the fastest, Moon said, up to 7 miles (11 kilometers) per year and their speeds are accelerating. "The areas where the ice sheet loses the most ice are also the areas we are seeing the biggest changes," Moon said.

"A lot of the drive behind current Greenland ice sheet and Antarctica studies is to ask, 'What sea-level rise can we expect?'" Moon said. "Both of these areas hold vast amounts of ice and the potential for very large sea-level rises. We need to understand what's happening on them to see what potential scenario will be realized." The study is to be published tomorrow (May 4) in the journal Science.*


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 19, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's a flash of reality that is actually on topic.
> 
> *Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists
> Greenland's glaciers are melting 30 faster than they were a decade ago, satellite images reveal.*
> ...



*Both of these areas hold vast amounts of ice and the potential for very large sea-level rises.*

What is "very large seal level rises?

Now the experts tell us that:
Glaciers store about 69% of the world's freshwater, and if all land ice melted the seas would rise about 70 meters (about 230 feet).
Glaciers and icecaps, USGS Water Science for Schools water-information site

WOW 230 feet if all the glaciers melted!
WOW..
So with 57,491,000 square miles of land..
and with 5,773,000,000,000,000,000 (5.7 quintillion gallons in all the Ice caps,Glaciers),..
and it all melted it would add to all the oceans seas, bays with 321 quintillion gallons that would be equal to adding 1.74% to the oceans.

That is equal to adding to a 648,000 gallon Olympic sized pool at 9 feet 10 inches

2 inches!

In Florida the commonly used example of land being covered by melting glaciers,  the gulf of Mexico is a depth of less then 100 feet for over 100 miles from shore.
1.74% increase of water due to melting of all glaciers would add 1.7 feet.
NOT perceivable nor affecting life much less covering the state!

So where did these experts get 230 feet!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 19, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a flash of reality that is actually on topic.
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....always funny to watch retards try to do math.

"*1.74% increase of water due to melting of all glaciers would add 1.7 feet.*"

Unbelievably stupid conclusion there, Hellamyths. You really don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, do you? BTW, the actual figure for the percentage of water on Earth that is ice, is 2.2%.

"*So where did these experts get 230 feet!!!*"

Maybe because they are experts and they actually know something. Unlike you, you dimwitted fool. Scientists can look at what happened in the Earth's past when CO2 levels were this high and temperatures were a a few degrees warmer and sea levels were up to 70 feet higher. Large sea level rises due to the melting of the glaciers and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets have happened before, dumbass.

*Global Sea Level Likely to Rise as Much as 70 Feet for Future Generations*
Rutgers University
March 19, 2012
(excerpts)

*Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology. The researchers, led by Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University, reached their conclusion by studying rock and soil cores in Virginia, Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific and New Zealand. They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were 2 degrees C higher than they are now. 

The difference in water volume released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, said H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundations Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the work. Such a rise of the modern oceans would swamp the worlds coasts and affect as much as 70 percent of the worlds population. Miller said, however, that this research highlights the sensitivity of the earths great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature results in a large sea-level rise. The natural state of the earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 20 meters higher than at present, he said. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a flash of reality that is actually on topic.
> ...



Well, instead of being such a screwball flapyap, and just throwing meaningless numbers around, you might try researching how the scientists arrived at those numbers.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 24, 2012)

Greenland ice will make a difference, but the worst SLR outcome will happen, after East Antarctica starts to melt.  EA is just losing around the fringes, while overall cover is intact or growing, slightly.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Greenland ice will make a difference, but the worst SLR outcome will happen, after East Antarctica starts to melt.  EA is just losing around the fringes, while overall cover is intact or growing, slightly.





So..........did anybody else see Bob-g's posting of his home made emergency ark ( in case the floods come )

Apologize if it is a repost............I think its actually a fairly good effort.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 25, 2012)

But *suckassbil*.  You'll for sure be dead, by the time East Antarctica starts to really melt down.  So never mind science.  You'll be dead!  And you'll be winning!

I have NO DOUBT.  I don't get flooded out, do you?  Do retards on meth swim?  Like Phelps, I bet.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 25, 2012)

I got one for you, suckassbil.  There's VOLCANOES in Antarctica.  Some of them are under East Antarctica.  So what happens, when the heavy tides disturb volcanic shit, in East Antarctica?                    

Why then!  Those volcanoes in East Antarctica melt a shitload, and they release CO2, SO2, and N2S, and some don't put any ash, into the atmosphere!  The sea level will go up, for shit-sure, and some.  But by then, you'll be kinda dead, or not?

THE PLEIADES	Stratovolcano	Potassium-Argon	East Antarctica
UNNAMED  	Scoria cones	Holocene?	                East Antarctica
MOUNT RITTMANN	Shield volcano	Pleistocene-Fumarolic	East Antarctica
MELBOURNE	Stratovolcano	Tephrochronology	East Antarctica
UNNAMED 	Submarine volcano	Holocene?	        East Antarctica
EREBUS	        Stratovolcano	         Historical	        East Antarctica
MT. MORNING	Shield volcano	Holocene?	                East Antarctica
ROYAL SOCIETY RANGE	Cinder cones   Holocene?	East Antarctica


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2012)

Listening said:
			
		

> Hey stupid !
> 
> This article compares melting to 10 years ago.
> 
> ...


 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibaYHTPE0uY"]just hook it to my veins - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 25, 2012)

How do these people even navigate life without a mobile valium drip?

What you see going on here people is uncontrolled OCD. I deal with it every day at work. Its people ruminating on thoughts.........its basically, a serotonin level fuck up, and Im not kidding. Its not at all unlike the dude who cant leave his home in the morning without washing his hands 25X. All these radical environmentalists.........they wake up worring about this shit. That is why, if you notice, I never refer to these people as "retards". Stuff has nothing to do with intelligence...........100% certainty. But there are many people with depressive disorders. OCD falls under the depression umbrella and is treatable only with pharmachological aids.


People who eat, sleep and drink the world is coming to an end stuff cannot help themselves, just like the guy who cant fall asleep without putting his remote control in a safe. OCD tends to be very specific in how it manifests itself. Accordingly, that is why you just dont have many people who embrace the doomsday stuff.........its only the OCD's and/or the money chasers.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 25, 2012)

_How do you explain 3000 posts per year, like the ones you put up, *suckassbil*?  

Are you somehow a professional sociopath?  What's* Pig Shitz'* excuse, for pretending Greenland isn't melting, and it isn't going to finish melting, maybe in our lifetime?  Is it shit-for-brains?_


----------

