# So the Oceans are rising are they?



## westwall (Mar 28, 2011)

Well no, it appears they are not.  Surprise surprise.  And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.    Poor oltrakarfraud.

worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)

Abstract:

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses




J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. james.r.houston@usace.army.mil

Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. dean@coastal.ufl.edu

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean

Discussion: (excerpt)

We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 19302001 and 19302007) and by extending Douglass (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.

The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration.

Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.





Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

OOPS Never-Mind! Climate Scientists Withdraw IPCC-Related Article Claiming Sea Is Rising « PA Pundits &#8211; International


----------



## The Infidel (Mar 28, 2011)

Im going to keep it simple...

I have lived on the coast all my life, and the beach is still in the same place as it was when I was a little bitty boy


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

But...but...I believe Al Gore. I...I..mean just because he admitted to lying a few times. I just know he was telling the truth about the oceans rising 20 feet.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 29, 2011)

the infidel said:


> im going to keep it simple...
> 
> I have lived on the coast all my life, and the beach is still in the same place as it was when i was a little bitty boy






*laugh......my.....balls......off*



Ment*al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 29, 2011)

*Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!! Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!al breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!!Mental breakdown ALERT for Chris!!!! *


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 29, 2011)

Just watch where the Gorical purchases property to know what the 'climate' will be a doin'.  Didn't he buy a beach front . . . er, I mean 'ocean view' . .. .mega-million joint last year?  

You all forgot the mantra.  'Do as I say not as I do'.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 29, 2011)

Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes

Christ. I found some papers which seem to indicate sea level is rising.  Seems pretty slow to me mind you, but I dont live on a pacific island.

How can we decide which scientists are correct or even on the up and up?

(Ey, and what is up with them silly brain melt posts? Do we get rep points per post or is there no age limit or something else going on?)


----------



## acc_69 (Mar 29, 2011)

Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't.  I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?


----------



## konradv (Mar 29, 2011)

acc_69 said:


> Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't.  I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?



Environmental regulations.  Whatever happened to knowing about a topic before posting?  Limits on SO2 reduced the "acid rain" problem, just like banning CFCs led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.  Funny how many deniers talk about "junk science".  That's what they said about the two examples I gave.  They just can't help being on the wrong side of science, history AND logic again, now that we're talking CO2 and GHGs.


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

konradv said:


> acc_69 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't.  I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?
> ...







What about the OP there konrad?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

*Another article in the same journal.*

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Effects of Global Change on Heterogeneous Coastal Aquifers: A Case Study in Belgium

Effects of Global Change on Heterogeneous Coastal Aquifers: A Case Study in Belgium

A. Vandenbohede, K. Luyten, and L. Lebbe
Department of Geology and Soil Science, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 (S8), B-9000 Gent, Belgium, alexander.vandenbohede@ugent.be

Abstract 

Coastal plains are in the frontline of climate change. Predicted increase in recharge and sea level rise will alter groundwater flow, water quality distribution, recharge, and discharge considerably. This is simulated here in the Belgian western coastal plain. It consists of a shore, dunes, and polder (low-lying area) with a heterogeneous ground-water reservoir of quaternary age. A three-dimensional density-dependent groundwater flow model based on numerous (hydro)geologic observations was made. First the current groundwater flow and distribution between fresh and salt water was simulated. Then the effects of a 15% recharge increase and 0.4 m of sea level rise in the next 100 years were modelled. Sea level rise results in an increased flow of fresh water toward the polder and a decreased flow toward the sea. An increase in recharge results in more water flowing toward both the polder and the sea. Brackish water present in the polder will be pushed back as is a current saltwater intrusion from the polder in the dunes. The simulations also show that groundwater levels will rise. This will put strain on the ecologically valuable dunes and the drainage system in the polders.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

*Again, from the same journal.*

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4298366

Abstract
Sea level oscillated between 5500 and 3500 years ago at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina (33°33'N, 79°02'W). The oscillation is well constrained by marsh foraminiferal zonations. For the same time interval, data from Nova Scotia indicate an acceleration in sea-level rise and a report from the Gulf of St. Lawrence suggests an oscillation of sea level at the same time. The implications are: (1) there was a eustatic sealevel oscillation of about 2 m in the mid-Holocene on the east coast of North America that is not detectable in present geophysical models of relative sea-level change; (2) if an anthropogenically derived global warming of 4°C takes place, sea level may rise as much as 2 m in 500 yr along the east coast of North America. It appears that the initial rapid rise is recorded all along the eastern seaboard of North America, but detection of the subsequent fall is dependent on existing glacio-isostatic effects (either subsidence or rebound) that are independent of eustatic sea level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Climate Controls on US West Coast Erosion Processes

Climate Controls on US West Coast Erosion Processes

Jonathan C. Allana and Paul D. Komarb
aCoastal Field Office, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, PO Box 1033, Newport, OR 97365, U.S.A. jonathan.allan@dogami.state.or.us 

bCollege of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 Ocean Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A 

Abstract 

Erosion along the West Coast of the United States is affected by climate controls that include a trend of increasing wave heights during at least the past 25 years that might be related to global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) range between El Niños and La Niñas that affects both annual wave conditions and monthly mean water levels that raise tidal elevations. These processes are analyzed for sites from Washington to south-central California, revealing a latitude dependence of the individual processes and how their combinations affect total water levels at the shore, which is important to beach and property erosion. Particularly significant on the coast of the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon) has been the progressive decadal increases in deep-water wave heights and periods, which have increased breaker heights and elevated storm wave runup levels on beaches. Along the entire West Coast, the annual variations in wave conditions above and below any progressive decadal increase are controlled by the North Pacific index (NPI), the atmospheric pressure difference between the Hawaiian High and Aleutian Low, and the ENSO range, as demonstrated by a strong correlation with the multivariate ENSO index (MEI), with the highest wave conditions occurring during El Niños. In addition, the ENSO range is particularly important in controlling mean water levels, causing tides to reach their highest elevations during El Niños, again shown by correlations with MEIs along the entire West Coast. With El Niños producing increased deep-water wave heights, runup levels on beaches, and elevated tides, the total water levels at the shore from the combined processes are significantly higher compared with normal or La Niña years, resulting in episodes of major property erosion along the entire US West Coast.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: El Niño, La Niña, global climate, wave climate


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

*Satellite observations.*

CEOS

Since the beginning of high-accuracy satellite altimetry in the early 1990s, global mean sea level has been shown by both tide gauges and altimeters to be rising at a rate of just above 3 mm/year, compared to a rate of less than 2 mm/year from tide gauges over the previous century. The exact source of the accelerated rise is uncertain, but, with regard to future uncertainty, attention is being given to understanding the rate of loss of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. About half of the sea level rise during the first decade of the altimeter record can be attributed to thermal expansion due to a warming of the oceans; the other major contributions include the combined effects of melting glaciers and ice sheets.


----------



## konradv (Mar 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > acc_69 said:
> ...



Like temperature you can argue back and forth about sea levels, too.   The bottom line is, if GHGs keep going up, how can we expect anything but warming?  You can argue all you want about absolute figures, but if GHGs keep going up, you've never posted anything that proves that temps and sea levels won't eventually go up, too.  I'm not tied to any timeline myself, just the LOGIC of, if there's an increase in an energy-trapping substance, lo and behold!, more energy will be trapped.  Since humans put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, to what would you ascribe the cause for the increase in atmospheric GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

*Seems that I have addressed the OP. Seems to be a differance of opinion here. The majority are stating that the sea level rise is accelerating. And all are from peer reviewed journals, also. Of course, most of the ones I have cited are data from all over the world, rather than just the US.*

Observations of present-day sea level change: What do they tell us? (Invited)

Title: 
 Observations of present-day sea level change: What do they tell us? (Invited) 
Authors: 
 Nerem, R. 
Affiliation: 
 AA(CCAR, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA; nerem@colorado.edu) 
Publication: 
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #NH11D-03 Publication Date: 
 12/2010 
Origin: 
 AGU 
Keywords: 
 [1641] GLOBAL CHANGE / Sea level change, [4556] OCEANOGRAPHY: PHYSICAL / Sea level: variations and mean 
Bibliographic Code: 
 2010AGUFMNH11D..03N 

Abstract
With the launch of TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and the subsequent launch of Jason-1 (2001) and Jason-2 (2008), we now have a precise 18-year continuous record of sea level change. Observations of sea level change from tide gauges also play an important role, because they provide a means of linking the satellite observations over the last decade to sea level change over the past century. Two more developments fundamentally improved our capability to study the causes of sea level change: the launch of the GRACE satellite gravity mission and the establishment of the Argo network of profiling floats. Together, satellite altimetry, satellite gravity, tide gauge data, and Argo measurements have provided unprecedented insight into the magnitude, spatial variability, and causes of present-day sea level change. These results will be reviewed and compared to historical measurements of sea level change from the tide gauge network. The main conclusion is that the rate of sea level rise has roughly doubled over the last few decades. All of these observations give us clues about future sea level change, but important questions remain concerning the magnitude, spatial variability, and socio-economic impacts of this change. This talk will assess what tools and other developments we need to answer these questions


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.

Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!

ICECAP


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 29, 2011)

It's almost as if being ignorant is somehow the "in thing" these days.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2011)

its odd how the areas with the best data always seem to show the least amount of 'climate change' and the areas with poor data and the most infilling and 'adjustments' show the most. I cant help but think the next 10 or 20 years will show an interesting reversal of trends as the cumulative affects of 'pushing' data in a certain direction will pop the bubble and lead to a correction. we may get a preview of that when the Berkeley data comes out hugely expands the error bars for a large percentage of the planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.
> 
> Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!
> 
> ICECAP



Well, Walleyes, you managed to post one that was peer reviewed. 

ICECAP is just another denier site, with really lousy credentials. Why don't you post more from peer reviewed sites like the first one. At least that was credible. ICECAP is junk.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> its odd how the areas with the best data always seem to show the least amount of 'climate change' and the areas with poor data and the most infilling and 'adjustments' show the most. I cant help but think the next 10 or 20 years will show an interesting reversal of trends as the cumulative affects of 'pushing' data in a certain direction will pop the bubble and lead to a correction. we may get a preview of that when the Berkeley data comes out hugely expands the error bars for a large percentage of the planet.



OK, Ian. What is your criterion for stating that the intitial article had the best data? That, and two I posted, were from the same peer reviewed journal. The first one was from data only from the US. The other two were world wide data.

I think your criterion is that it agrees with 'the way things ought to be'.


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2011)

OR- my criteria? the best data are collected in the USA and they show less warming, less sea rise, etc even though they have the most CO2 production, land use change, UHI, etc. could it be just regional variation? of course, but it is also the most measured region and cant be ignored just because some other place with padded data can be twisted to tell a different story.


----------



## The Infidel (Mar 29, 2011)

acc_69 said:


> Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't.  I mean, whatever happened to "*acid* rain"?



I think the enviro nazi's have had too much of it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 29, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Im going to keep it simple...
> 
> I have lived on the coast all my life, and the beach is still in the same place as it was when I was a little bitty boy


Damn your empirical first person observation!!


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.
> ...







The graphs I presented are from other peer reviewed sources.  They are posted on ICECAP for ease of review.  Here is a little revelation about Mann.  Still wish to claim your alarmists have good credentials?  And yes the info is from a "denier" blog, but then most of your info comes from alarmist sites so turn about is fair play.  The only thing that matters is is the information correct.

"The IPCC plucked Mann from total obscurity after his problematic and rushed Ph.D was granted. His viva voce examination was in 1996 and he was required to make corrections. Such a two year delay suggests substantial errors and corrections which would normally require a second viva, but this was strangely not recorded. Then, despite no reputation whatsoever in the field of tree ring proxy research Mann was bizarrely appointed not only as an expert by the IPCC but as Lead Author for the 2001 Third Report.

Several fellow academics, including Dr. Judith Curry smelt something most fishy at once and their fears were confirmed when Canadian statistical experts, Steve McIntyre and Professor Ross McKitrick found a string of errors in Manns work. All the errors skewed the data in favor of the man-made global warming hype. 

It transpired Mann and his secretive clique of climatologists who pal reviewed his junk science benefited to the tune of millions of dollars in government research grants. Since the Climategate revelations public support for the IPCC has nose-dived."

John O&#039;Sullivan: Desperate Climate Scientists File Second Lawsuit Against Top Skeptic | Climate Realists


----------



## IanC (Mar 29, 2011)

not just Mann was under qualified to take major roles in the IPCC, there are many others. but Mann did the most damage with his pseudoscientific hockey stick graph and its bastard progeny.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.
> 
> Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!
> 
> ICECAP



What is that chart showing? I am on my cell phone. Looks like sea level dipped in 98 and has gone up since? Only a small average increase since 93?

Where is all that Alaskan glacier ice going then?


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.
> ...






It shows a normal cyclical change with no discernable rise in the water level.  The same is true of the other Pacific Islands as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

*Yet the people who actually study the subject completely disagree with you as the fact that the GSL is rising. 

Of course, we must realize that the total real science establishment are a bunch of commie pinkos, right, comrade?*

Melting ice sheets now largest contributor to sea level rise

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise
ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011) &#8212; The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.

The results of the study will be published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) Ice sheets are defined as being larger than 50,000 square kilometers, or 20,000 square miles, and only exist in Greenland and Antarctica while ice caps are areas smaller than 50,000 square km.

The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 29, 2011)

> FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)



Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer?  What is that, 2 degrees F ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> > FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
> 
> 
> 
> Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer?  What is that, 2 degrees F ?



Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now unequivocal, based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

*Even more important than the numbers, are the effects of the rise. That rise in uneven, actually cooling in some places, and rising rapidly, like Alaska, indeed, the whole Arctic, in others.

At present, we are seeing the North Polar Ice Cap rapidly decreasing both in volume and extant.*

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/130

*Another effect is the movement of climatic zones.*

What Might Man-Induced Climate Change Mean? | Foreign Affairs

*The whole point is that we are presently engaged in a worldwide experiment in which we will have to live with the results for many generations. With no real idea of how much change we are creating. A point of fact, we have not seen the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere for at least 15 million years. Nor the present level of Ch4 for at least that long, maybe a good deal longer.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
> ...






Oh yes, let's use the EPA's website which is still showing all the info from the totally discredited IPCC report.  Get real, this is crap and you know it.  Come up with something relevent and accurate.  These links are usable for papering the bird cage and nothing else.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Sure, Walleyes, the like of Watts is far better than the scientists at the EPA, IPCC, and the AGU. 

Why don't you just admit it. No matter what evidence is presented, you will not admit that you are completely wrong. A real scientist does not post from the people that you do for evidence.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 29, 2011)

freezing ass off in Portland oregon....brrr


----------



## westwall (Mar 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure, Walleyes, the like of Watts is far better than the scientists at the EPA, IPCC, and the AGU.
> 
> Why don't you just admit it. No matter what evidence is presented, you will not admit that you are completely wrong. A real scientist does not post from the people that you do for evidence.






Watts is far more accurate then the bloody IPCC!  Even THEY ADMITTED THEY WERE FULL OF CRAP!

And you are completely wrong.  Show me compelling empirical evidence that has not been screwed with by the climate mafia and I will happily climb back on board.  You forget, I was a "believer" at one time.  So far though, no empirical data supports the alarmist camp.


----------



## waltky (Mar 30, 2011)

Tuvulu in the south Pacific is also being lost to rising sea levels...

*Global warming sinks disputed island in Bay of Bengal*
_ Thursday 25th March, 2010 - Reports indicate that global warming has claimed its latest victim, namely, a low-lying island in a sprawling mangrove delta in the Bay of Bengal, which has been disputed by India and Bangladesh for almost 30 years._


> According to a report in The Independent, the New Moore Island has disappeared beneath the waves, which is an alarming indication of the danger posed by rising sea levels brought about by global warming.  "It is definitely because of global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata.  "The sea level has been rising at twice the previous rate in the years between 2002 and 2009. The sea level is rising in accordance with rising temperatures," he added.
> 
> Known as New Moore Island in India, and South Talpatti in Bangladesh, the uninhabited outcrop in the Sundarbans delta region measured barely two miles in length and one-and-a-half miles in width.  Yet, the island had been angrily disputed by the two countries, almost ever since Bangladesh secured independence from Pakistan in 1971.  The disappearance of New Moore Island, which was never more than two metres above sea level, may be a doom-laden portent for many islands in the delta.  According to Professor Hazra, countless other islands were threatened by sea levels that for the past decade have been rising by around five millimetres a year.
> 
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Well no, it appears they are not.  Surprise surprise.  And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.    Poor oltrakarfraud.
> 
> worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)
> 
> ...



And the dingbat deniers fail again as they make up more lies and distortions. Look at the title of this thread: "_So the Oceans are rising are they?_" The denier who started the thread clearly imagines that the study cited means that sea levels aren't rising. But of course, he's wrong again, as usual. Sea levels are rising, as the authors of this study affirm.

An editorial about this study was published in that fruitcake Mooney rag called the Washington Post. It was certainly and inevitably parroted on all of the denier cult blogs and disinformation sites as more "proof" that sea levels aren't rising as the IPCC and numerous scientists around the world claim, based on a variety of measurements including satellite altimeters and direct measurements of the amount of ice melting off of Greenland, Antarctica and the world's glaciers. Here's what the authors of the study had to say about sea level rise.

*Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work*
(short excerpt as allowed under copyright law and forum rules)

_*A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work." Study Author James R. Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times, stated in an email: "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...". ...Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated: "Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case." ...Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via email: "There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole. Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."*_

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

(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.)


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, it appears they are not.  Surprise surprise.  And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.    Poor oltrakarfraud.
> ...


Oh look!  TrollingBlunder has returned.  damn.  Gonna have to put that ignore back up.

But note his 'news source'



> © 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.



BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!  

Flush!  Credibility go down the hoooooole!


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

from the OP


> Conclusion:
> 
> Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
> 
> It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.



since the 80's we have been told over and over that catastrophe is just around the corner. temps are going to increase in ever accelerating increments, sea levels are going to rise in large amounts, extreme weather will be the norm. all because of a trace gas that acts logarithmically. but it hasnt happened. sure, we have warmed up since the Little Ice Age but not in any way that couldnt easily be due to natural variation. are glaciers retreating and sea levels rising? yes, that's what happens when it gets warmer. are the _rates_ of these things happening spiralling out of control? no. are we being warned that they are? yes, in many, many studies they model the climate to parameters that are inconsistent with what is actually happening, and then tell us what might happen in the extreme case scenario.


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...




obviously I disagree with your first link. I think the globe has warmed up more than 0.9F since 1880. of course the real question is how much of the increase is attributable to the increase of atmospheric CO2


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> > FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
> 
> 
> 
> Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer?  What is that, 2 degrees F ?



I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


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


Oh look! One of this forum's resident retards pops up with his usual meaningless and vapid pseudo-rebuttal.





Big Fitz said:


> Gonna have to put that ignore back up.


Well of course you have to do that. Like most denier cult pussies, you can't handle any real world facts that might upset your delusions.






Big Fitz said:


> But note his 'news source'


Yeah, my source. The scientists who authored the paper quoted in the OP. The scientists who say that sea levels are indeed rising.

You are such an imbicile!!!


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2011)

the title of this thread is misleading. the link in the OP is talking about whether the rise in sea level is accelerating (CAGW position), deaccelerating or staying the same. the Alarmists keep saying that temperatures and sea levels are going to dramatically rise (acceleration). most of the evidence taken from the oceans says that this is not happening, contrary to what the climate models proclaim.

but the thread title is incorrect. sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Consider it my little part to raise the intellectual quotient of the board by filtering complete idiots out.  I was hoping you were gone, but well... they were dashed again.


----------



## Zander (Mar 30, 2011)




----------



## Cuyo (Mar 30, 2011)

IanC said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
> ...



Are you aware that the 'Ice Age' was only 8 degrees (c) cooler than current temperatures?  Took about 20,000 years to rise to current levels.

.7 degrees in 100 years is astoundingly fast from a historic perspective, especially since there is every scientific reason to believe it will continue and increase along with increasing CO2 levels.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2011)

Zander said:


>



Now that is just the level of knowledge on would expect from Zander. 

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the alpine glaciers, and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are above sea level.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2011)

IanC said:


> the title of this thread is misleading. the link in the OP is talking about whether the rise in sea level is accelerating (CAGW position), deaccelerating or staying the same. the Alarmists keep saying that temperatures and sea levels are going to dramatically rise (acceleration). most of the evidence taken from the oceans says that this is not happening, contrary to what the climate models proclaim.
> 
> but the thread title is incorrect. sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age.



And another denier cult dingbat who manages to be wrong about everything. Not too surprising.

_"Most of the evidence taken from the oceans"_ actually indicates that sea levels are rising and that the rate at which that is happening is increasing.






*Global Mean Sea Level Reconstruction since 1700 by Jevrejeva et al, 2008*

***

You say: _"sea level is going up at the same rate as it has since the end of the little ice age"_ but that's just another idiotically ignorant denier cult myth.

*Roman Decadence and Rising Seas
*
November 15, 2010
(short excerpt)

*...some persuasive evidence points to the conclusion that the volume of the ocean was fairly stable for the last 2,000 years and began rising only recently, more or less in sync with industrialization. One of the most compelling studies of recent years...focused on ancient fish tanks built at the edge of the Mediterranean by the Romans over the 300 years when their civilization was at its height, ending in the second century A.D. The tanks, described in some detail by Roman historians...were usually carved into rock at the edge of the shore and constructed in such a way that some of their features bore precise relationships to sea level at the time. For instance, walls and sluice gates had to be built to let water into the tanks while keeping fish from escaping at high tide. A few years ago, Dr. Lambeck, of the Australian National University, and his team realized that these features could be used to arrive at an estimate of sea level in the time of the Romans.*

***






***

*"20,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age, sea level was down almost 400 feet. Nearly all the rise occurred in about 14,000 years, with the last 6,000 years almost at a stable sea level. Since recorded human history only covers about 6 - 8 thousand years, that is undoubtedly the reason we tend to believe the shoreline to be essentially fixed -- and why we built cities right up to the shore."*
-- John Englander



***


----------



## IanC (Mar 31, 2011)

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

I suppose you are in love with satellite altimetry figures. you do realize that the satellites only have a precision level of about 20mm don't you? and that they are calibrated (often) to tidal gauges? I think your faith in some aspects of modern technology is not commensurate to the reality of the measurements.

even your link shows a graph with a straight linear trend from 1870- 2010





are you arguing that 1870(start of thermometer records) is later than the end of the LIA (some say 1850) or that that graph is not perfectly straight or that 'satellite' data is higher or better? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the facts and figures are imprecise and inaccurate to one degree or another. just like all the temp data are imprecise and inaccurate. and while we're at it, the concept of having an single absolute number for global temperature, global temperature increase (decrease), global sea level, or global sea level increase (decrease) is ridiculous.


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 31, 2011)

IanC said:


> I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.



I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not.  Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.

#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial.  It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

IanC said:


> I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
> http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
> ...



Once again, Ian, are you unable to read a graph? 1870 to 1930 rose at a much slower rate than 1930 to 1960. From 1968 to about 2005, a slightly slower rate than the period from 1930 to 1960. 2005 to 2010, steep rise and fall, not a long enough period to establish a line.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 31, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
> ...


wow.  I'd love to see the scientific PROOF that it's all man's fault.


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
> ...






We're not sure.  That's the way science is.  Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes.  Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors.  What we are sure about is that the most well known of the alarmist scientists have been manufacturing and manipulating data.  That's the only thing we're sure of.  We have very good empirical data that shows all of the phenomena that alarmists put forward as evidence for their theory has happened in the past without mans influence...that weakens the case for AGW.

But we don't "know" anything.  Nor have we ever claimed to.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2011)

IanC said:


> I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.


You can't "_figure out_" the reason because you're in a kind of willful (or brainwashed) denial of the fact that there is a world scientific consensus that is based on mountains of evidence gathered by tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world for many decades. The consensus is based on the science and the evidence, not the other way around. Meanwhile, the sane, rational and intelligent people of the world look at you denier cult crazies and see clearly that you dupes are convinced that you are right and all of the scientists are wrong not because of any actual evidence but only because you've been brainwashed by the anti-science propaganda campaign that has been mounted by the fossil fuel industry. You deniers are their "useful idiots" and ideological 'foot-soldiers' in their attempt to delay the necessary legal restrictions on carbon emissions, which would, of course, also reduce the fossil fuel industry's current trillion dollar a year profit stream. 

*Scientific opinion on climate change*

*Scientific Consensus on Global Warming*

*Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?*

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
*





IanC said:


> here is the list of tide gauge data from NOAA. it goes up and down in different places and averages out to less than 5mm/decade. lower than the usual figure of 18mm/decade
> http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html


Once again you've been duped by some denier cult blog who showed you a partial data set and pretended that it was definitive.

From the US Environmental Protection Agency's site on *Sea Level*.

_*Limitations - Tidal gauge measurements cannot distinguish whether changes in relative sea level are due to changes in absolute sea level or changes in land elevation.

What the data shows - Relative sea levels (combined land and sea movement) in many locations rose from 1958 to 2008, typically at rates of 0-3 millimeters per year (mm/yr) (up to 1 foot per century) (Exhibit 6-20). Relative sea level has risen more rapidly along the mid-Atlantic coast and the Gulf Coast, with rates as high as 8 or 9 mm/yr at a few locations on the Gulf Coast. Other areas, including most of the southern coast of Alaska, show relative sea level drop, with a maximum decrease of 14 mm/yr.* [/size]
_
[Just to clear up that point, I'm inserting something here. "Relative sea level drop" actually means in this case that Alaska is rising as the weight of the glaciers and snow cap melts off. 

*As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It&#8217;s Land That&#8217;s Rising* 
(short excerpt)
_The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land is ascending so fast that the rising seas &#8212; a ubiquitous byproduct of global warming &#8212; cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level is falling, at a rate &#8220;among the highest ever recorded,&#8221; according to a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau._]​
_* Average relative sea level rise for all U.S. coasts was not calculated because the distribution of tidal gauge stations is not spatially representative of aggregate trends, but for reference, an analysis of tidal gauge data worldwide estimated that on average, relative sea level rose between 1.5 and 2.0 mm/yr during the 20th century (Miller and Douglas, 2004).

The satellite record shows that global mean absolute sea level (i.e., independent of land movements) has increased at a rate of 3.2 mm (0.13 inches) per year since 1993 (Exhibit 6-21). Absolute sea levels do not change uniformly around the Earth, however. Around the U.S., areas with increasing absolute sea level include the Gulf coast and portions of the Atlantic coast (Exhibit 6-22). Areas showing a decrease include the southern part of the Pacific coast and the western Gulf of Alaska.*_











IanC said:


> I suppose you are in love with satellite altimetry figures. you do realize that the satellites only have a precision level of about 20mm don't you? and that they are calibrated (often) to tidal gauges? I think your faith in some aspects of modern technology is not commensurate to the reality of the measurements.


Actually, 20 millimeters, or about three-quarters of an inch, is pretty damn accurate. More accurate than the so-called tidal gauges. Moreover the satellite measurements are combined with other measurements to further refine the figures.





IanC said:


> even your link shows a graph with a straight linear trend from 1870- 2010


Actually it doesn't show a "_straight linear trend_". You just apparently have some difficulty comprehending graphs.

I notice that you conveniently ignored the other graph in that post.










IanC said:


> are you arguing that 1870(start of thermometer records) is later than the end of the LIA (some say 1850) or that that graph is not perfectly straight or that 'satellite' data is higher or better? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the facts and figures are imprecise and inaccurate to one degree or another. just like all the temp data are imprecise and inaccurate. and while we're at it, the concept of having an single absolute number for global temperature, global temperature increase (decrease), global sea level, or global sea level increase (decrease) is ridiculous.



LOLOLOL....you're too ignorant to understand how scientists come to their conclusions using the data they have so you proclaim that it is all too inaccurate for any conclusions....LOLOLOLOL. And you wonder why you dingbats are called 'deniers'.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Tyndall


----------



## signelect (Mar 31, 2011)

I know, lets just kill all the people and the problem will go away..  I think that there is a plan in place for that already.


----------



## konradv (Mar 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Since no amount of data ever seems to be enough proof for you, I think it's up to you to tell us where the extra GHGs, above historical averages, are coming from, if not from man.  We know what GHGs do, it's up to the deniers to show why, if there's more aound, they wouldn't trap even more energy.  Don't care about your snide little comments.  Show us something.  Give us the run down on how energy just disappears.  Could be a Nobel in it for you!!!


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...







Read this first then get back to us.  And to answer your petulant cry, no amount of "manipulated" data will make us change our minds.  Show us some good un-screwed with data and we will be all ears.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> We're not sure.  That's the way science is.  Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes.  Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors.


Mmmmm....pretty good so far, in general, but kind of dogmatic on its own. Is science really "not sure" about _everything_? How about this statement.

_*Definition: Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature, at which point the atoms of a substance transmit no thermal energy - they are completely at rest. It is 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale, which translates to -273.15 degrees Celsius (or -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit).*_ 

How about it, walleyed? Do you think that there is a way for temperatures to go below absolute zero?




westwall said:


> What we are sure about is that the most well known of the alarmist scientists have been manufacturing and manipulating data.  That's the only thing we're sure of.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL...and here's where your usual hypocrisy starts (this time). You claim that scientists "can't" be sure about anything in some absolute sense, while ignoring the fact that they are pretty sure about a lot of things based on a preponderance of evidence, and then you claim that you are absolutely sure about something scientific based only on your own ignorance and stupidity and the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign, not any actual facts or evidence. Scientists being "pretty sure" about their conclusions got us to the moon and has proved for the last few centuries to be the most accurate guide for our civilization about how the physical world works and the probable consequences of our actions.

*Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy*
(short excerpt)

_*The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
    * Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
    * Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
    * An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
    * A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

Background Information
    * Scientists StatementAn Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails (pdf)
    * Letter from James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, to Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (pdf)*_


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyzeIU80qXo]YouTube - U.S. Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate'[/ame]






westwall said:


> We have very good empirical data that shows all of the phenomena that alarmists put forward as evidence for their theory has happened in the past without mans influence...that weakens the case for AGW.


Well, that is one of your delusions but, like most everything you say, it is another lie coming from a very ignorant and confused dupe. Many current phenomena associated with the current global warming and climate change are happening at rates faster than any such observed changes ever happened before in Earth's geological history. And just because some things happened in the past due to natural causes does not mean that those things can't be happening now because of man's influence. There are many indicators that this current abrupt warming and climate disruptions are traceable to recent human activities like large scale deforestation and the release of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere through the massive use of fossil fuels.

*Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*
(short excerpt)

*Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.* 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas]YouTube - What We Know about Climate Change[/ame]






westwall said:


> But we don't "know" anything.


That's the most honest thing you've ever said. It perfectly sums up the denier cult.





westwall said:


> Nor have we ever claimed to.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....hilarious....you wackos are always claiming to know all kinds of things that aren't true. Your continuous hypocrisy is sooooo amusing to watch.


***


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We're not sure.  That's the way science is.  Science doesn't (well at least good science)dabble in absolutes.  Absolutes are the purview of religion not scientific endeavors.
> ...






TROLLING BLUNDER!  Where ya been boy!  It's been months!  County Jail huh?  Now to your bloviating nonsense, absolute zero is a theory.  It has not been confirmed with empirical tests so, based on the current knowledge we have with the tests we can run, yes absolute zero is the bottom.  However, it is certainly possible that some new device or theory comes along and invalidates the whole thing.  

Remember, Einsteins equations allow for the possiblity of faster than light travel...he didn't like that fact but it is a fact non the less.  Appeals to authority get you nowhere with real scientists my young man.  That particular tactic is only useful with the mindless general public who havn't the intellectual capacity to think for themselves.

And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.
> 
> http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...essional hearing-R14 (2) armstrong update.pdf



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....ah, the old Inhofe/Morano denier cult circus, sponsored by the oil corps who put Inofre in office, that you denier cult retards fall for every time.

*REVEALED: Marc Moranos Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers*
(short excerpt)

*Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)s environmental communications director, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine  of fifty-two people. Conservative columnist Fred Barnes recently refused to tell TPM Muckraker whos informed him the case for global warming is falling apart, but all signs point to Marc Morano. Moranos entire job, Gristmills David Roberts explains, is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Moranos email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.*


----------



## westwall (Mar 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And these scientists certainly feel the alarmist data is wrong and manufactured.
> ...







  Sure blunder sure.  I guess you missed the fact that Kyoto was heavily promoted by ENRON....you remember them don't you?  Yeah, they were an energy company specialising in natural gas...kinda like you

Here are some peer reviewed studies just for you...they all come from alarmist scientists and they have have a common thread...I'll see if you can fgure out what that common thread is.  Please note I used oltrakrfrauds most favored sources for this little comparison.

Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate

Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region

Cooling of daytime temperatures in coastal California air basins during 1969-200


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sure blunder sure.  I guess you missed the fact that Kyoto was heavily promoted by ENRON....you remember them don't you?  Yeah, they were an energy company specialising in natural gas...kinda like you


Yeah....so?....so what? In your little pea brain, what fantasies do you have about what that means? And what do you imagine it has to do with all of the quite provable support for climate change denial front groups and propaganda outlets that has come from various fossil fuel interests? 

Here's a nice summary article with excellent links to all of the sources. I'm excerpting a couple of key sections.

*Business action on climate change*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(short excerpt)

*ExxonMobil has been a leading figure in the business world's position on climate change, providing substantial funding to a range of global-warming-skeptical organizations. Mother Jones counted some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that "either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." Between 2000 and 2003[alone] these organizations received more than $8m in funding.[3]

It has also had a key influence in the Bush administration's energy policy, including on the Kyoto Protocol,[8] supported by both $55m spent on lobbying since 1999,[3] and direct contacts between the company and leading politicians. It was a leading member of the Global Climate Coalition. It encouraged (and may have been instrumental in) the replacement in 2002 of the head of the IPCC, Robert Watson.

From 2005 to 2008, Koch Industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated a total of nearly $48 million to climate opposition groups.[15] According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of what Greenpeace calls "climate denial".[16][17] Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.[18][19]*






westwall said:


> Here are some peer reviewed studies just for you...they all come from alarmist scientists and they have have a common thread...I'll see if you can fgure out what that common thread is.  Please note I used oltrakrfrauds most favored sources for this little comparison.



Ah, gee, I'm sorry, Walleyed, but I have a firm rule against playing silly guessing games with retards. If you think(?) you have a point, make it.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 1, 2011)

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.  The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.  The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
> 
> I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.



Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica? What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate? What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## wirebender (Apr 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.



Maybe you are unaware of the fact that on this board, one can't link to any outside site till one has made a minimum number of posts.  Ever read the rules of your own forum?



Old Rocks said:


> What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica?



More important than that question is the question of whether or not the claimed ice loss is in any way extraordinary when compared to the past.  If it is not, then your hysterical handwringing is wasted.  Do you have any data that proves that the claimed present ice loss is in any way unique to the present?



Old Rocks said:


> What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate?



Again, more important than your question is whether or not your claim of glaciear loss is in any way unique to the present.  The fact that remains of settlements and mining operations are being found in the wake of receeding glaciers tends to put your claims of melting glaciers firmly in the land of business as usual.



Old Rocks said:


> What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?



Perhaps you are unaware climate science's present inability to explain the declining heat content of the oceans.  Far from warming at an accelerate rate, the heat content of the oceans is falling.

You seem to place great stock in links to this or that.  How about you provide a link to a bit of data that provides unequivocal proof of man's responsibility for climate change on a global level.  If such proof exists, surely you have the link at the tips of your twitching fingers.  If it doesn't exist, what exactly is the reason you work so hard trying to defend the pack of charlatans that presently represent the fledgeling branch of science known as climate science?


----------



## konradv (Apr 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.
> ...



Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  We know the energy trapping properties of CO2.  Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?  Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.  If that's not proof, then where's the CO2 coming from and if it keeps rising wouldn't more energy be trapped as well.  I don't like discussing temps, ocean levels and ice thickness, because it just goes around and around in circles.  I prefer the logic of A does B,  A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B.  QED


----------



## wirebender (Apr 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.



Hardly.  Paleohistory reveals that atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 5000ppm and more than 3000ppm during ice ages.  That fact alone pretty much devestates the idea that CO2 drives global warming.



konradv said:


> We know the energy trapping properties of CO2.



Actually, we know no such thing.  There is no mechanism by which a gas (other than water vapor) can trap heat.  When energy strikes a CO2 molecule an absorption spectrum indicates the fact that energy has been absorbed by said CO2 molecule almost instantaneously, an emission spectrum that is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectrum indicates that the energy absorbed has been emitted.  There is no "trapping" of energy by a CO2 molecule.



konradv said:


> Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.



Better get your facts straight.  A single volcano emits more CO2, SO2, etc., than mankind can produce in a decade or longer depending on the force of the eruption.



konradv said:


> I prefer the logic of A does B,  A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B.  QED



If you like logic, consider the fact that all of the observable historical evidence we have (ice cores, stalagtites, stalagmites, lake bed cores, etc.) indicate that CO2 increases do not preceed rising temperatures but follow them instead.  Logic dictates that rising CO2 levels are a result of temperature rises rather than a cause.  Consider the simple fact that warm oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans.  How much CO2 do you suppose the oceans have outgassed since the onset of the end of the present ice age some 14,000 years ago?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 1, 2011)

wirebender said:


> I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.


And up pops another denier cultist with his head up the Exxon/Koch Industries blungehole. LOL.

I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades. Then I remember that because, by definition, half of the population is of below 'average' intelligence, there will always be more pig-ignorant, semi-retarded, rightwingnut conspiracy theorists who actually are idiotic enough to believe that all of those scientists, governmental leaders, etc., etc., are all in on a worldwide conspiracy to take away your gas guzzlers and make you live in a shack with only candlelight and no plumbing. LOL.

*Scientific opinion on climate change* - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(small excerpt - you should really read the whole thing and check out the references and citations)

*Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[9] that:

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

"Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested."


Statements by concurring organizations
Academies of Science

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

    * of Australia,
    * of Belgium,
    * of Brazil,
    * of Cameroon,
    * Royal Society of Canada,
    * of the Caribbean,
    * of China,
    * Institut de France,
    * of Ghana,
    * Leopoldina of Germany,
    * of Indonesia,
    * of Ireland,
    * Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
    * of India,
    * of Japan,
    * of Kenya,
    * of Madagascar,
    * of Malaysia,
    * of Mexico,
    * of Nigeria,
    * Royal Society of New Zealand,
    * Russian Academy of Sciences,
    * of Senegal,
    * of South Africa,
    * of Sudan,
    * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
    * of Tanzania,
    * of Turkey,
    * of Uganda,
    * The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
    * of the United States,
    * of Zambia,
    * and of Zimbabwe.

Joint science academies' statements
(continued)*










wirebender said:


> The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.


That is total denier cult drivel that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The data supports the conclusions of the climate scientists, the computer models have proven to be pretty accurate and are being constantly refined and made even better. It is you denier cult trolls and retards who are in the intellectual class of 'flat earthers' and 'birthers', 'creationists' and the kind of sub-cretins who hallucinate that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman aren't braindead, power-tripping psychotics.

*Climate change: How do we know?*

*NASA*






*The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:*

*Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
The effects of climate change will likely include more frequent droughts in some areas and heavier precipitation in others.

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world &#8212; including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification
The carbon dioxide content of the Earth&#8217;s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent. 12*

(This material is not copyrighted and is freely available to reprint)






wirebender said:


> I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.


How about some actual evidence instead of more hot air and recycled fossil fuel industry propaganda, lies and myths.


----------



## westwall (Apr 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.
> ...






Yada yada yada.  Worldwide temps are going down in direct opposition to what Hansen said would occur.  That is going to continue for the next 20 years.  The little test I gave you is quite fun you should try it!

Oh, and typing in all bold doesn't help your argument...it just makes you look like a kook.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> Yada yada yada.  Worldwide temps are going down in direct opposition to what Hansen said would occur.  That is going to continue for the next 20 years.


LOLOLOL....we can always count on you, walleyed, to get things completely ass backwards. Does that come from having your head jammed so far up your ass? Or maybe you just secretly live in Bizarro World and smuggle your idiotic posts into our world somehow. In any case, you're still a poor delusional fool who manages to be wrong about everything.

Worldwide temperatures are still going up and doing that faster too. This is going to continue for much, much longer than 20 years. Here's some of the latest research.

*Trend towards rising global temperatures*
The Sydney Morning Herald
March 22, 2011
(excerpt)

*Global temperatures are on the increase, with a new study showing a rise of about half a degree Celsius over the past 160 years. An Australian National University (ANU) report on global temperature(pdf) found a trend towards a rise in worldwide temperatures since 1850, with a steeper increase since the mid 1970s. [The] original independent study commissioned by the government...was prepared...in 2008...and has since been updated with the latest data. "There is sufficient evidence in the long run of temperature records to support the existence of a warming trend,"  Professor Breusch said today. "From the 1850s to today it's somewhere over half a degree a century.  The additional three years for which temperature data are now available were among the warmest on record." Professor Breusch said since about the mid 1970s there had been an increase in the warming trend. "There is no evidence of a weakening or reversing trend in more recent years, as suggested by some commentators," he said.
*
Copyright © 2011 Fairfax Media

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








westwall said:


> The little test I gave you is quite fun you should try it!


Uh-uh, no, no, walleyed, you're forgetting my firm rule about never playing guessing games with retards. If you can muster the words to make an intelligible point, do so (very doubtful), and if not, stfu, you flaming halfwit.





westwall said:


> Oh, and typing in all bold doesn't help your argument...it just makes you look like a kook.


I didn't "_type in all bold_", numbnuts. I highlighted some of the quoted text so retards like you would have a better chance of reading the most important parts. Everything you ever post, no matter how you "type" it, makes you look like a complete moron.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2011)

I didnt read Westwall's links in his 'little test' but I assume from the titles that he is referring to the common practise of CAGW alarmists to produce studies claiming catastrophy in both directions. Climate change will cause drought/flood, warm/cold, up/down, black/white. Heads we win, tails you lose. thanks for playing sucka. 

Science is built from making falsifiable statements. Climate science is doing an end run by claiming everything so it can not be 'proved' wrong.

Old Rocks and his cadre are quite happy to point out any evidence, no matter how irrelevent, that could possibly support his side. but also easily ignore anything contrary. and OR is adamant that he will not discuss the integrity of his heroes such as Mann, Jones and Hansen, or their less than stellar methodologies.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades.



OK.  I read your tripe.  All of it.  And rather than tear down the lies and put the few truths you had into a proper context which I don't have time to do this morning, let me ask you a simple question.  What, exactly would falsify AGW in your mind?

By the way, I don't, and have never argued that the climate is not changing.  The fact is that the climate, in the entire history of the world, has never been static.  It is always changing.  What I argue is that the present climate is in no way unusual, or unprecedented and that you and yours can not produce a single piece of hard, observed evidence that proves, unequivocally, that man is responsible for the present changing climate.

If you can provide such evidence, by all means step on up to the plate and post it.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> Well no, it appears they are not.  Surprise surprise.  And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.    Poor oltrakarfraud.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




And this is the nugget that inspires the digging in the mine.  Change "investigations" to read "the funding" and we have the entire basis of the Climate Change movement.

One part of the debate that is always peer reviewed is the amount of funding recieved and from whom.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

konradv said:


> acc_69 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't.  I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?
> ...




I am not a scientist.  I'm sure that a scientist can tell the difference between dog poop and cow poop.  If it's on my shoe, I'm not concerned so much with the origin as the removal.

The content of CO2 in the air may be tangently related Climate Change.  The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned.  Go figure.  The hole disappears and reappears every year.  Every year.  The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

The reduction of sulfur belched into the air to reduce the sulfuric acid in the rain was good, straight line thinking:  

1.  The rain contains sulfuric acid.  2.  Where might the sulfur come from?  3.  Allot of sulfur in the air comes from burning coal.  4.  Let's remove the sulfur from the coal or trap it before it gets to the rain to form the acid.

Done and done.  Everytime any loosely jointed causal chain is proposed now, the acid rain success is brought forward.  Sadly, the connections are generally so loose that they hardly exist.  Acid rain was as obvious as food coloring.

Ozone hole?  Not so much.

CFC's were banned in the USA in 1978 and the rest of the world following that.  

The Ozone Hole-Ozone Hole History

<snip>  


*3 October2006 *World Meteorological Organization This years hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was the most serious on record exceeding that of 2000. Not only was it the largest in surface area (matching 2000) but also suffered the most mass deficit, meaning that there was less ozone over the Antarctic than ever previously measured. 

<snip>


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say that I am still surprised and amazed that there are any who are still so ignorant and brainwashed enough to argue against the obvious reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change when virtually every national academy of science, scientific society or other major scientific organization or university on Earth affirms that very reality based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been gathered and analyzed over the last six decades.
> ...



That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

konradv said:


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




Two quick points:

1.  Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding interglacial.

2.  The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution.  If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > > FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
> ...




That's also about the increase over the last 2000 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


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



1.   Well, yes. It's called the Milankovic Cycles.

2. It is not my arguement. It is that of all the physicists worldwide. Because you would deny that changes the physics not one whit. The likes of Ayn Rand simply confuse their view of reality with reality. Which has never changed reality in the least. Same goes for you.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...




Plucking this nugget entirely out of any context might be a cause for panic.  Putting it back into context raises an entirely different question.

The increase in temperature has been .7 degrees in the last 100 years.  It has also been .7 degrees in the last 2000 years.  Obviously, given these two indentical increases to the same identical current temperature, there was also a very dramatic DECREASE in temperature during that period.

The real question might be to find out what caused the decrease.

Once the cause of the decrease was removed, the recent increase we are experiencing is exposed not as an increase, but rather as a return to the prevailing conditins that were interupted briefly by that other, cooling, cause.

Taken in context, this does not give cause to believe that the increase will continue and, in truth, those, like Dr. James Hansen, who have tried to do so have been shown to be wrong.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so *sure* that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
> ...




Your point 1 is simply wrong.  Dr. Hansen created three predictions based on three scenarios.  The predictions were for the temperature changes linked to the CO2 changes.  The temperature has followed a path that is almost exactly in keeping with the historically expected upward trend based on nothing more than the average increases recorded over the preceeding years.

Dr. Hansen produced a scenario in which the CO2 production would be almost exactly what it actually has been.  His prediction was for vastly accelerated temperature increase.

He also produced a scenario for marginally decreased CO2 Production.  His prediction in this scenario was for a less accelerated temperature increase.

The actual temperature increase over the 30 years following his predictions was lower than all of his scenarios and the actual CO2 increase was almost perfectly constant.

To say that everything that science has predicted has happened is to ignor the science, the predictions and the results.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

Don't you really wish that you could convince someone that has reasonable intellect of your twaddle, Code? 

You make all those statements about how wrong the prominent scientists are in this field, yet not a single scientific society denies AGW. In fact, virtually all of them that comment on it state that it is a fact and that it represents a clear and present danger to our society. Same goes for all the National Academies of Science in the world. Even those in the oil producing nations. Same for all the major universities.

And then we have the little matter of the accelerating melting of ice in the alpine glaciers, continental ice caps, and in the Arctic Ocean.

No matter how you minions of the energy companies dissemble, the facts of the warming and it's effects are there for all to see.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level.  The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
> ...





The melting of glaciers must represent warming that is occurring today.  However, making the connection that the warming of today is linked the CO2 production by the activities of man is the test, isn't it?

The glaciers that are melting today that are causing you to panic are very probably not older than 7000 years.  If the glaciers formed 7000 years ago, then the climate must have been warmer and was cooling at that time.  Is this not logical?

If the only possible cause of the melting glaciers today is the increase of CO2 resulting from the activities of Man, what was the cause of the warmer temperatures pre-dating the period of expanding glaciation 7000 years ago?  What was the cause of the cooling that caused the expanding glaciation?

You're vid capping one frame of a movie and basing all of your arguments on that one frame.  7000 years ago the frame was identical and yet the causes were entirely different.

What's the explanation?  If you can't explain that, you can't explain this.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





You keep thrusting that little nugget up like it means something.  It doesn't.  Volcanoes produce a hardly measurable portion of the CO2 that is produced by nature.  

Man's contribution to the CO2 in the air is about 3 or 4% of the total annual contibution and the warming trend that we enjoy today started before the industial revolution started.

Volcanic eruptions, on balance, will usually have a net cooling effect on the climate.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




1.  So the effect of CO2 is weak?

2.  When did the warming begin?

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

You like to argue theory as if it is fact.  When presented with facts, you retreat to theory to disprove facts.  I am less concerned with the musing of a 19th Century scholar than I am with the actual, real world measurables that we can examine.

If the real world is in varience with your theory, like the real world is in varience with the predictions of Dr. Hansen, why do you discard the reality in favor of the theory?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

Methane Catastrophe

It is possible that the first of the slides also was caused by an episode of warming. We do know that even during the period of greatest glaciation, temperatures, though cold, could be quite variable. But our knowledge of both the timing of temperature changes during the ice age, and the timing of the first Storegga slide are too limited to make any specific connections between the two. Nonetheless, oceanic warming may been the cause of the other suggested trigger for the Storegga slides: the dissociation of continental margin methane hydrate. (That a huge quantity of methane may have been released is revealed even today in the landslide debris, which contains about a hundred craters, some larger than three kilometers (two miles) in diameter. It is possible, however, that some of these structures simply record the escape of water trapped below the landslide material as it settled.)

The total amount (in all three Storegga slides) of sediment that slid is estimated at about 5500 cubic kilometers (1340 cubic miles), enough to bury Manhattan Island to a depth of almost 95 kilometers (almost 60 miles!) or San Francisco or Boston to a depth of 45 kilometers (26 1/2 miles) deep. Some of this sediment slid as far as 800 kilometers (500 miles) down and across the adjacent ocean floor, presumably by hydroplaning on an incompressible slick of water (Elverkøi, 2004). The slides produced tsunamis whose debris is now found in coastal Norwegian lakes 18 meters (yards) above sea level.

An estimated 350 billion metric tons of methane was released in these slide events, both from dissociated methane hydrate and the free gas that lay below them. This amount of methane contains some 263 billion metric tons of carbon, equivalent to about 1/3 the total carbon in the atmosphere, making its release roughly equivalent to the amount of anthropogenic carbon released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. (Had these events been part of a "slump cascade," with several similar slides in close succession, the consequences are likely to have been much more severe than the minor transient warming that probably ensued.)


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Don't you really wish that you could convince someone that has reasonable intellect of your twaddle, Code?
> 
> You make all those statements about how wrong the prominent scientists are in this field, yet not a single scientific society denies AGW. In fact, virtually all of them that comment on it state that it is a fact and that it represents a clear and present danger to our society. Same goes for all the National Academies of Science in the world. Even those in the oil producing nations. Same for all the major universities.
> 
> ...




Please post the scenarios and the predictions of Dr. Hansen and compare them to the actual performance of the climate.  Pleas explain how the science that supported his predictions but is in varience to the actual performance of the climate is accurate.

The problem with reality is that it's real.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2011)

are farmers and ranchers producing more foodstuffs every year?
----yes

is overeating, particulary of certain foods to the point of obesity, likely to cause diabetes?
----yes

there you have it, proof positive that farmers are causing cancer!


/sarc off


the skeptics side has all the naturally variable factors like hydrological cycle, ocean currents, solar cycles, unknown factors, etc.

plus the skeptic side has the other anthropogenic factors like population, land use, irrigation, cities and pavement, etc. 

but the AGW alarmists think that *ALL* the increased temp since 1950, and all the danger from climate change comes from..........CO2 !!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



And you keep stating this like it has some meaning. Yes, nature emits every year far more CO2 that we produce. And, every year, it absorbs a like amount. A nice in balance system only effected by catastrophic volcanic events, trapp volcanics, and the Milankovic Cycles.

And in the Milankovic Cycles the swing is from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. But we have already driven the level in the atmosphere to 390 ppm. A larger differance that the Cycles create. In fact, a level not seen in 15 million years.

Once again, Code, you dissemble, creating a fabric of lies out of the normal events, and ignoring the very abnormal and very rapid buildup of manmade GHGs, CO2, CH4, NOx, and the extremely effective industrial gases.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





putting things in context is exactly what AGW alarmists dont like to do. that is why the Hockey Stick Graph was created out of carefully clipped data sets, using statistical methods for exaggerating the importance of outliers. if the MWP existed in its historical form then they couldnt sound the klaxons. but if they made it disappear then the warming was 'unpresedented'.

and Hansen is second only to Erhlich for making fantastically bizarre predictions. they are so improbable that no one takes them seriously or holds them against him.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.



Sorry, but that doesn't constitute evidence and I see that you are completely unable to discuss the topic on your own.  That very fact, in truth, disqualifies you from the discussion as you have no idea whether the information you post is accurate or not.  Your position on this topic is clearly political and in no way based on fact.  When I reach the required number of posts to link to outside sites, I will gladly overwhelm any argument you may post with actual peer reviewed material as opposed to the partisan tripe you seem to trust so implicitly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

Maritime boundaries in a rising sea
Katherine J. Houghton,1 Athanasios T. Vafeidis,2 Barbara Neumann2 & Alexander Proelss3 
Affiliations Corresponding author Journal name: 
Nature Geoscience 
Volume: 
3, 
Pages: 
813&#8211;816 
Year published: 
(2010) 
DOI: 
doi:10.1038/ngeo1029 
Published online 30 November 2010 


Sea-level rise is progressively changing coastlines. The legal implications for the seaward boundaries between neighbouring coastal states are neither straightforward nor foreseeable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

CO2 and temperature over geological time

A23A


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

*A good discussion of CO2 rise and agriculture. Have to head off to work. Now I have read extensively in peer reviewed journals on the subject of global warming. And can post real referances to what real scientists are stating all day long. 

And they are stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.*

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants | Learn Science at Scitable

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been steadily rising, from approximately 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1959 to a current atmospheric average of approximately 385 ppm (Keeling et al.,2009). Current projections are for concentrations to continue to rise to as much as 500&#8211;1000 ppm by the year 2100 (IPCC 2007). 

While a great deal of media and public attention has focused on the effects that such higher concentrations of CO2 are likely to have on global climate, rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants&#8217; structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology.

Our knowledge of plant responses to future CO2 concentrations rests on the results of experiments that have experimentally increased CO2 and then compared the performance of the experimental plants with those grown under current ambient CO2 conditions. Such experiments have been performed in a wide variety of settings, including greenhouses and chambers of a variety of sizes and designs. However plants grown in chambers may not experience the effects of increasing CO2 the same way as plants growing in more natural settings. For this reason, techniques of Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that allow natural or agricultural ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of CO2 in the field without use of chambers (Figure 1). As these experiments are the most naturalistic, they should provide the best indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under the real-world conditions of the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE experiments wherever these are available. Whenever possible, to ensure the generality of conclusions, reference is made to analyses that have incorporated data from multiple experiments independently conducted at various research facilities.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.
> ...



Old Rocks doesnt discuss science unless it has something to do with calling skeptical scientists names or linking them to Tobacco or Big Oil or something. You will not get him to move away from just posting links because he makes himself look foolish everytime he tries. and while he is not very good at debating science in his own words he is at least smart enough to stay away from areas that he knows that he is incompetent in.


----------



## IanC (Apr 2, 2011)

oh dear wirebender, you seem to have upset OR!. 

he'll be posting the same old tired links for the next little while until his feelings mend a bit.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




Is the melting of the galciers the result of rising temperatures or of a change in the atmospheric composition?

You need to link the the change in the composition of the atmosphere to the rise in the temperature before you can link the atmosphere to the melting ice.

As of now, you have theory that may or may not be connected and you are making a leap of faith to the conclusion you seek.

The only meaning that I am presenting is that temperature has varied before and done so without the change in CO2 which you so accurately have pointed out.  Temperature has fallen precipitously when CO2 is high and has risen dramatically when CO2 is low.  There are more and stronger causes than the one that you cling to and to cling to this cause in favor of others is simply not logical.

Eliminate the other causes and prove the causal link and i'll be glad to agree.  Lacking that proof, I will not agree.  The proof is lacking.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




And yet the AGW'ers constantly point to his 1988 predictions as the proof that predictions have been made and are accurate.  It's only when you actually look at the predictions that you find that they are not only wrong, they are real wrong.  In truth, they actually hold for the opposite point of view in their innaccuracy.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks doesnt discuss science unless it has something to do with calling skeptical scientists names or linking them to Tobacco or Big Oil or something. You will not get him to move away from just posting links because he makes himself look foolish everytime he tries. and while he is not very good at debating science in his own words he is at least smart enough to stay away from areas that he knows that he is incompetent in.



Don't guess he has heard that "big oil" is on the AGW band wagon these days since they see that trillions can be made on carbon trading if the hoax can just be made to stick.  "Big Oil" is one of the few businesses that stand to make very large dollars off both sides of the issue.  Smart investors are putting their money there because they win whichever way the sticks fall.  

It is laughable for them to try and make a money issue out of it by suggesting that big energy is buying the science when to date big energy has put about 20 million into skeptical science while over 200 billion has been put into the alarmist side of the argument with no end in site.  If one is to distrust simply based on money flow, then it is pure hypocricy to side with the AGW camp.

Yeah, I am seeing that he isn't able to discuss the topic in his own words.  First sign of a shill.  He is a regurgitator and nothing more.  Clearly he doesn't understand the topic well enough or have a firm enough grasp of the science to know whether what he is posting is factual or not.  His high priests told him it was true and therefore, in his mind, it must be true.  

Sad, but people like him are the desired end result of the past 40+ years of dumbing down public education.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> oh dear wirebender, you seem to have upset OR!.



I suppose he will come to hate me then.  When I get enough posts to link to outside sites, I will deluge him with peer reviewed studies that state the exact opposite of his claims.



IanC said:


> he'll be posting the same old tired links for the next little while until his feelings mend a bit.



If he can't discuss the topic on his own, with credible links to support his claims I am afraid that he is doomed to unhappiness.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > acc_69 said:
> ...


That's for damn sure. You actually seem to be more of an anti-scientist who's completely clueless and just parrots propaganda you get off of denier cult blogs.




code1211 said:


> I'm sure that a scientist can tell the difference between dog poop and cow poop.  If it's on my shoe, I'm not concerned so much with the origin as the removal.


You make it quite obvious that you are unable to tell the difference between shit and shinola. You should be concerned with removing the oil corp propaganda poop from your skull. 





code1211 said:


> The content of CO2 in the air may be tangently(sic) related Climate Change.


No little dufus, CO2 levels are directly related to the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. That is because *CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas*. Too bad you're too ignorant and ideologically brainwashed to understand that fact. Virtually all of the actual scientists on Earth understand it though which is why no one with more than half a brain takes you denier cult retards seriously. 





code1211 said:


> The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned.  Go figure.  The hole disappears and reappears every year.  Every year.  The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.


If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

*Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center*:
*"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."*


***


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




So, to be clear, you are saying that the link between CO2 and Warming is as provable as the link between atmospheric sulfur and acid rain?

If that is your stance, make your case.

Begin with explaining why our current warming trend pre-dates the Industrial Revolution.  Include the explanation of why we are about 1 degree cooler right now than we were about 8000 years ago with CO2 estimated to be about 100 ppm lower than today.

You might want to touch on why the climate system does not respond in accord with the predictions of Dr. Hansen and why, if the sea level is rising by an amount between 1 and 3 mm annually, the shore lines of Pomeii and Herculaneum are still above water today and still on the shore where they were in about 80 AD.  The sea level should have risen by more than 10 feet in the intirim and yet it has not.  

Theoretical projections and results are sometimes more closely aligned in scientific considerations.

If it makes you feel better as you respond to hurl insults, please do so.  For the sake of brevity, could you please group the insults into one section and your facts into another?  In that way I can more easily separate the shit from the Shinola which, in passing, is a trademarked product name and should be capitalized.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Again, thank you for noting one of the proofs of how recent the rise in sea level is.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




In every example that I can find, any encroachment of the sea level rising is dependant on the land sinking.  This is the case as examples in Venice , Italy and Houston, Texas and Alexandria, Egypt.

Do you have any examples in major cities with ocean coast lines that have absolute proof of the encroachment of the risen sea level on their shores.  According to the AGW'ers, there has been an 8 inch vertical rise in the sea level since 1880 due to Global Warming.

It seems like London or New York or Boston should have some evidence that is easily demonstrated.  Naples?  Tripoli?  St. Augustine?  Honolulu?  I should think this would be big news and trumpeted wildly by "peer reviewed" sources.

Pearl Harbor has had enough time to have a 5 inch rise in the sea level and yet the shore line is right where Nimitz left it.

Please dig up the proof of the rising sea level and show it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned.  Go figure.  The hole disappears and reappears every year.  Every year.  The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.
> ...



this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do _you_ understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?


> Q.-B. Lu
> Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
> 
> Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009
> ...



personally, as a skeptic, I do not have to take either explanation as the gospel truth. most likely it is a bit of both and some other factors that we dont understand at the moment. 

AGW is the same type of scenario. did it warm up (hole appear)? yes. was there a human influenced change that co-incided with the increased temp (ozone hole)? yes. was there a simple physical process that could reasonably explain what was happening? yes. was the correlation between the CO2 (CFCs) sufficiently strong to attribute all or most of the warming (ozone hole) to that one factor? no. multi-decadal ocean currents and solar cycles give a much stronger correlation than Co2, just like cosmic ray activity has a greater correlation to the ozone hole than CFCs do. is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 4, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Two quick points:
> 
> 1.  Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded(sic) by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding(sic) interglacial.
> 
> 2.  The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution.  If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.



LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.

For the glacial periods in the last 650,000 years CO2 levels were the highest towards the beginnings of the interglacials and lowest just before the glacial period.






There was one glacial period about 440 million years ago that scientists at first thought had started with apparently high CO2 levels. Further research showed that this was mistaken and based on a paucity of data points in that period. The high CO2 levels were the result of the prolonged and intense volcanism that produced the Appalachians but CO2 levels dropped sharply over the next 5 million years prior to the glacial period and that drop may have triggered the glaciation. Of course you denier cult dingbats are too ignorant about the science to understand that the sun's output has been very, very slowly increasing over the last billion years and solar insolation was around 4% weaker 440mya than it is now. This reduced the effect of the higher CO2. There are some other factors that affect glacial cycles too as it turns out. Here's a good article in Science on a study published a year and a half ago in the science journal _*Geology*_ that explains what happened to the CO2 levels and produced the cooling and the subsequent glacial period.

*The Mountains That Froze the World*
*Geology*
by Phil Berardelli  
3 November 2009
(short excerpt)

*The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the mountains' rocks absorbed enough greenhouse gas to freeze the planet. In the October issue of Geology, Young and colleagues propose the following scenario: As CO2-laced acid rain fell on the rocks, it formed limestone that washed into the Nevada sea and locked away huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Then, when the volcanism ended, about 450 million years ago, the sequestering continued, thinning CO2 levels to maybe a few times higher than today. Back then, a dimmer sun couldn't keep the atmosphere warm without CO2's help--hence, the eventual onset of the ice age.*


As for your second mistaken 'point', the current abrupt warming trend actually did mostly start after the industrial revolution and the trend has gotten stronger in the last two decades. Here's an article about one of the studies published in the journal _Science_ that confirms that fact.

*Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research*
September 03, 2009

*BOULDERArctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

The international study, led by Northern Arizona University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published in the September 4 edition of Science. It was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

The scientists reconstructed summer temperatures across the Arctic over the last 2,000 years by decade, extending a view of climate far beyond the 400 years of Arctic-wide records previously available at that level of detail. They found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.





New research shows that the Arctic reversed a long-term cooling trend and began warming rapidly in recent decades. The blue line shows estimates of Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, based on proxy records from lake sediments, ice cores and tree rings. The green line shows the long-term cooling trend. The red line shows the recent warming based on actual observations. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with NCAR?s Community Climate System Model shows the same overall temperature decrease as does the proxy temperature reconstruction, which gives scientists confidence that their estimates are accurate. [ENLARGE] (Courtesy Science, modified by UCAR.) News media terms of use*


"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," says NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author and head of the synthesis project, says the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," says Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

Greenhouse gases overtake a natural cycle

The new study is the first to quantify a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the Sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summertime, when Earth is farther from the Sun.

The research team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun, cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (about .36 degrees Fahrenheit) per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees C (2.5 degrees F) higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Natural archives of Arctic climate

To reconstruct Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, the study team incorporated three types of field-based data, each of which captured the response of a different component of the Arctic's climate system to changes in temperature.

These data included temperature reconstructions published by the study team earlier this year. The reconstructions were based on evidence provided by sediments from Arctic lakes, which yielded two kinds of clues: changes in the abundance of silica remnants left behind by algae, which reflect the length of the growing season, and the thickness of annually deposited sediment layers, which increases during warmer summers as deposits from glacial meltwater increase.

The research also incorporated previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings that were calibrated against the instrumental temperature record.

The scientists compared the temperatures inferred from the field-based data with simulations run with the Community Climate System Model, a computer model of global climate based at NCAR. The model's estimate of the reduction of seasonal sunlight in the Arctic and the resulting cooling was consistent with the analysis of the lake sediments and other natural archives. These results give scientists more confidence in computer projections of future Arctic temperatures.

"This study provides a clear example of how increased greenhouse gases are now changing our climate, ending at least 2,000 years of Arctic cooling," says NCAR scientist Caspar Ammann, a co-author.

The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight.

"Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," says Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences."

About the article

Title: "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling"

Authors: Darrell S. Kaufman, David P. Schneider, Nicholas P. McKay, Caspar M. Ammann, Raymond S. Bradley, Keith R. Briffa, Gifford H. Miller, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bo M. Vinther, and Journal of Paleolimnology special issue authors.

Publication: Science, September 4, 2009*

© 2011 UCAR

*Media & nonprofit use of images: Except where otherwise indicated, media and nonprofit use permitted with credit as indicated above and compliance with *UCAR's terms of use*.

Terms of Use - Permitted Use. The user is granted the right to use the Site for non-commercial, non-profit  research, or educational purposes only, without any fee or cost.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do _you_ understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?


I would suppose that you must get a lot of "condescending remarks" when people notice that you're just parroting some crap you heard from Rush or got off of a denier cult blog. The obvious fact is that you have no real understanding of the paper you are quoting.



IanC said:


> > Q.-B. Lu
> > Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
> >
> > Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009
> ...


Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. *There is a difference*. This study is *not* saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone hole six decades ago. After all the cosmic rays have been hitting the Earth forever. The scientists who authored this study are claiming that there is some indications that it may be primarily cosmic rays rather than sunlight that is interacting with the CFCs and breaking them down chemically into the chlorine that eats the ozone and causes the hole over Antarctica and the thinning worldwide. Other scientists disagree. In either case, the CFCs are still responsible for the ozone loss. Obviously, ianc, you never read the article you cited and you are just parroting some misinformation/lies about what it says that you got off some denier cult blog or something.

*Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?*
PhysicsWorld.com
A website from the Institute of Physics
(short excerpt)

*Lu, however, believes that cosmic rays break up the CFCs. He says that when cosmic rays ionize atmospheric molecules the liberated electrons can be stored on the surface of the ice particles and that these electrons, rather than the sunlight, break up the CFCs and convert the fragments into molecular chlorine... However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone. "He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."
*





IanC said:


> AGW is the same type of scenario.


You mean the 'scenario' like this one where you don't understand the science and get all your misinformation from denier cult blogs? Yeah, your understanding of AGW is a lot like that scenario.





IanC said:


> did it warm up (hole appear)? yes. was there a human influenced change that co-incided with the increased temp (ozone hole)? yes. was there a simple physical process that could reasonably explain what was happening? yes. was the correlation between the CO2 (CFCs) sufficiently strong to attribute all or most of the warming (ozone hole) to that one factor? no.


Wrong again. The correct answer is *yes*. Global warming is indeed primarily linked to rising CO2 levels.





IanC said:


> multi-decadal ocean currents and solar cycles give a much stronger correlation than Co2, just like cosmic ray activity has a greater correlation to the ozone hole than CFCs do.


Wrong all around there, little dude, as I suppose must be usual for you. Wrong (as I just showed) about the CFCs, wrong about the ocean currents and wrong about the solar cycles.

*Solar Variability & Global Warming*
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpt)

*A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade. *

©2008 by Stanford SOLAR Center · Permitted Uses

Permitted Uses - All images and text not credited otherwise are Copyright (c) 1996-2007 by the Stanford SOLAR Center, Solar Observatories Group, Stanford University, CA. All rights reserved.  Reproduction of SOHO, NASA, and Solar Center owned images is permitted and strongly encouraged for educational purposes so long as no charge is made for copies, credit is given to the the appropriate sources, and the appropriate copyright notice is included.






IanC said:


> is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.


More denier cult trash. I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.



I see you don't go in for peer reviewed science either.  Understandable, but I am afraid that it puts you behind the 8 ball.  Here is some peer reviewed science for you that states quite clearly that atmospheric CO2 increases have historically followed temperature increases clearly indicating that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition

From the abstract: These estimates are consistent with a close linkage between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global climate, but the lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial Pco2* does not support *the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition. 

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination

From the abstract: The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase. 

In case you might be wondering, that corelation is because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water.  As the ocean warmed, CO2 was released resulting in increased atmospheric CO2.  There is always a lag between increased temperatures and increased atmospheric CO2.

Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

*The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.*

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

From the abstract: High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations *increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.* Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations;

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

From the abstract:  Deep-sea temperatures warmed by &#8764;2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.),* leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 *and tropicalsurface-ocean warming by &#8764;1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, *nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing*. 


ScienceDirect - Quaternary Science Reviews : The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka 

From the abstract:  Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7±1.3 ka. However, significant short-term changes in the lag of CO2 relative to temperature, subsequent to Terminations II and III, are also detected.


Need more?


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do _you_ understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?
> ...




Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole. 

and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.

why do you continue to call me a denier? because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?


----------



## wirebender (Apr 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.



Ozone hole.  That was just a warm up scam for the big AGW hoax.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Two quick points:
> ...




I'm glad that you get such a kick out of my posts.  In your long and winding post, I think I noticed the hockey stick graph.  I would have expected nothing less from a person who appreciates a good joke.  

During cooler weather, CO2 is sequestered in the ground especially in areas of perma frost.  This also happens annually due to the majority of land being in the Northern Hemisphere.  When warming occurs, as it is right now, the sequestered CO2 is emitted as a function of warming.  That is why the CO2 is highest immediately before any glacial period begins.  If you do not understand this, you know nothing of the process at all.

The Industrial Revolution is genearlly thought to have begun in the 18th century and continued into the 19th.  Our current warming period, according to most proxies, started during the 17th century.  It is as logical to say that the Industrial Revolution caused the Little Ice Age and the Warming period we currently enjoy.  Both started before the Industrial Revolution.

If your knowledge of this is lacking, you simply need more knowledge.

I recomend GlobalWarmingArt.com.  This is a site that presents data and facts with little if any propaganda.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.
> ...


You are such an idiot, wirehead. My post that you're responding to contained references to articles in two peer reviewed journals - *Geology* and *Science*. And that, to you, means that I "_don't go in for peer reviewed science_", eh? LOLOLOL. Moron!!!







wirebender said:


> Here is some peer reviewed science for you that states quite clearly that atmospheric CO2 increases have historically followed temperature increases clearly indicating that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause.


The scientific studies you cite *do not indicate* that the current increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures as you imagine that they do. You're just a scientifically illiterate denier cultist clinging to another one of the long ago debunked myths of your ginned up cult of dupes and stooges. I strongly suspect that you're not intelligent enough to comprehend just why you're wrong or open minded enough to even consider evidence that contradicts your cherished denier cult delusions and myths. But for the possible readers here who actually have an above room temperature IQ, here are the facts.

*Anti-global heating claims  a reasonably thorough debunking*
Scholars and Rogues

*DENIER MYTH#21:* Ice core data illustrates that CO2 has previously always risen after temperature increases, not before as scientists are claiming is happening now. Therefore any global heating weve experienced is already over and we should start cooling down soon. (sources: Multiple)

*Debunking:* There are a number of problems with this argument  a logical fallacy, an inaccuracy with regard to the time scales involved, and a misunderstanding of how the transitions in question (deglaciation, or going from an ice age to an inter-glacial period) are understood to work.

First, the logical fallacy is known as predictive appeal to history, and it relies on the its always happened this way in the past, so it will always happen this way. Or, to steal an analogy that a commenter on Digg used, if you push your foot down on the gas 10 times and the car accelerates each time, you can realistically expect that the next time you put your foot down on the gas the car will accelerate again. Thats science. But what if you put your foot on the gas and nothing happens? Assuming that that car would have accelerated was a reasonable scientific expectation, but once the car didnt accelerate, you have to leave your prediction behind and actually figure out whats busted in the car. Or, to put this analogy in terms that more directly parallel global heating, what if youre sitting in the car and it accelerates even before you put your foot on the gas? Did you accidentally put your foot on the gas and not realize it? Or has something broken under the hood that youll fix before you can slow down again? In the case of global heating, the Earths atmospheric CO2 took off before the temperature started rising, and scientists have identified that the differences this time around are human-caused, or anthropogenic (See Myth #3).

CO2 over last 1000 yearsRelying on prior history to generate predictions only works when everything is equal and the situations are substantially identical. What we have today in the case of global heating is not substantially identical in a scientific sense to prior episodes of heating in the past. Without CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels, the natural atmospheric CO2 concentration would be approximately 280-290 ppm instead of the approximately 383 ppm it is today. As the image at right shows, modern human civilization itself has made the situation substantially different from prior climatic cycles.






The second problem is that proponents of this myth are confusing different time scales. It is true that the Vostok ice core has illustrated that there is a delay of between 200 and 800 years between a change in temperature and the lagging change in CO2. However, this change is only observable at transitions between periods of glaciation and interglacial periods where the changes are of sufficient magnitude to overcome the uncertainties in the measurements and proxies used to estimate temperature, CO2 concentration, and age. Part of the lag is due to the fact that gas bubbles are trapped in ice that is older than the air trapped. Another part of the lag is due to the time required to heat up the ocean enough to start outgassing CO2 (see Myth #2). Other sources of lag could be the time required for the ocean to mix vertically, for sea-ice to melt, for oceanic biological productivity to change, and/or for the concentrations of atmospheric dust to change (Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science Magazine #299). However, even then the lag is but a small percentage of the total time required to deglaciate the planet, specifically between 200 to 800 years in a deglaciation that lasts 5000 to 6000 years.

But the time scales are even more impressively different when you consider the magnitude of the changes and how fast theyve occurred. Across Termination III described above, the concentration of CO2 increased from 240 ppp to 280 ppm over the course of approximately 5000 years, or at an average rate of 0.008 ppm CO2 year. Since 1850, the concentration of CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 383 ppm, or at an average rate of 0.656 ppm CO2 per year.

Finally, its understood that prior climate changes were not driven by human activity since there was no human activity to drive them. However, as the article linked above shows, this doesnt change the fact that CO2 is believed to have played a significant role in the very same transitions used to support this myth. According to the article, deglaciation Transition III in the Vostok ice core started with the melting of Antarctic ice driven by some change in solar forcing, followed by an increase in global CO2, and then by the melting of Northern Hemisphere glaciers. The papers authors clearly state the implication:

    This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

    The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.

In other words, even if prior changes in climate werent started by increased CO2 concentrations, more CO2 in the air continued the deglaciation.

Has CO2 concentrations lagged temperature in the past? Yes, the ice cores show this quite specifically on a glacial/interglacial timescale (hundreds of thousands of year). But whats happening to the atmosphere today has no analogue in the past. Deglaciation transitions occur due to changes in CO2 concentrations that are both smaller in magnitude than modern anthropogenic changes (40 vs. 103 ppm) and slower in duration (~5000 vs. 157 years). Because the rate of change in CO2 concentration appears to be unprecedented, we cannot rely exclusively on paleoclimatic data to explain whats happening today. Instead climate scientists have developed scientific predictive techniques (aka computer climate models) that are informed by the paleoclimatic data we have, but that also incorporate the differences between the climate of modern humanity and the analyzed paleoclimates into their analyses.

In essence, human civilization jammed the climate accelerator and the usual planetary brakes arent enough yet to keep us from accelerating. (Other sources: Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination, New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0â50 kyr)

At one point or another, each of these claims represented a real problem with the science of global heating. But no longer  the scientific evidence has become overwhelming. However, its the minority composed of global heating deniers who continue to hunt for flaws in climate science, so the deniers serve a valuable scientific purpose  when they find a real hole, or just think they have, addressing their claims are what has made the science of global heating as bullet-proof as it now is.

It comes down to this simple fact: the overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence points to human-induced global heating, and every claim made by global heating deniers has been effectively debunked. And because the consequences of doing nothing are so severe, we must act now even as the data continues to improve  we can no longer afford to wait.

This site - Scholars and Rogues © 2007-2011

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



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8]YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Temp leads Carbon Crock[/ame]




wirebender said:


> Need more?


Oh Yeah, lots more. Far more than you could ever provide from your stock of debunked denier cult lies, misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 5, 2011)

IanC said:


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


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2011)

code1211 said:


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


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 5, 2011)

IanC said:


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


LOLOLOL. No, little retard, you "_showe_d" no such thing. The only thing you showed with your idiotic post was that you couldn't understand the study you were citing. Scientists understand that mankind's release of CFCs into the atmosphere was the cause of the ozone hole and the paper you cited was only questioning whether the primary factor breaking down the CFCs into chlorine is sunlight or cosmic rays. You don't understand it because you're a brainwashed moron who believes the mistaken interpretation given to the results of that study on some denier cult blog.





IanC said:


> and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.


LOLOLOL....riiiight. NASA is a "_joke_" to you only because you're an idiot and you can't understand the evidence. The intelligent people of the world see your anti-science denier cult as the new 'flat earthers' and regard you dingbats as the 'joke'.






IanC said:


> why do you continue to call me a denier?


Because you are. You are an ad hoc member of a semi-religious cult of reality denial that has been ginned up by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel interests to confuse the  public about the reality and dangers of AGW. You fall for their BS because you are a rightwingnut wacko with sub-normal intelligence and no education.




IanC said:


> because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?


There are mountains of evidence supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. The problem is that you and the other denier cultists on here are just too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be able to comprehend the evidence that has convinced all of the real climate scientists on the planet as well as most of the world leaders in business and government.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






No, there is a mountain of manufactured and manipulated data supporting them with their good ol' boy network of peer reviewers.  The brainwashed fool is you.  UAH shows that this is the coldest March in 9 years.  The global temperature has dropped .653C in one year and it looks like it is going to continue to fall for the next decade or so in conjunction with the Southern Oscillation.  So, if everything continues as it does we really have nothing to worry about (not that we ever did) the 4th IPCC Assessment Report calculated a rise of 
.74C for the whole of the 20th century.  That is almost completely wiped out in a period of 15 months.

"April 5th, 2011 
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345"



UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Global temperature still headed down- UAH: negative territory | Watts Up With That?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 5, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Well, that is one of the braindead beliefs/myths of your cult but it has no foundation in reality.

*USA Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate' Clearing Scientists of Charges That They Manipulated Data*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fm37nCOHHc]YouTube - [USA] Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate' Clearing Scientists of Charges That They Manipulated Data[/ame]

*Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy*
(short excerpt)

*The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

    * Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
    * Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
    * An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
    * A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
*
(continued - much more plus many links on website)






westwall said:


> The brainwashed fool is you.


That's another one of your delusions, walleyed, but the evidence shows otherwise.





westwall said:


> UAH shows that this is the coldest March in 9 years.


LOLOLOLOL....big whoop...so what, numbnuts??? You're citing a satellite instrumental record of a portion of the Troposphere and all it means is that this March was one of the ten hottest March's on record for that part of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, this February, the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was 0.72 F (0.40 C) above the 20th century average of 53.9 F (12.1 C) and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. (Source: NOAA) And    January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. (Source: NASA)





westwall said:


> The global temperature has dropped .653C in one year and it looks like it is going to continue to fall for the next decade or so in conjunction with the Southern Oscillation.


No, walleyedretard, global temperatures have not dropped and if you think that some measurements of the temperatures in a portion of the Troposphere indicate that, then you are even more of an idiot than you normally appear to be. Your denier cult myths about falling temperatures have been repeatedly debunked by each years temperature data but you cretins are still holding on to your delusions like grim death. 

*GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Strongest La Nina in a long time. And, by that graph, no where near the negative anamoly that we saw after the Super El Nino of 1998. In fact, by your own graph, from 2002 to 2007, the average analomy was about the same as the very highest points on the graph prior to that time, excepting 1998.

2010, a moderate El Nino, with the last few months of the year in a very strong La Nina, yet managed to tie 1998, along with 2005, for the warmest year on record. Not only that, look at the temperature analomys from 1983 to 1987. All the points were lower than -0.1.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2011)

Ignoring MWP is gay..............ever notice the k00ks only post up stuff from 1998 on............like time began in 1998!!!


Much, much warmer then s0ns..................sorry...................




Oh.........DODGE is saying they just brought back the Durango!!! Was that from 1200 AD??


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2011)




----------



## wirebender (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Strongest La Nina in a long time. And, by that graph, no where near the negative anamoly that we saw after the Super El Nino of 1998. In fact, by your own graph, from 2002 to 2007, the average analomy was about the same as the very highest points on the graph prior to that time, excepting 1998.
> 
> 2010, a moderate El Nino, with the last few months of the year in a very strong La Nina, yet managed to tie 1998, along with 2005, for the warmest year on record. Not only that, look at the temperature analomys from 1983 to 1987. All the points were lower than -0.1.
> 
> UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



And the wait continues for you to provide even a shred of observed evidence that provides unequivocal proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2011)

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of  Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009

this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.

there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2011)

hey Old Rocks- time to update your Spencer link. down another .099C


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2011)

Yes it is. Surprising that the anamoly is only -0.1. After all, it stayed below that level from 1983 to 1987.
And, after the monster El Nino of 1998, it dropped to less than -0.3. And the weaker La Nina of 2008 dropped it to a -0.3. So we should be getting more of a drop. This is the strongest La Nina we have seen in about 40 years, we really should have seen a much colder winter that we did.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of  Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009
> 
> this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.
> 
> there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.



In other words, those damned scientists just keep doing science. 

Show your links.


----------



## xotoxi (Apr 6, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> *laugh......my.....balls......off*








*That makes you a EUNICH, s0n!!!*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 6, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>



LOLOLOLOL....yeah, we all figured that was what happened to your brain when you were confronted with the actual facts of the matter and your denier cult myths were shown to be the worthless shit that they are.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of  Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009
> ...




why are YOU asking for links? you have refused to discuss them numerous times in the past but now you want to see them again? go back and bump any thread you want. I only have my phone right now


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of  Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009
> 
> this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.
> 
> there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.



That's the propaganda bullshit you swallowed but it is largely a fantasy. The original hockey stick graph had some errors in the statistical analysis that have since been resolved but those revisions and further studies show that the basic facts shown by the graph are still accurate and these facts have been repeatedly verified and confirmed by other scientists independently. You've been told a lot of lies that appeal to your ideological biases and depend on your ignorance of science for belief.

*What we've learned in 2008*
*Nature* 
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142
(short excerpt)

*A follow-up to the infamous 1998 'hockey stick' curve confirmed that the past two decades are the warmest in recent history. Climatologist Michael Mann's contentious graph has become a symbol of the fierce debates on evidence for global warming, to the extent that an independent investigation into the study was performed at the request of US Congressman Joe Barton. The 2006 report that resulted from the Barton enquiry criticized Mann and colleagues for their reliance on tree-ring data from bristlecone pines as a proxy to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years. Although their earlier work had been largely vindicated, in September the same team revised their global surface temperature estimates for the past 2,000 years, using a greatly expanded set of proxies, including marine sediments, ice cores, coral and historical documents (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1325213257; 2008). The team reconstructed global temperatures with and without inclusion of the tree-ring records: without their inclusion, the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years. According to the Christian Science Monitor: "It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it's a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story."*


***
*Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph

A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures*

*Scientific American*
By David Appell   
October 28, 2009 
(short excerpt)

*The hockey stick graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.*


***
*Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years*
September 3, 2008






* Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements, said Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

    To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answerthat global warming is not mainly due to natural variability.
*


***
*The Hockey Stick is Accurate*
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)

*In the following graph from the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 you can see the hockey stick results from MBH99 plotted alongside 12 other temperature realizations going back to 1000 ad.*





*The Hockey Stick graph along with 12 other Temperature reconstructions from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report*

*The paper* *Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence**  by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99. They published the results of their work and you can see the impact that this had on the shape of the Hockey Stick in the graph below.[/I]*





*Wahl and Ammann then left out using principal component analysis altogether and you can see the result below.*


----------



## wirebender (Apr 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> *What we've learned in 2008*
> *Nature*
> Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142
> 
> ...



Laughable.  The things the uneducated can be led to believe.  The hockey stick is, and always has been a crock o crap.

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/8791?confirm=1054a880


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *What we've learned in 2008*
> ...






This would be one of the MANY relevent paragraphs.....

"The first major controversy erupted when McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M)
successfully replicated the Mann et al. (1998) study (McIntyre and McKitrick,
2003, 2005b,a). M&M observed that the original Mann et al. (1998)
study (i) used only one principal component of the proxy record and (ii)
calculated the principal components in a skew-centered fashion such that
they were centered by the mean of the proxy data over the instrumental period
(instead of the more standard technique of centering by the mean of
the entire data record). Given that the proxy series is itself auto-correlated,
this scaling has the effect of producing a first principal component which
is hockey-stick shaped (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) and, thus, hockeystick
shaped temperature reconstructions. That is, the very method used in
Mann et al. (1998) guarantees the shape of Figure 1. M&M made a further
contribution by applying the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction methodology
to principal components computed in the standard fashion. The resulting
reconstruction showed a rise in temperature in the medieval period,
thus eliminating the hockey stick shape."


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *What we've learned in 2008*
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels. 

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "_crock o' crap_". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must _like_ the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Futile?  Fossil fuel industry?    I guess you missed the collapse of Copenhagen and Cancun.  Cap and Trade is toast.  Yep, that's futile for sure.  You are just a pathetic foulmouthed ignorant twit.  Some day you may actually graduate from Jr. Highschool (though I doubt it) and when you actually do finally (hopefully) succeed in that endeavor try something fun 'cause you're lousy at debate.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels.
> ...



LOLOL.....so says the silly windbag stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad you can never seem to back up your delusions about climate science with any facts or evidence. Too bad you lose every debate you get in because you're full of ignorant opinions but short on actual facts about the real world.

_*Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobils Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science*_
(excerpt)

_*Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million [thru '05, 28M to date] to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2007  A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."*_

*Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change* *details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

    * raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
    * funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
    * attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
    * used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming*

(continued with much more detailed and specific info and financial ties on website and in report linked above)

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

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


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







  You crack me up!  The only shill for big oil is you and your clones.  Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country.  So will economic pariahs like Goldman Sachs and all the other companies that drove the housing bubble.  They are all hoping that fools like you are successful.  Try researching the backers of green energy someday you would be astonished by what you find....or maybe not Mr. Shill....


Big Oil's Cutting Edge Solar Project | Green Energy News

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/topic/?d=34&s=r&x=13425&rx=13425#13425


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2011)

Ol' Walleyes is showing what a lying dumbass he is once again. The funding of the denial groups by Exxon and the like has been known for a long time, and well proven.

Exxon Mobil - SourceWatch

2006 and beyond
In October 2006, two US Senators, Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), and Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) wrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO Rex W. Tillerson, asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute and TechCentralStation as such groups. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy". [4]


Skeptic funding progressively cut back under Rex Tillerson
"Exxon will not contribute to some nine groups in 2008 that it funded in 2007...The groups Exxon has stopped funding include the Capital Research Center, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research... Exxon's tone on climate change has softened since Tillerson took the reins of the company at the beginning of 2006, replacing the often-combative Lee Raymond. Tillerson has said that nations should work toward a global policy to fight climate change and in 2006 [and again in 2007] the company stopped funding a handful of groups that were climate change skeptics. [2]


Or not...
But Exxon continued to fund a further 28 groups which campaigned against climate science. And the Center for Science in the public Interest stated in June 2008, "Each group continued to receive Exxon funding in 2007 after the company&#8217;s first announcement that it would discontinue the payments. Exxon did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how serious it was in following through on its plans." [3].


2009+: Green company or no? Lobbying expenditures continue
In 2009, Exxon Mobil spent $27.5 million in lobbying against global warming, which is their second highest year on the books after 2008 election year. [4] Odwyer's Magazine describes Exxon's efforts as misleading: "ExxonMobil, absurdly praised in August by Forbes as &#8220;green company of the year,&#8221; was discovered the same month by the New York Times to have given major funding to industry groups like the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, an organization that had silenced its own scientific reports and falsified information for more than a decade." [5]

In 2010, the Walkley Foundation, the professional development arm of Australia's media union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, chose Exxon Mobil as the Gold sponsor for its August 2010 annual conference. In July, there were reports on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's PM program and News Corporation's The Australian[5] that Exxon Mobil had broken its pledge not to fund climate skeptics. The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ) opposed the sponsorship and began a public petition [6] signed by journalists, environmentalists and academics asking the union to reconsider their agreement


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2011)

if it is true that big oil is behind the skeptics, the other side should look into how they are spending the money because skeptics are turning the tide even though they are outspent by the AGW crowd by a thousand to one.

personally I think it is Mother Nature that is killing AGW by showing their theories are wrong with actual data


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Sorry but I can't take credit for that one. You were already cracked when I got here.





westwall said:


> The only shill for big oil is you and your clones.  Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country.


Well, walleyed, you've managed to sound like an even bigger idiot than you did before and I frankly didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the "Biggest Moron of the Week" award, which must be much coveted in denier cult circles, considering how fiercely you all compete for it. 

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil producing nations and all of the many, many corporations worldwide that extract the oil, gas and coal, that refine and process it, that transport the raw materials to the refineries and processing plants, that transport the fuel to markets worldwide, that sell the fuels (gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, etc.), that use the fuels to run power plants and then sell the power to consumers and industry, plus maintenance and support for all that, their total yearly profits run over a trillion dollars right now. That is the profit stream that is in danger if the world gets serious about cutting carbon emissions. That is what motivates the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to delay binding carbon emission restrictions. And sure, some oil companies, who are only a tiny fraction of the total, worldwide 'fossil fuel industry', are hedging their bets by trying to invest in some renewables, but hopes of some future profit on those investments counts very little in the boardrooms against the very real  loss of very huge profits now if fossil fuels get priced out of the energy market by an appropriately high carbon tax. 

How much profit does the fossil fuel industry pull in yearly? Here's some figures for just one corporation, out of many, that deals with just oil and gas, not coal, for just one year.

_*Exxon Mobil booked the biggest quarterly and annual profits in U.S. corporate history

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit. The company earned $10.25 billion in the year-ago period. Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.*_


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Why thank you!  In your company Moron is quite a nice appelation (that's name for you uneducated types) some day, if you're real lucky you might make it to this august level!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2011)

westwall said:


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



LOLOLOLOL. I guess that's what clueless morons say after they've gotten their ignorant asses whipped in every debate.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







The only ass you've ever whipped is that of your inflatable sex doll!


----------



## wirebender (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science.



Sorry guy, but there is simply too much peer reviewed data proving that the MWP was not only warmer than the present, but global in nature for any graph that makes it disappear to be taken seriously.




RollingThunder said:


> It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "_crock o' crap_". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must _like_ the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.



Are you aware that the alarmists are funded at more than 20:1 in relation to skeptics.  If the inflow of money is a reason to distrust, then warmists are more than 20 times less trustworthy.

Do explain how you can accept something like the hockey stick when peer reviewed data from over 900 scientists representing over 400 research institutions and over 40 countries proves that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature.  Your explanation should be interesting.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science.
> ...


Only in the delusional brains of ignorant denier cultists like you, wirehead. 




RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "_crock o' crap_". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must _like_ the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.
> ...


More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets *used* for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference. 





wirebender said:


> Do explain how you can accept something like the hockey stick when peer reviewed data from over 900 scientists representing over 400 research institutions and over 40 countries proves that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature.  Your explanation should be interesting.


Easy to explain, wirehead. You're an ignorant, very deluded denier cultist who believes a lot of crap that just isn't true. There is no scientifically validated evidence showing that the MWP was warmer globally than the present. That's a denier cult myth based on cherry-picked distortions of the scientific research. Try coming up with all those citations and showing that they actually agree with your claims.


*How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?*
(excerpt)

*What the science says...

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming. *

© Copyright 2011 John Cook

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


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2011)

Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.

In fact, it does not even match the 1997-2007 mean, let alone where we are at today.

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period &#8211; contradict Mann&#8217;s proxy data


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 8, 2011)

Title of thread -  "_So the Oceans are rising are they?_"

Answer - *Yup, they sure are*.

*Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise*

ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011)
(excerpt)

*The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted. The results of the study will be published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. ..."If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007." The team found that for each year over the 18-year study, the Greenland ice sheet lost mass faster than it did the year before, by an average of 21.9 gigatonnes a year. In Antarctica, the year-over-year speedup in ice mass lost averaged 14.5 gigatonnes.*

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC

(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.)


----------



## wirebender (Apr 8, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets *used* for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.



I suggest that you do a bit of actual research on where that money goes.  Not so very long ago, climatologists were viewed as weather geeks who didn't have much earning potential.  At present, so long as they can maintain a state of crisis in the minds of people like you, they make 6 to 7 figures a year, live in upscale neighborhoods, drive expensive cars, and have wives an girlfriends with expensive boob jobs.  If the crisis ends, the lifestyle ends.  Do the math.


*How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?*
(excerpt)




RollingThunder said:


> Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.




So the tropical Pacific was colder?  Interesting.  I note that you simply accept the claim made by a kook site.  Here is some peer reviewed science that says otherwise.

Climate and hydrographic variability in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool during the last millennium

From the abstract: The warmest temperatures and highest salinities occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the coolest temperatures and lowest salinities occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). These changes in the western Pacific, along with observations from other high resolution records indicate a regionally coherent southern displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone during the LIA, with more arid conditions in the northern tropics and wetter conditions in the southern tropics. 

Changes in the Indonesian Throughflow during the past 2000 yr

From the abstract: Maximum SST and SSS occurred at both sites between 850 and 700 yr ago, coinciding with the Medieval Solar Maximum and Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000700 yr ago). SST and SSS declined at both locations after 700 yr ago and reached minimum values during the Little Ice Age, between 300 and 100 yr ago

ScienceDirect - Quaternary International : A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea)


SpringerLink - Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, Volume 22, Number 2

From the abstract:  The highly precise age sequence of the corals determined has revealed that there occurred three phases of high sea level in the South China Sea waters, which are dated at 6799-6307 a B. P., 4472-4285 a B. P. and 1279-1012 a B. P., respectively. The three phases lasted 492 a, 187 a and 267 a, respectively. These three phases of high sea level are corresponding to the warm environments that had appeared in China during the Megathermal Period and the Medieval Warm Period in the past ten thousand years. 

Need more?  I can provide these all day.




RollingThunder said:


> All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.



Which "cool" places are you referring to during the MWP?  I can provide peer reviewed papaers stating that the MWP was considrably warmer than the present in Africa, Antartica, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, North America, all of the oceans, and South America.  Where else in the world is there?

Your admission that the overall warmth of the MWP was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming reqires a dismissal on your part of the hockey stick as it reflects temperatures during the MWP that are considerably cooler than at any time in the 20th century.



RollingThunder said:


> Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).



If the warming during the MWP was due to higher solar radiance and less volcanic activity, how is it that you claim that the warming was confined to only a few places on the globe.  Such causes would certainly result in a global phenomenon.  Your claim doesn't jibe with the evidence you are supposedly presenting.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.
> 
> In fact, it does not even match the 1997-2007 mean, let alone where we are at today.
> 
> Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period  contradict Manns proxy data



You poor guy.  Aren't you even able to read a graph.  The only line on that graph that reflects warmer temps today than during the MWP is the Mann data which has been completely discredited.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.
> ...



*You are one dimbulb. The temperature in the last 60 years of the Mann Graph is from direct measurements. Measurements that Muller call good data.*

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period &#8211; contradict Mann&#8217;s proxy data
Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties.




Sea surface temperature reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Different colored symbols indicate data from different cores used in the reconstruction. A northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008) is shown in the black curve. The previously published data is from Newton et al. (2006). Colored lines are the average of the data points. Triangles at the bottom of the figure show where age control exists. The horizontal black line labeled 1997-2007 Mean Annual SST shows the value of the annual average sea surface temperature for the same time period. The Little Ice Age, which occurred around A.D. 1700, was a cool period, but its magnitude was only about 0.5 to 1&#730;C cooler than modern winter temperatures. Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

*The multi-corer data goes right up to about the last 50 years, and shows the same rise as the Mann line. All the rest of the data also follow the Mann line. And nowhere is there any indication of a period as warm as we are right now.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 8, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets *used* for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........(gasp)...climatologists are making "_7 figure_" incomes but only because they're 'fudging' the science so they "_can maintain a state of crisis in the minds_" of all of the millions of other non-climatology scientists (who aren't in on the 'conspiracy') and in the minds of all of those government and industry leaders who are, after all, so easily fooled. LOLOLOLOL. Jeez, but you dingbat crazy denier cultists are sooooooo idiotic and gullible. Your ideas about how science works and where the grant money goes are totally insane and only reflect how very little any of you know about science.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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








And yet we "denier cultists" are KICKING YOUR PUNK ASS ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND!  The planet also seems to be ignoring you.  Since 1997 the US average temp dropped
 at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.

The last laugh's on you buddy...

Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring & Data: ENSO Impacts on the U.S. - Previous Events


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 8, 2011)

westwall said:


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


LOLOLOL.....riiiight. But only in the sick, delusional brains of the very same denier cult douche-bags, like yourself, who have no actual science or evidence to support their ideologically driven denial of reality and who are regarded by all of the intelligent people of the world as the new 'flat-earthers'. LOL. You are such a delusional loon, walleyed. You lose every debate on AGW because you have no ability to counter the actual scientific evidence that debunks your denier cult myths and misinformation every time. And yet, part of your delusional system seems to be imagining that you have 'won'. LOL...such a retard.





westwall said:


> The planet also seems to be ignoring you.  Since 1997 the US average temp dropped at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.


Since the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface, it is not even worth my time to look up your claim. True or false (probably false, given your track record), it makes no difference. Here is what is actually happening with *our whole planet*, not just your backyard.

*NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years*

*WASHINGTON -- Jan. 21, 2010 -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.

"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.

Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."*

*NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record*

January 12, 2011

*According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.*

(government agency information - free for public use - not under copyright)


*Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years*
(short excerpt)

*ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007)  The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850. *





westwall said:


> The last laugh's on you buddy...


That must be one of your more comforting illusions when, in reality, the intelligent and educated people of the whole world are always laughing at silly, anti-science reality deniers like you fools in the fossil fuel industry's ginned up cult of denial and the 'flat-earthers' and the evolution-deniers. You're all 'birds of a feather' with small, frightened, ignorant, gullible, superstitious minds suffering (loudly) from an extreme case of the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







Well if you're so smart why are regulations controlling AGW being repealed and halted all over the world?  Hmmmm?  The only anti science people are you twits with your "the science is settled BS".  That is one of the most virulently anti scientific positions ever seen on this planet.  You guys screwed the pooch with that and antagonised too many good real scientists to the point where they had had enough...that's why yu are having your asses handed to you.  Get used to it boyo, you aren't going to have any good positive news for a very long time...you people missed your window.


----------



## waltky (Apr 9, 2011)

Granny says, "Dat's right - an' dem yankees is gonna drown...

*New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise*
_8 April 2011 - Places like New York are projected to experience an above average sea level increase_


> New York is a major loser and Reykjavik a winner from new forecasts of sea level rise in different regions.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2007 that sea levels would rise at least 28cm (1ft) by the year 2100.  But this is a global average; and now a Dutch team has made what appears to be the first attempt to model all the factors leading to regional variations.  Other researchers say the IPCC's figure is likely to be a huge under-estimate.
> 
> Whatever the global figure turns out to be, there will be regional differences.  Ocean currents and differences in the temperature and salinity of seawater are among the factors that mean sea level currently varies by up a metre across the oceans - this does not include short-term changes due to tides or winds.  So if currents change with global warming, which is expected - and if regions such as the Arctic Ocean become less saline as ice sheets discharge their contents into the sea - the regional patterns of peaks and troughs will also change.
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2011)

waltky said:


> Granny says, "Dat's right - an' dem yankees is gonna drown...
> 
> *New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise*
> _8 April 2011 - Places like New York are projected to experience an above average sea level increase_
> ...





Mmmmm, maybe, but probably not...


"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

This is how Houston and Dean describe their take on the situation:

When viewed in this historical perspective, the [satellite] altimeter measurements appear similar to several decadal oscillations over the past 100 years, and it is not possible to determine if the increased trend measured by the altimeters is the leading edge of acceleration or merely a typical decadal oscillation; however, the decreasing average suggests an oscillation. [emphasis added]

And since one good deed deserves another, we thought wed take the opportunity to bring the Houston and Dean figure even more up to date by adding in the satellite altimeter data through September 2010the most recent data available (see here for data source) (Figure 3)and even more data should be available soon."




World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down


----------



## waltky (Apr 9, 2011)

westwall wrote: _"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall._

Where all dat water goin'?

possum thinks mebbe its goin' down inna ground...

... an' loosenin' things up...

... an' dats why all dem earthquakes is happenin'.


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2011)

waltky said:


> westwall wrote: _"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall._
> 
> Where all dat water goin'?
> 
> ...






Nope, it's changing back into ice.  It is possible to use water as a lubricant in fault zones that are under strain and that will cause minor earthquakes.  Major quakes like you saw in Japan and New Zealand are the result of tectonic plates being subducted under other tectonic plates which generates tremendous pressures and water could release the strain (if we could get the water down to those depths, you must remember these quakes occur over 10 miles deep, the other problem is of course the extreme temperatures you see at depth...far above the boiling point of water...me thinks possum needs to take some geology classes) which would LESSEN the power of the quakes.

"You can think of Antarctica as an amazing layer cake, made from millions of layers of snow that gradually turns to ice. But a new study finds that's not always the case. Some of the ice in Antarctica is actually forming from underneath the glaciers, instead of being piled on from the top, according to a report published online by Science magazine."

"It turns out these big blobs underneath the ice sheet were ice that had frozen on from the bottom of the ice sheet," she says. "There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet."

Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way  it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down. But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places.
Heat from the Earth had melted the bottom of the glaciers, and then that water refroze, and it created what you could think of as gigantic frost heaves, so powerful that they actually altered the shape of the surface, half a mile to 2 miles above."



It's Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets : NPR


----------



## waltky (Apr 9, 2011)

Granny says, "Well...

... dat's nice to know."


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2011)

waltky said:


> Granny says, "Well...
> 
> ... dat's nice to know."






Glad to be of service Granny!


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2011)

> The Dunning&#8211;Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.



I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> > The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?






Nope, I started off trying to be nice to blunder but he is a right proper prick.  I now treat him like I would any juvenile delinquent.


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2011)

yah, _prick_ sounds about right. I really cant understand how anyone can be so certain that they are on the right side of the debate when the evidence is so circumstantial. I guess there is no overestimating the power of quasi-religious fervor


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


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


ROTFLMAO....you are really hilarious, walleyedretard. I've rebutted every idiotic denier cult myth you've come up with by linking to the actual scientific work that is getting published in peer reviewed science journals, so now you want to switch the argument to the temporary success in certain places of the political machinations of the fossil fuel industry to sabotage or delay governmental efforts to curb CO2 emissions. As if that had anything to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence for accelerating human caused global warming and the still very strong, almost unanimous, world scientific consensus, based on that evidence, on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. The science is settled, you flaming nitwit. You've got nothing but your myths and the lies told to you by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

And, BTW, your contention that "_regulations controlling AGW being repealed and halted all over the world_" is another one of your denier cult myths. Many countries are taking strong steps to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions. All European countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Many countries have implemented carbon taxes or emission trading schemes.






*Nations split on route to reduce carbon emissions*

    * Rowan Callick
    * From: The Australian
    * March 02, 2011 

GLOBAL consensus is emerging around the goal of a less carbon-dependent world, but there is much less agreement about the route this requires.

Only 31 countries are operating emissions trading schemes, and about half this number are administering carbon taxes that are aimed at reducing the use of fossil fuels.

The European Union will next year extend its carbon scheme to include an impost on all flights leaving from or arriving in the region. At present, its ETS covers about 10,000 industrial operations in energy-intensive sectors such as electricity and heat generation, metal production and chemicals.

Several countries have said they will introduce an ETS or carbon tax in the next year or two. China is expected to declare in its new five-year plan, due out in a few days, that cleaner energy and environmental services are "priority industries", and commit up to $500 billion to combating pollution over the next five years.

In addition, it will set a target of reducing the intensity of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 16-17 per cent during the plan.

India is to introduce next month a mandatory national energy efficiency trading scheme covering more than 700 companies in nine sectors responsible for 65 per cent of industrial energy consumption. The firms will be allocated energy intensity targets, based on previous performance, and rewarded with credits or penalised.

But other countries, such as France, Japan and South Korea, have postponed schemes in the face of opposition, and Taiwan's government has faced strong business reservations that have made it waver.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy last year dropped a carbon tax plan because he said "the tax would put French companies at a disadvantage" and that it should be "Europe-wide or not (exist) at all".

The core supporter of both ETS and carbon tax routes for combating climate change, the European Union, has only recently reopened some of its carbon market after a month-long closure.

California, one of the world's great emitters, has legislated for a cap-and-trade ETS next year. But that is now on hold.

Under New Zealand's ETS, which came into effect last July 1 -- the first nationwide scheme outside Europe -- businesses that operate in the sectors that emit greenhouse gases are required to surrender one NZ Unit to match each tonne of emissions that they produce. They have to buy their emission units from the government for the fixed price of $NZ25. But during this transition phase they buy one and get one free. They need only surrender a single NZU for every two tonnes of emissions they produce. All sectors of the NZ economy, including agriculture, will be brought in to the ETS by 2015 under the current plan, which is now under review.

Copyright 2011 News Limited.

(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.)


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> *So the Oceans are rising are they?*


Nahhhhhhhh....that's another o' those bullshit talking-points (you *Teabaggers create*), so you have something to _dispel_.






> "*One of the starkest effects of climate change is the anticipated rise in sea level worldwide.* This occurs for two main reasons  the expansion of the ocean as it warms, and the increased melt from ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. Along with alarming threats to coastal communities, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems, this rise has implications for available freshwater, as rising sea levels drive saltwater into freshwater aquifers. To be useful for drinking or irrigating, more water from our aquifers, then, would need to be treated, usually by energy-intensive processes. Given the wide range of human activities that depend  directly or indirectly  on water, future climate-driven changes in water resources will affect many aspects of our lives."
> 
> *Beware 'Bagger Bullshit*​


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Mmmmm, maybe, but probably not...
> 
> "Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.
> 
> ...



You denier cult freaks are a hoot. First you deny the validity of most of the scientific research that has been done on global warming/climate change for the last 60 years and then you turn around and embrace one paper that supports your politically determined but really insane 'opinions' on the subject. You deny the validity of the work done by NASA, NOAA  and the NSIDC and then you accept the junk put out by websites supported by the fossil fuel industry. LOL...you halfwits are a joke.

*NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise*





***

*NASA - Global Climate Change - Sea Level*

***






Jevrejeva et al, 2008

***






Church and White 2011

***

*Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise*
(excerpt)






*Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered robust. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising. 
*





*Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the slowing down reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data). *

***

What are your sources, walleyedretard?

"worldclimatereport.com"?

*World Climate Report*, *a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society, a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.*

*Western Fuels Association* *currently owns two mining operations that supply coal to its members... The Western Fuels Association has played a controversial role in the debate over global warming. They have established groups such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[2], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso. Groups established by industry bodies like the Western Fuels Association have been criticized as Astroturf organizations, since they appear superficially to be grassroots initiatives.  In addition to Patrick Michaels (chief editor), the staff is listed as Robert C. Balling, Jr (contributing editor)...
*

*The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels - It's a Small World After All*
26 May 09

*Its not often the public gets to follow the money trail, so it was a treat this week when PR Watch revealed the Cato Institute has been bankrolling a consulting company owned by notorious climate denier Patrick Michaels to the tune of $242,900 since April 2006.

Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and according to tax documents uncovered by PR Watch for 2006 and 2007, Cato ponyed up almost a quarter million to Michaels firm New Hope Environmental Services for "environmental policy" services.

Small world eh?

Both Cato and Michaels have a long and reprehensible history of questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change. Last month, Cato bankrolled full-page ads in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times, opining that climate change was grossly overstated.

Their statement was naturally targeted at decision makers in advance of the cap and trade legislation moving through Congress. It was signed by the usual suspects, including Patrick Michaels, who has made a lucrative career of challenging climate science on behalf of a variety of vested interests.

Real scientists were of course disgusted by this tactic, as well as the baseless claims being spread around the nation. A scientific evisceration of the Cato letter is available here.

For a more in-depth journey into the bowels of the carbon-funded campaign to confuse the public on climate change, you may want to peruse a remarkable affidavit filed by Patrick Michaels in 2006. He was weaseling out of testifying as an expert witness in court after learning he might be forced to unmask his funding sources.

It seems Michaels was hired by a number of auto companies and lobby groups, including General Motors and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a legal bid aimed at preventing the government of Vermont from regulating greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace intervened in the case seeking to have Michaels consulting company reveal its shadowy clients. Dr. Michaels quickly bid a hasty and undignified retreat. Rather than risk exposing who was bankrolling him as a professional climate expert he filed this remarkable document in court outlining the reasons why this would endanger his livelihood.

How badly did Michaels want to keep his backers secret? He states himself that dropping the trial resulted in short-term loss of income to me. How much, he did not say. However other parts of his affidavit show how lucrative it can be to hang a shingle a professional climate skeptic.

According to his sworn statement to the court, Michaels outlines previous clients that were lost due that pesky substance called the light of day. He states for the record:

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding."

It is not often this sophisticated network of industrial obfuscation is glimpsed by the public. 

That washed up scientists are willing to testify in court for money, or shill for industry in the media is certainly not news. Many experts gladly took filthy lucre from Big Tobacco to cast doubt on the well-known link between smoking and cancer.

But the next time you see Patrick Michaels pop up in mainstream media as a so-called climate expert, bear in mind who is paying is meal ticket.*

(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.) 

*The Cato Institute* *was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, [2] the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party and various extreme right front groups. David Koch is currently on Cato's Board of Directors. "According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the [Cato] institute. It has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies."[3]*

*Koch Industries* *(pronounced "coke") is the largest privately owned company in the United States[1]; though diversified, it amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining.[1] In spring 2010, Koch Industries was named one of the United States' top 10 air polluters in a study released by the University of Massachusetts at Amhersts Political Economy Research Institute. [2]. The company was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a charter member of the John Birch Society and father of the current owners, who appear to be the most active orchestrators of anti-regulation efforts in the United States.*

*Robert C. Balling, Jr.* *is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[2]...
Balling was mentioned as a fossil fuel industry - funded scientist in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book The Heat is On. ...Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade... Between December 1998[5] and September 2001[6] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[7]*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> > The DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?



Says the numbskull who can never back up his climate change denial delusions with any actual evidence that would support his ignorant, idiotic, ideologically determined 'opinions' on the subject. LOLOLOL. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, you poor deluded dupe.


----------



## GunZawga (Apr 10, 2011)

Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?

Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms

NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

GunZawga said:


> Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?
> 
> Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms
> 
> NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level






I suggest you read the OP.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> GunZawga said:
> 
> 
> > Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?
> ...



I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself. 
Your words, walleyed, from the OP: _"So the Oceans are rising are they? Well no, it appears they are not."_
What the study authors said: _Study Author James R. Houston stated in an email: ""Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels *are* rising...".
(Study author) Robert Dean stated via email: "Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (*which would imply a recent acceleration*), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."_


From the available evidence, sea levels started rising in the early 1800's after being fairly stable for thousands of years and they are now, in the last four decades or so, rising faster than they were in the first part of the twentieth century. Many studies support this conclusion, as has been demonstrated by myself and a number of other posters on this thread. Most climate scientists think that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the world's glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at ever increasing rates and global warming continues to drive thermal expansion of the oceans. As is so common with you denier cult dingbats, you attempt to cherry-pick one study that seems to support your delusions out of the many studies that used larger, worldwide data sets to show an accelerating rise in sea levels.


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > GunZawga said:
> ...






You mean the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets they had no idea about?  That loss...errr increase?

"We went to the middle of East Antarctica because this was the last unexplored mountain range on our planet," Bell says.

This is actually a mountain range of rock, buried under up to 2 miles of solid ice. They flew over this area with airplanes equipped with lasers, radars and other sensors that allowed them to peer through the ice to the rock that lay far below.

"First we were just surprised at how rough the mountains were underneath," she says.


Enlarge 
Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.


Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.
Lots of the bedrock in Antarctica is flat and boring, but certainly not here, and as Bell took a close look at her radar images of the ice piled high atop the mountains, she noticed some extraordinary, strange features  blobs that she describes as beehives, or maybe jelly doughnuts.

"It turns out these big blobs underneath the ice sheet were ice that had frozen on from the bottom of the ice sheet," she says. "There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet."

Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way  it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down. But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places.

Heat from the Earth had melted the bottom of the glaciers, and then that water refroze, and it created what you could think of as gigantic frost heaves, so powerful that they actually altered the shape of the surface, half a mile to 2 miles above.

It's Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets : NPR


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


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


No, walleyedretard, I don't mean that because that isn't what that article says, it's just your own idiotic misinterpretation of what the article says. 

The research described in this article studies a very small part of Antarctica (see the map in the article) and found that some water had refrozen in some places, not, as you want to believe, to the bottom of the entire ice sheet. "_But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places._"





Enlarge _Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward._

You can see from the image in that article that this 'ice plume' covers only a portion of the sub-ice mountains pictured. They amount to little bumps on the bottom of a huge ice sheet.

Your unsupported assumption that some water that melted and refroze under the ice sheets in some limited areas will somehow balance the vastly larger and ever increasing ice mass loss at the coasts of Antarctic is ludicrous and extremely stupid but very typical for you ignorant denier cult retards. Where do you imagine that that melted water under the ice sheet is coming from anyway, and why do you think(?) that it represents a gain in ice mass? It's just water from the ice sheet that has melted and refrozen in a different place. It is not a gain in ice mass, just a redistribution from one place to another under the ice sheet.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







I never said the whole ice sheet my good man, I merely pointed out that in the area surveyed they had found massive amounts of ice re-freezing to the bottom of the ice sheet.
Imagine what it's like elsewhere.  I would wager a very large sum of cash that similar re-freezing is going on all over the continent.  A completely NEW ICE CREATION PROCESS THAT NO ONE HAD EVER WITNESSED BEFORE.  Responsible for the creation of thousands of feet of ice that in areas  affected the surface ice 2 MILES ABOVE IT!  Yeah, that is a real insignificant discovery there

You would discount the fire burning your clothes off if it ran counter to your religious ideals.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 11, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Oh really..."_...the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered *being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets*_"...you certainly tried to imply it.






westwall said:


> I merely pointed out that in the area surveyed they had found massive amounts of ice re-freezing to the bottom of the ice sheet.


LOL. Nice try. But "massive" compared to what exactly? Certainly not the total mass of the ice sheets. This ice you're blabbing about is a drop in the bucket (or maybe the swimming pool) compared to that. 

And again, walleyedretard, just where do you think this meltwater that is refreezing comes from anyway? Do you fantasize that it flows uphill from the ocean to these mountains in the far interior of Antarctica? The article you cited said that the water is meltwater from the bottom of the ice sheets that has flowed to a new place and refrozen. So, no net gain in ice mass there. Meanwhile Antarctica is still losing ever increasing amounts of ice mass from the borders of the continent. The paper you're citing in no way disputes this and presents no challenge to previous studies I cited showing increasing ice mass loss.




westwall said:


> Imagine what it's like elsewhere.  I would wager a very large sum of cash that similar re-freezing is going on all over the continent.  A completely NEW ICE CREATION PROCESS THAT NO ONE HAD EVER WITNESSED BEFORE.  Responsible for the creation of thousands of feet of ice that in areas  affected the surface ice 2 MILES ABOVE IT!  Yeah, that is a real insignificant discovery there.


OK, I imagined it. So what??? It may be interesting scientifically but it has nothing to do with the accelerating loss of ice mass from Antarctica and Greenland due to global warming.





westwall said:


> You would discount the fire burning your clothes off if it ran counter to your religious ideals.


Oh, walleyed, you shouldn't talk about yourself like that. I'm sure you would eventually feel the heat. As you will here on Earth if you live long enough.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2011)

Westwall;


So the Oceans are rising are they? 

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

Well no, it appears they are not. Surprise surprise. And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.  Poor oltrakarfraud.

.................................................................................................................................
*Once again, as demonstrated in the OP, you are unable to understand what you read. The authors of that article stated unequivocally that the sea level is rising, but that, by their measurement, the rise was not accelerating. 

Once again, you are either lying or unable to comprehend a scientific paper. *

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times&#39; Distortion Of Their Work | Media Matters for America

Study Authors: "Sea Levels Are Rising"
Study Author James R. Houston: Wash. Times' Claim "Is A Mischaracterization Of Our Work." James Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times stated in an email:

Saying, "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work.  Sea levels are rising.  Our study showed that the rise is not accelerating - it is actually slightly decelerating over at least the last 80 years.

An analogy would be driving a car.  If you are driving at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, the car is not accelerating, but obviously moving.  Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year for the past 100 years.  We considered whether the 60 mile per hour speed of the car was accelerating (you are pushing on the gas pedal) or decelerating (you are pushing on the brake).  We found a slight deceleration - sea level over the past 100 years, in particularly the past 80 years, has decelerated slightly, but it is rising. [Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *You are one dimbulb. The temperature in the last 60 years of the Mann Graph is from direct measurements. Measurements that Muller call good data.*



Sorry guy, but the measurements you cite are nothing more than the output of very poorly written simulations.  Actual data refutes you every time.

As to the indo-Pacific during the MWP, I have provided several peer reviewed studies that state explicitly that the MWP was warmer than today.  Sorry guy, you just can't win because your argument is based on fantasy.

I suggest that you learn to read a graph, it will reduce your public humiliation quotient.  Funny thing is, you have such a feeble grasp on the science that you don't even know how badly you are losing the arguments you engage.  

The fact is that it is only your profound ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off this board.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

waltky said:


> westwall wrote: _"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall._
> 
> Where all dat water goin'?



And maybe it is piling up on Antarctica.  The ice is growing thicker all the time.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

IanC said:


> I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?



None that I have seen.  I have asked him and rocks a few very specific and very basic questions with regard to CO2 and neither of them have even attempted an answer.  They reveal a very great deal about their understanding of the subject by the questions they do not answer.


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Says the numbskull who can never back up his climate change denial delusions with any actual evidence that would support his ignorant, idiotic, ideologically determined 'opinions' on the subject. LOLOLOL. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, you poor deluded dupe.



Here guy, have some actual peer reviewed science with regard to sea level rise.  In short, your claims that the sky is falling and the oceans are rising are nothing more than hysterical hand wringing.

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Estimating future sea level changes from past records

From the abstract:  The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.


ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide

From the abstract:   The results show a reduced dispersion of the estimated sea-level trends after application of the GPS corrections. They reveal that the reference frame implementation is now achieved within the millimetre accuracy on a weekly basis. Regardless of the application, whether local or global, we have shown that GPS data analysis has reached the maturity to provide useful information to separate land motion from oceanic processes recorded by the tide gauges or to correct these latter.


ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : New perspectives for the future of the Maldives

From the abstract:  The present trend lack signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean.


http://www.sasnet.lu.se/mornertext.pdf

From the conclusion:  Modelling has a high risk of producing out-put data far from the real world (e.g. IPCC, 2001). Our sea level investigations of the Maldives (detailed, well-dated and conducted by a team of specialists) have shown that the sea in not at all in a rapidly rising mode, probably not rising at all, and with a significant fall in the 1970s (Mörner, Tooley, Possnert, 2004; Mörner, 2004; 2005). We are, therefore, not able to subscribe to the view that certain areas of the world are liable to extensive flooding in the near future. This is a novel finding with farreaching implications for future planning.


Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

From the abstract:  Morphological and stratigraphical observational facts in the Sundarban delta provide data for a novel sea level reconstruction of the area. This sea level documentation lacks traces of a global sea level rise


ScienceDirect - Quaternary International : Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time


Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

I notice that you tend to ignore peer reviewed material in favor of dire proclamations by the press.  Why might that be?


----------



## wirebender (Apr 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.



You might try reading some actual sceince yourself rather than the proclamations of political bodies


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2011)

hahaha. as usual incovenient data is verrrrrrry slow to be made public. check out Watts Up With That for stories on the latest suppression of bad news. the satellite data on sea levels isnt cooperating with the accepted theories so the information is being sat on. unfortunately for some, data is hard to hide in the internet era.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2011)

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sealevel_lines1.jpeg


----------



## IanC (Apr 25, 2011)

still no update on sea levels but the web site has now restricted access to the data. 

will the new web design be released soon? and will the historical data be the same or will we see another example of the information being 'Hansenized'?


----------



## polarbear (Apr 25, 2011)

IanC said:


> still no update on sea levels but the web site has now restricted access to the data.
> 
> will the new web design be released soon? and will the historical data be the same or will we see another example of the information being 'Hansenized'?



That`s understandable, how could anyone allow public access to "data" and "studies" that claim to have "measured" a 2/100 th of an inch rise in sea level.?

How exactly would that be done?...like measuring John Candy`s waistline while he was doing jumping jacks...

So this thundering farts retard has surfaced here and like "OldRocks" keeps quoting "measurements" which are nothing more than a pixel ruler on a "computer model" screenshot as usual

And on the Maldives, which are supposed to sink first according to these "measurements" You can see on the beach that the seal level has fallen ~ 40 cm in the last 10 years.

And sea walls built by the Romans on the British Isles are hundreds of meters from the present beach line.There are cities now on ground which was then below water.

And check out how the North American Natives have built everything they did build along the Mississippi river on mounds. They weren`t trying to imitate Pyramids with their earth mounds. It`s just way smarter than what we do today, building on low ground an a dyke around it...and having to hope the pumps don`t fuck up..

And from were was all this extra water that these frauds claim to have "litered" it with 2/100 .th of an inch precision supposed to  have come from...?
*There is fuck all ice missing in the arctic or the antarctic to account for that..*

as a matter of fact we have been gaining according to JAXA Satellite measurements.
JAXA started out in 2002 and discounts everything with less than 15 % ice cover.

And these Morons keep showing graphs that pre-date that by decades, sometimes even centuries  and compare it with the -15% JAXA data...like this one that "James Bond" aka Chris + OldRocks posted here dozens of times..







They show you totally fictive data which goes back to 1979, which for sure was not like JAXA with the -15% discriminator, and an "average" of this bogus data, then compare it with a 2007 "average" which by the way is totally false...and then one single line for 2011 which leaves out the maximum ice coverage which always happens end of February/beginning of March... they simply flatten it out, averaging it with the  minimum,...and 2007 had the lowest minimum in the entire data set...that`s why they picked it out for the grapf for retard consumption
*minimums  have come way up since 2007* and the the length of time the ice is staying around, as well ....:
presently we have..:

IJIS Web Site 


> *The latest value : 12,974,531 km2 (April 25, 2011)*


 

*Although we are well past the usual maximum ice cover date this is way above what it was then in  2007, *the graph GW assholes like to post&quote..
the April 25th 2007 ice area was : *04/25/2007/12700781   *

*If You have a problem with that go here, load down the entire data set and look it up yourself...*

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv



> 04,20,2007,12980781
> 04,21,2007,12942813
> 04,22,2007,12869531
> 04,23,2007,12801250
> ...


Here, I finally found a site that lets you store and link to animated gifs over 250 kb file size..
The program I wrote sifts through the entire JAXA set , calculates and graphs not just a simpleton Windows *Spread SHIT* "average"...:






*Around that time of the year the temperatures are still well sub-zero in the arctic and the ice is not "melting"...*
The sea water below is @ -1.8 degrees Celsius if no warm water currents reach the arctic sea, but they do more often than not.

This ice would "melt" even at minus 30 degree air temperature if You were to insulate it from the cold air above with thick styro-foam...*because it dissolves in the salt water below..it`s not melting
*
Even a farmer knows that, or the crews that salt roads...
The cold air above simply keeps the balance or tips it way in favor of freezing and forming new ice when the winds howl as they often do inside the polar circle.

As soon as the wind picks up @ these low temperature "new ice" forms so fast that what`s called "frost smoke" shoots out of the cracks which were still open..
The violent heat exchange exceeds then > 1000 watts per squ. meter and the "frost smoke" gets cut off abruptly as each open crack closes within seconds.

So the whole mechanism is driven more by the wind speed increasing the "wind chill factor" and the salinity of the water below, *and especially the water currents below, *rather than CO2 from cars in New York.
You can easily spot on my graph when the winds howled over the polar region and when not...it`s the top "differential area gain" in blue and when the delta(squKM)/time goes negative I had my program plot a red line downwards..

If anyone really wants to learn the physics how this ice "melts" or how salt water in the arctic ocean freezes You can read up here..:

*How does Arctic sea ice form and decay - Wadhams
*



> The salt rejected back into the ocean from this ice formation causes the surface water to become more dense and sink, sometimes to great depths (2500 m or more), making this one of the few regions of the ocean where winter convection occurs, which helps drive the entire worldwide system of surface and deep currents known as the thermohaline circulation (or "Great Ocean Conveyor Belt").




Or stay as stupid as Thunder farts and OldRocks

(With the "You",... of course I did not mean You, IanC  ! )

Just looking at how many posts per time these morons do tells it all...
They never shut up and read up because they are too busy yapping like these fucking annoying  dogs dogs chasing pick up trucks...
I like attaching twirling potato  sacks on a wheel, let`m catch up and bite into it...
*Instant silence *


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Bla..bla..bla..*bla*..blabla...blaaa. Bla..bla..bla....bbblla.


You're sort of funny the first few times only because the nonsense you post is so unbelievably retarded and totally wrong but aside from that, you're pretty obviously just an annoyingly and arrogantly ignorant little dumbfuck who wouldn't know a scientific fact if one bit you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2011)

In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.

*How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?*
(short excerpt)

*Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.*





_Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).
_


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.
> 
> *How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?*
> (short excerpt)
> ...








Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh?  Where is it?  The fountain in the employee lounge?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.
> ...


Half-wit humor is always so pathetic.  You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2011)

hahaha, or better yet change the colours to avoid 'hiding the decline'.






according to the newest and best technology the sea level rise is deaccelerating instead of rapidly increasing like we hear in the media.


----------



## westwall (Apr 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






What was that blunder?  Were you saying something?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 26, 2011)

IanC said:


> [Home: Aviso]
> 
> hahaha, or better yet change the colours to avoid 'hiding the decline'.
> 
> ...


Nope, wrong again, P-IanInaAzz. The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating and is currently rising at twice the rate that scientists measured it at 50 years ago.

Perhaps you're moronically trying to refer to the OP but that study being cited is not at all about the "_newest and best technonogy_", it is about a study of a limited set of tide gauges (really old and limited technology) just around some of the US coastlines only. It is not definitive. There are many other studies using larger data sets that show sea level rise to be accelerating worldwide.

And BTW, numbnuts, just what "_decline_" do you imagine climate scientists are "_hiding_" by "_changing the colours_" on a chart of the different satellite measurements? Sea levels? LOL. Who do you think changed the colors? Checking the sources of the two charts you posted, the top one is the original chart from a reputable source and the bottom one is an altered version coming from Steve Goddard's website. He changed the colors. The different colors refer to different satellite mission series and Goddard just changed which color is assigned to which mission. Jeez, you're gullible. You do realize, don't you, that Goddard is not a climate scientist, he is a discredited reporter, who has been caught repeatedly lying about climate issues. Or could it be that you're just clueless and flailing about mindlessly, as usual. You certainly can't mean a decline in temperatures. No decline there. 2010 was tied as the second warmest year on record, the eleven warmest years on record all occurred in the last 13 years, the last three decades have each been, in turn, the warmest decade on record.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Yeah, I was saying what an ignorant, half-witted, brainwashed fool, walleyed is. I didn't think you could hear me. Good ears, dude.


----------



## IanC (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [Home: Aviso]
> ...



RollingThunder- I think YOU are the one who is a bit confused. all the plots on those graphs ARE satellite radar altimetry measurements! and while we can debate the effectiveness of plotting lines in different colours, I believe most people would agree with me that showing the Envisat data in purple instead of yellow makes a difference in what the eye picks up at a glance. 

and you do know that the satellite measurements are calibrated against tide gages, right? do you think there is any wiggle room in deciding which gages to use? hmmm....

and why are you concerned about Goddard? he linked to a govt produced graph, then he changed the colours of the different plots. where is the lying and deception there? only in your fevered imagination.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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



It never fails. If the cartoons in the funny pages in today`s papers are too lame for a good  "lol" laugh, then all You have to do is come here and read this stuff here.

What this Rol-lol-lol-lol-lolling fart writes here is even funnier than anything his asylum room mates like "OldRocks" are posting here...







RollingThunder said:


> Nope, wrong again, P-IanInaAzz. *The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say *that sea level rise is accelerating and is currently rising at twice the rate that *scientists measured* it at 50 years ago.
> 
> Perhaps you're moronically trying to refer to the OP but that study being cited is not at all about the "_newest and best technonogy_", it is about a study of a limited set of tide gauges (really old and limited technology) just around some of the US coastlines only.
> 
> No decline there. 2010 was tied as the second warmest year on record,.



Don`t even try reply to what I`m writng to Wetswall & IanC,.... not to You fucking retarded farting assholes, "OldRocks"& "thunderfarts" etc. etc  I am talking to Westall & IanC here...You are just way too retarded and have a pea brain`s chance of knowing what a Fourier transformation is...
Fuck this moron actually said that...:



> The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating



Maybe the guys that designed the Poseidon Sat designers should ask him for advice how to solve these problems

Improvements in altimetry performances: Aviso






The best they can do so far is after tidal,moisture and negative barometric pressure "corrections"* in their computer model
*  for accuracy was > 10 cm in 1992 and > 6 cm (standard deviation) in 2006.

Here is their problem, maybe this retard know a computer algorithm they can`t figure out..:






The only place where they get errors less than 20 cm is in the Mediterranean...
*every where else the errors are 60 to 100 cm with Satellite RADAR altimeters*

*And that`s after the data was washed*



> * On the satellite:
> o A water vapour radiometer to measure the amount of water vapour between the satellite and the sea surface* (the water vapour slows down the radar pulse, causing the raw measurement to be too long)*
> o Measurement of the range at two frequencies to estimate the "ionospheric correction" - that is, the degree to which the radar pulse is slowed down by free electrons in the ionosphere
> o *The troughs of waves contribute more to the radar reflection than the crests, so we need a corection for this.* *This is estimated *from the wind speed and the wave height, both of which can be estimated from the characteristics of the returned radar pulse.
> ...



And the GW clowns "produce data" like this..:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis


> The purpose of this report is to* synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science* published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.



I guess our newest asshole her does not understand the definition of *synthesize*

*And fuck, do they ever synthesize*












They claim they can do it using the same source data as the guys who designed the RADAR Altimeter Sats *but with a + or - 0.4 mm "precision"*

That tells it all...the whole fucking "Copenhagen Diagnosis" is the usual GW "data synthesis"...meant for politicians, who like the morons here have no concept of the scope of this fraud..:






The engineers who design and build Satellite based Altimeters and write the software attempting to get the most out of the raw data can do it only down to a  100 cm =*1000 millimeters accuracy.*..then along comes a "Global Warming Scientist" and takes their data and "improves it" to get a  +/-  0.4 mm "precision"* which is 2500 times better than the Satellite design engineers could do it..*

And after he "improved it" 2500 times he could show the IPPC that the oceans "rise at an alarming average rate of  0.4 mm per year"

*Then he multiplies his .4 mm  by 10 and that`s exactly how this graph here was "synthesized"
*

And using Fourier transformations more than 15 times he finally got what he wanted..!
A Fourier transformation can make a square out of a circle, a sinus or cosine, *shit it won`t matter what You start out with   function  if you run the transform often enough*

Here is a sine wave washed 15 times by a Fourier equation..I put it in the composite with the black background..:






*And if You keep going the ripples which are the "errors" disappear down to nothing
*

After that You make your graph, present it as the "Copenhagen diagnose" and every fucking dumb moron who doesnt` know shit from brains keeps quoting it...

*By the way IanC You might be interested in this...
*


A lot of web pages wont let You copy & paste for quoting purposes and embed a java script which disables a right click...so now You are not supposed to be able to download pictures either...
like this fucking "Copenhagen Diagnosis" web page this fucking asshole keeps quoting, ..

No matter which browser You use just download as "whole web page" to any folder...
Then say the web page name was "Copenhagen" or whatever, You`ll always find another folder that has for ex. a folder name "Copenhagenfiles".
Normally all pictures etc are in that folder, *but not when mouse right clicks where disabled..*
So what You do now is look at the java script files in this folder, ....open them with "Notepad"...
In this case the file I was looking for had the name *" bookSettings.js"
*
And in there You will find ...:
(I wont paste the entire set, just some...)


> "pages/page-001.jpg",
> "pages/page-002.jpg",
> "pages/page-003.jpg",
> "pages/page-004.jpg",
> ...



It continues all the way up to 64..

So what You do know is look in the other java scripts how the web page build the URL links for the media their own web page designer has to use...

And in this case I see that it was :
["http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com"] + [ "pages/page-001.jpg"]

Every web page that disables right clicks does it that way, and that`s how You can hack by it and get directly at their media files...
These bastards won`t let You copy anything, anything else You try they wanna send You to an "online print shop" ....which wants to get paid...
but no matter what they have You can have it too...:

[http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/pages/page-026.jpg]

will give You ...:







and building the URlinks with  " pages/page-001.jpg" to 064.jpg gives you access to the media they don`t want you to copy...but now you can...

"Yes we can..! ...Yes we can ! "...even works with porno by the way  ...
Skookerasbil collects pretty girly pictures pass it on       

[
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




]




[http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/pages/page-064.jpg]







*Have fun with it..!*

shit, I forgot to mention this...the "Copenhagen diagnosis" also claims that "the ice keeps shrinking" and that each year less ice remains after the polar summer is over...
*what a fucking lie...*
Look at the JAXA.cvs Polar ice data from 2007 to present..:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
2007    Year average:_   9962870       ice remaining :   4254531   minimum ice cover date  09/24/2007      
2008    Year average: 10460711       ice remaining :  4707813    minimum ice cover date  09/09/2008        
2009    Year average: 10430959       ice remaining :  5249844    minimum ice cover date  09/13/2009      
2010    Year average: 10197327       ice remaining :  4813594    minimum ice cover date  09/18/2010

It all shows on the composite graph my program puts out...and which I also posted here already..*.2007 had the longest "melting season" it started 03/10/2007    and was 2 weeks longer than all the other years* except 2010, but 2010 was also 6 days shorter than 2007
*and every fucking GW graph on the Internet concerning the "shrinking ice caps" stops at 2007 and uses GW "computer models" after 2007/*...now You know why


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2011)

Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Nah, it's just hard to hear Gerbils.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.







Not true at all.  He has posted some incredibly good stuff.  You're not educated enough to understand it but it is quite good.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

Ah, the master of the 'Blizzard of Bullshit' dumps another load of crazy crap, misinformation and nonsense on the thread. PB has got to be one of the biggest retards in the denier cult lineup and that's really saying something given how retarded the rest of the deniers are. Most of his bs is too silly and stupid to bother with but let's look at a few of PB's moronic mistakes just to get an idea of how deluded he is.



polarbear said:


> And on the Maldives, which are supposed to sink first according to these "measurements" You can see on the beach that the seal level has fallen ~ 40 cm in the last 10 years.



*SAARC Meteorological Research Center - The Maldives*
(excerpt)

*The results show that Maldives coastal sea level is rising in the same way (rising trend) as the global sea level. The mean tidal levels (MTL) at stations located in the northern hemisphere, Hanimaadhoo and Male, have shown an increasing trend of about 4.9 and 4.1 mm/year respectively. Similarly Gan, near the Equator, has also registered a positive trend of about 3.9 mm/year.*


*BBC News - How sea level rise has affected the Maldives*






polarbear said:


> And from were was all this extra water that these frauds claim to have "litered" it with 2/100 .th of an inch precision supposed to  have come from...?
> *There is fuck all ice missing in the arctic or the antarctic to account for that..*



*National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)*
(excerpt)

*Average ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), 2.14 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average....The linear rate of decline of September ice extent over the period 1979 to 2010 is now 81,400 square kilometers (31,400 square miles) per year, or 11.5% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average....At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s).*





_Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.  Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center_





_Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 11.5% per decade.  Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
_




polarbear said:


> ...and then one single line for 2011 which leaves out the maximum ice coverage which always happens end of February/beginning of March... they simply flatten it out, averaging it with the  minimum,...and 2007 had the lowest minimum in the entire data set...


*NSIDC - April 2011*
*March 2011 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month in the satellite record, after 2006. Including 2011, the March trend in sea ice extent is now at -2.7 percent per decade.*

***

*Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study*
(excerpt)

*The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study. Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.*


***


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.
> ...



You only say that because you're about as retarded and clueless as PoledBare is. Neither of you could find your ass if you sat on it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






I do find it amusing that you constantly resort to grade school insults in an effort to bolster your ego.  Sad.  I would hope that you would have grown up since you were last here but no, you're the same ignorant young boy you've allways been.


----------



## Dante (Apr 27, 2011)

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

"Im prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." - Climate change: A record-making effort | The Economist

Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic's Own Data Confirms Warming


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I find it very amusing that you continue to post the same old, thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and lies over and over again, long after anyone with even a minimal level of intelligence would have seen through the pathetically lame pseudo-science coming from the fossil fuel industry. Sad. I had hoped that you would have overcome the brainwashing you've received and would have started to look at the actual evidence by now but I guess that would have involved growing a brain and that's something you've never yet managed to do so unfortunately you remain the same ignorant, clueless, idiotic numbskull you've always been.

And BTW, I'm older than you are, punk.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






I doubt it junior, I doubt it.  Adults have a better command of the English language.  You're just a typical internet Troll.  And not a particularly interesting or amusing one.  Just a run of the mill troll.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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


You "_doubt_" a lot of things that are demonstrably true but that is because you are an ignorant, clueless, scientifically illiterate moron. 




westwall said:


> Adults have a better command of the English language.


LOLOLOLOL....coming from you, that's really funny.




westwall said:


> You're just a typical internet Troll.  And not a particularly interesting or amusing one.  Just a run of the mill troll.


You're just a typical denier cult troll, posting nutjob pseudo-science, misinformation, lies and fossil fuel industry propaganda. You have no idea what is going on, you just parrot the bunk that the rightwingnut media echo chamber pours into your head. Your utter stupidity does make you amusing at times though.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Sure junior sure  Here's a dolly, don't play in the street.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Hey, kid, thanks for demonstrating once again the lack of any intelligence in your replies. But then what can we expect from a high school dropout like you who's still living in his mom's basement.


----------



## westwall (Apr 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







Ahhh you wish sonny.  I have a nice plot of land and a wonderful family and friends to share it with.  On the other hand.  People like you, who constantly insult people are most often underachievers and suffer from many personality disorders.  I suggest you go see a psychologist for your condition.  Hopefully they can help you so that you too can have a good life like mine!


----------



## polarbear (Apr 27, 2011)

westwall said:


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



I`m only guessing what the usual 2 morons are posting here. It`s amazing how much less crap appears on your screen just by putting this asshole and the other one "Old Rocks" on the ignore list...
It`s enough if some of it shows up in Your quotes, but 1/2 turn on the mouse wheel gets me by...instead of having to scroll entire screen pages.

Anyways here is something interesting, seems a lot of other people think these computer models are total crap, and the entire internet has been cluttered up with that bozo stuff, that It`s getting harder and harder to find REAL data...
...Too bad there is no such thing as an "ignore button" @ Google, but maybe some day there will be.

Till then we have to put up with what people write here, the likes of "OldRocks" and Thunder farts who have an "ignorant" button on their fore head, which was jammed into their brains at birth by a clumsy nurse...

I`ve seen on Westwall`s quote something this retard "Thunder whatever" wrote ...


> Let`s look @ PS`s GIANT MISTAKES, like the Maldives..


I don`t know in which cave he lives or in which tree, but it`s been all over the world news..but it may well be that Nurse Ratched doesn`t let him watch what`s going on outside the retard asylum..
So here it is again...the Maldives are @ the last third of the CBC Documentary, BBC had it, every* Eurovision Channel had it in every language spoken in the EU*, it was even on Ria Novosty & on the Japanese News,...!!!

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

And here is a whole bunch of people who`s retard circuit breaker shutting the oxygen flow off to the brain was`nt punched in at birth


Arctic Sea Ice



> Satellites could provide more definite answers, but we are currently in a gap between ICESat and CryoSat-2. ESA and NASA are doing a fascinating job in the Arctic gathering data which will be used to calibrate the latter as we speak. In the meantime we fill the time by speculating, and a big part of that speculation is fueled by ice thickness models.
> The best known models in Arctic sea ice amateur circles are PIPS 2.0 (Polar Ice Prediction System), PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System) and TOPAZ (Towards an Operational Prediction system for the North Atlantic European coastal Zones). Although model output is not as good an approximation of reality as actual data - *to put it mildly - it is still interesting to look at. *



*I`ve been far to long in the military to be putting things "mildly."...
*
The page goes on 



> A warm river runs through it
> Never a dull moment, always something new to see and learn!
> 
> I'm eyeballing the Arctic sea ice graphs page several times a day and noticed something new the day before yesterday while eyeing the Arctic SST map from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), run by climate scientist and blogger Robert Grumbine (the sea ice and sea surface temperature groups, not NCEP itself):
> ...



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remark:

That`s almost the same thing in the Hudson Bay,...every time Manitoba Hydro has to dump the Nelson River Reservoirs, the ice recedes during that time....but is back ~ 24 hours later....So Yes, he caught on to it



> This was the question that popped up in my head when I noticed some emerging red and orange in the Kara Sea on the DMI/COI SST anomaly map, right where the estuaries of the Ob and Yenisei are situated. There's a red and orange blob close to Severnaya Zemlya (which even had some pink in it yesterday), but I think that's some sort of artefact:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As You can see from the mile long list of comments when You go to his page and the pages many of the commentators link to, the sewer rats have not yet infested the realms of rationally thinking people...

Actually it`s not all that bad here either.
*We have only 2 of them here from the ~ 21000 or so registered users..*


But let`s not even think about them and instead go  back to these guys here



> Flushing out the Fjord 2
> 
> This is a brief update to the first Flushing out the Fjord post.
> 
> ...



And not a single GW "computer Model" factors in these rivers....same thing in the Canadian Arctic, neither are  the Nelson, or any of the other rivers that drain into the arctic..:

*Rivers Flowing Into the Arctic Ocean*


Mackenzie River (to head of Finlay River) 	4 241 	1 805 200 	9 700
Peace River (to head of Finlay River) 	1 923 	302 500 	not available
Smoky River 	492 	51 300 	375
Finlay River 	402 	43 000 	600
Parsnip River 	231 	20 300 	370
Athabasca River 	1 231 	95 300 	not available
Pembina River 	547 	12 900 	not available
Liard River 	1 115 	277 100 	not available
South Nahanni River 	563 	36 300 	not available
Fort Nelson River (to head of Sikanni Chief River) 	517 	55 900 	not available
Petitot River 	404 	23 200 	not available
Hay River 	702 	48 200 	not available
Peel River (to head of Ogilvie River) 	684 	73 600 	not available
Arctic Red River 	499 	23 200 	not available
Slave River (from mouth of Peace River to Great Slave Lake 	415 	616 400 	not available
Fond du Lac River (from outlet of Wollaston Lake) 	277 	66 800 	
Back River (to outlet of Muskox Lake) 	974 	106 500 	not available
Coppermine River 	845 	not available 	not available
Anderson River 	692 	not available 	not available
Horton River 	618 	not available 	not available


*Rivers Flowing Into Hudson Bay, James Bay or Ungava Bay *
Nelson River (to head of Bow River) 	2 575 	892 300 	2 370
Nelson River (from outlet of Lake Winnipeg to mouth) 	644 	802 900 	not available
South Saskatchewan River (to head of Bow River) 	1 939 	Can.: 334 100
US: 1 800
Total: 335 900 	700
Saskatchewan (to head of Bow River) 	1 392 	Can.: 144 300
US: 1 800
Total: 146 100 	280
Red Deer River [AB] 	724 	45 100 	70
Bow River 	587 	26 200 	not available
Oldman River 	362 	26 700 	95
North Saskatchewan River 	1 287 	122 800 	245
Battle River (to head of Pigeon Lake) 	570 	30 300 	10
Red River (to head of Sheyenne River) 	877 	Can.: 138 600
US: 148 900
Total: 287 500 	not available
Assiniboine River 	1 070 	Can.: 160 600
US: 21 400
Total: 182 000 	45
Winnipeg River (to head of Firesteel River) 	813 	Can.: 106 500
US: 29 300
Total: 135 800 	not available
English River 	615 	52 300 	not available
Fairford River (to head of Red Deer River [MB, SK]) 	
Churchill River (to head of Churchill Lake) 	1 609 	281 300 	1 200
Beaver River (to outlet of Beaver Lake)
Thelon River 	904 	142 400 	840
Dubawnt River 	842 	57 500 	not available
Kazan River (to head of Ennadai Lake) 	732 	71 500 	540
Moose River (to head of Mattagami River) 	547 	108 500 	1 370
Abitibi River (to head of Lac Loïs) 	547 	29 500 	not available
Mattagami River (to head of Lake Minissinakwa) 	443 	37 000 	not available
Missinaibi River 	426 	23 500 	not available

Just take 1, for ex. the Nelson= average of  2 370 cubic meters per second, just to the head of Bow river...

To put this into thermodynamic perspective...

The caloric content of 1 cubic meter of water = 1 000 000 calories per cubic meter
So in just a single second the Nelson alone dumps at ~ 10 deg Temp ~ 20 370 000 000 cal`s per second into the Hudson Bay...

Take air, at +10 deg Celsius warm enough to melt ice, Im sure even the morons know that..but this is what I`m sure they don`t know..
But You do, because You are a pilot, Youl`d know what the "gorund roll effect is" the turbulence which  extends up to 500 feet above Gound level...above that You just have wind, *but that`s air that did not contact the ground*

We have to stay with metric and I`ll use 200 meters which is 600 feet...as You shall soon see we can easily afford to give away 100 feet...
*because just what the Nelson River alone dumps into the Hudson Bay as far as heat energy is concerned would equate to a 4 kmh Wind, and a swath of over 42 kilometers wide  of 10 deg C warm air...
*

Now add up all the rivers that drain in Canada into the arctic sea + all the Siberian rivers and then You get a rough handle on how idiotic these "GW computer climate models" really are...

All these rivers add up to way more effect than "record temperatures in the arctic" could possibly have...

*Every scientist who knows how arctic ice "melts" has been saying the same thing in so many words all along...the bulk of the ice is not melted from the top by "war air" but is dissolved from underneath by the underlying water, and that the Ozone "layer" is just a mathematical value expressing Dobson Units, not how Ozone actually exists, or the fictive "Ozone Hole" in a Dobson Unit mathematical alogorthm"
*

*In any of these moronic "GW Climate models" that has warm air "melting ice" from the top ice bergs would not roll over either... pigs could fly and the Ozone concentration units Dobson Units have an "Ozone Hole"*


Of course after the 2 morons here read "what nobody reads" they might have realized, that they better go back and edit every post they made in this forum about their "Ozone Holes"


Reading the comments to a video of an ice berg rolling over you realize how  many people are sooo stupid...and that`s the only thing GW computer models have assessed correctly, and in fact rely on it..:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dvwuUxDgKw]YouTube - Death of an Iceberg as it rolls and breaks up, Antarctica[/ame]



> *Amazing *to watch...* why do they topple? does the top become heavier than the bottom as&#65279; the&#65279; water eats away at the part touching the water? *Or something different? I'd love to see nature at its finest




Yes, it`s * amazing **just how fucking stupid people can be,,...*

The guy who posted that video actually was in the antarctic, although just as a wide eyed tourist...but he had to put the rest of the comments on his "ignore list disabling all comments...
I know why, believe You me...I`ve been in the arctic most of my professional life and 2 retards, both have never been outside their "Dorf" are trying to tell me what`s up there and what not

here is a more spectacular ice berg roll off the Greenland coast:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqY9fcYNX4&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqY9fcYNX4&feature=related[/ame]

By tyhe way I`ld not call anybody a moron or stupid who did not know how Dobson units are defined, because that isn`t exactly common knowledge and although people with a degree in* Physics or Chemistry should know*, there are a lot who don`t know that either...

But once You look it up and after that You still insist there is such a thing like an Ozone Hole in the REAL world, *then I`l call this person a retard*



> The Dobson unit (DU) is a unit of measurement of atmospheric ozone columnar density, which would be  a theoretical Ozone layer  10 MICRO-meters thick @ a standard temperature 0f ) deg Celsius & and @ pressure (760 Torr)
> One Dobson Unit  is 2.69×1016 ozone molecules per square centimeter, or 2.69×1020 per square meter or 0.0015  milli-moles of Ozone/ (1m^2)



This measurement has not been invented by "climatologists" *they`d be way too retarded to carry out any kind of spectroscopy themselves*, be that Infrared or UV spectroscopy...where the Dobson Unit originates from...it`s a vintage way of doing spectroscopy...and from a time when we did not have mono-chromators and photo multipliers, but used spectral band filters to make a "band pass hole" and primitive Wheatstone Resistor balancing to measure the drop of energy at the photo cells

*And that`s not how Ozone exists in the REAL world..*

*The phrase "Ozone Hole" was coined by the fore runner of the IPCC and "Glow Ball science"....they call everything less than 220 DU`s an "OZONE HOLE WHICH WILL KILL YOU AND ME WITH UV RADIATION ===>SKIN CANCER" *

*And yes probably 999 999 out of a million people actually believe that the Ozone layer has a hole in it*

Before Glow Ball "science", Michael Mann & the IPCC came along it used to be that only persons who contributed to the common good and raised the level of mankind`s knowledge were awarded the Nobel Prize...
Now the exact inverse principle is applied

*And there is no more need to study science or buy Math-Physics- or Chemistry books since
We have the GORACLE:*


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

polarbear said:


> ...................



And there's another meaningless, retarded 'blizzard of bullshit' from ol' PeanutBrain.

The poor delusional cretin actually believes that a "documentary" from the Conservative News Service represents a better source of accurate information about the state of Arctic ice than reports from the scientific agencies that monitor and study the Arctic. LOLOLOLOL....just shows how far out in rightwingnut la-la land ol' PeanutBrain really is.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



hahahaha. PolarBear is kryptonite to insulated academic spin because he only believes things that make sense to him. He may be arrogant and long winded but more importantly, he is competent. I'm not saying he is right all the time but he always bases his opinions on his personal knowledge and experience rather than just kowtowing to the bloviation of a Prof X. If you need to get something done, it is very helpful to have people like PolarBear in your community.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 28, 2011)

IanC said:


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


Nope, PeanutBrain is a joke to anyone with any intelligence or scientific education. A really, really bad joke. He isn't "_competent_" enough to shine the shoes of a real scientist. He posts long, ridiculous rants filled with stupid misinformation and idiotic pictures that are, I guess, "_based on his opinions_" all right. Unfortunately he is an idiot and his "_opinions_" aren't worth a cup of warm spit. No surprise that _you_ would think he makes sense though, since you're about as as much of a clueless idiot as he is.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 28, 2011)

IanC said:


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



Hi  IanC.
Your statement about me being arrogant sadly enough is true. Again that is one of the negative character traits I picked up over the years in the service..where You are being advised that "familiarity breeds contempt"
And that goes 2 ways. I do have a lot of contempt and intolerance to liars.
If someone, not knowing better just repeats a lie that is something entirely different from creating a lie with the intent to spread it. This is the point when the gloves come off !
And anyone who takes the trouble as You for example and reads up on the scientific principles involved with this particular subject does realize that these "policy making studies" violate not just about every law of Math-Physics & Chemistry but also every bit of the low standards we have today of what is morally right or wrong.
I did not label these "studies" as studies that have the sole intent to create policy rather than insight, GW "science" states that in the abstract for almost every "report" they file with the IPCC...
And then we have, as I can see in Your quote people who are dumb enough to realize what the meaning of "synthesizing data "...+ "policy making" adds up to labeling the CBC or the BBC of all things a "Conservative News Service" .....

You get the strangest reactions from con artists, liars and pretenders when they get confronted with their lies, or the con gets busted...and even more so when the myth they believed gets busted.
In some countries they still stone people that question how their prophet rode almost 1000 klicks in one night on a magic horse to Jerusalem...
Of course now I morally owe to list every other popular cultural  here as well , else I`m an "anti" this or "anti that-", but I `m not here in this forum to polish a public image.

So I`ll just pick one more, the Glow Ball culture and the magic horses this "science" rides that can make out of a 1000 millimeter detection limit a 0.4 millimeter detection limit by "averaging"...or have "Ozone holes" hovering over our heads

I am fully aware that the truth can be very hurtful and I have no problem to admit that I rather enjoy applying this kind of torture on people who richly deserve it...

So if all these News Services in all these countries that aired this documentary are "Conservative News Services" that would by the same definition make a fringe element out of every thing else.
I doubt very much that a person who makes a retarded statement  like that, knew the BBC or the CBC even existed....See... that`s exactly what happens if You fall into the "Ozone Hole"...now the horizon is as limited as it is for  the frog in the well 
People who fell for that will never get out of it again by digging themselves in even deeper...
So why not have a little fun with that..?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2011)

Now BiPolar, believe me, you don't have to worry about polishing your image. That is beyond redemption. You and Kooky, a real pair to draw to.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2011)

intelligent people, especially in the insulated confines of academia, take great joy in thinking up crazy ideas and finding imaginative ways of supporting them. of course scientists are supposed to take Feynman's cargo cult advice to make sure they dont fool themselves (the easiest person to fool). 

unfortunately the developement of technologies and the vagarities of climate change have coincidentally  combined to bolster the case of AGW, especially in the 90's. Thermometers became common at the end of the Little Ice Age so temps pretty much had to go up. Satellites became common just as the last cooling period ended so temps pretty much had to go up. aerosols, volcanoes and an erratic sun gave lots of room to adjust things. decadal ocean currents arent as sexy to the media as blaming man's sin in the form of CO2 production. calm boring science is ignored but catastrophic predictions get press coverage and more funding. anyone who knows a lawyer or a university professor understands that facts are only a portion of the debate. we are in an era of the 'Emperor Has No Clothes' because a lot of climate scientists have been shading their findings in one direction for a long time. like any other type of bubble sooner or later we are going to have a market correction. the last decade's worth of ocean measurements would appear to be the prick that is coming soon.


----------



## westwall (Apr 28, 2011)

polarbear said:


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







The difference my friend is you've earned the right to be arrogant.  It is a hard earned right but once accomplished you should enjoy it!  I do!  But only against those who truly deserve it!


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





exactly. it would be interesting to find out how many prancing progressives have pee'd a little bit in their drawers when he called them out on their BS in person.


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



The only time anybody might ever have "_pee'd a little bit in their drawers_" over the nonsense and pointless drivel you three clowns post is when someone might have laughed a bit too hard.


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







No, what's really funny is your pathetic attempts to make us leave by behaving like a beligerent twerp.  Worked for you on the school ground when you were robbing the poor small kids of their lunch money but it doesn't work with adults sonny.   BTW, stop editing my posts!


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 29, 2011)

westwall said:


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


LOLOLOLOL....I guess this is your last resort when all of your nonsense gets refuted. Sobbing in terror and threating to leave 'cause someone is mean. Grow up junior. "If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

And sea levels are still rising....


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2011)

the tide gauge data from a recent journal paper show no acceleration.




one thing I think many people dont realize is that sea level change is not the same in every part of the world.





new and presumably better technology shows an increased rate during the last warming period but it is flattening out since the ocean temps have gone flat as well.

the cry of "ocean sea level rise is accelerating" that we all have heard proclaimed as fact in the media is not exactly as advertised.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 2, 2011)

IanC said:


> the tide gauge data from a recent journal paper show no acceleration.
> 
> one thing I think many people dont realize is that sea level change is not the same in every part of the world.
> 
> ...


The limitations (small set of tide gauges only around US coastline) of the tide gauge study cited in the OP have already been discussed.

Anyone who has looked into this issue knows that sea level changes vary geographically for a variety of reasons. One is that in some places the coastline, the land itself, is either rising or sinking slightly, independent of the sea levels. For example, Alaska is rising a bit as the weight of the ice is removed.

Look at just the left half of the graph and draw a straight line through the blue line, then do the same for the right hand half of the graph. Notice a difference between the angle of the two lines? That's the increase in sea level rise in the last half century.




Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)


Have "_ocean temperatures gone flat_"? Or did a strong El Nino bring colder temperatures to the surface last year?

*NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record*
January 12, 2011

*Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the tide gauge data from a recent journal paper show no acceleration.
> ...




and so what s0n??

The folks think the  "man-made" part is total BS, so who cares? The k00ks get real proud posting up this stuff, but in the bigger picture, it doesnt add up to a hill of beans.

Senate Democrats Kill Ambitious Climate Legislation - Ecocentric - TIME.com

Kim Strassel: Cap and Trade Is Dead - WSJ.com

Cap-and-Trade Is Dead. Long Live Cap-and-Trade | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary


----------



## RollingThunder (May 2, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


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


Thanks for posting the picture of yourself. I kind of thought that was how you look.

As for the rest of your demented rant.....LOLOLOLOLOL.

"_The folks_" apparently refers to your denier cult and small portions of the general public who've been fooled by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign. Intelligent people on the other hand, still understand that the science is clear and the planet is warming up at an increasing rate and they care deeply about our future. It is only you denier loons who don't care. Your statements highlight the fact that for you denier cult dummies, the argument is political, not scientific.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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





meh..............

The "science" is effectively IMMATERIAL s0n!!!


Why? Because homeowners like me, werent all that enamoured with having our electric rates DOUBLE under a Cap and Trade system and indeed, the politicians arent giddy about having 2.3 million more people on the unemployment lines in exchange for 600 million green jobs.


And on the science being "clear"??? Its only clear to the sheep................or elase Cap and Trade would be a slam dunk now wouldnt it??!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

Just another thing to point out that is beyond compellling.............

Its fascinating but the k00ks fail to recognize the political ramifications in all of this!!!!. They label the skeptics as "fringe".............yet Cap and Trade is dead and buried. And they're still talking about fcukking temperature graphs *as if anybody gives a fcukk!!!!*


Huuuuuuuuh!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

LMAO........even the kid students know it.


*Its not 2006 anymore assholes!!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

CLASSIC....................



( ok.......OK, I'll admit it. When the opponents are getting decimated, I do tend to go for the additional ball kick or two!!)


----------



## RollingThunder (May 2, 2011)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....cartoons, drivel and denial of reality....is that all you morons have?

Sea levels are still rising and that still poses a serious problem for humanity even if you ignorant clowns are in denial.


----------



## westwall (May 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....cartoons, drivel and denial of reality....is that all you morons have?
> 
> Sea levels are still rising and that still poses a serious problem for humanity even if you ignorant clowns are in denial.






No, we have the simple fact that Cap and Trade is dead and the global warming hysteria is dying all over the globe.  In a few years people will look at you and your kind and ask "how could you be so effing dumb?"

What you got bucko?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....cartoons, drivel and denial of reality....is that all you morons have?
> ...






Whats he got???????????????????????????????



*dick*















hysterical people for the gay...............


----------



## RollingThunder (May 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....cartoons, drivel and denial of reality....is that all you morons have?
> ...



I've got a little thing called '*REALITY*', something you're obviously not very familiar with.

It is hilarious that you cretins imagine that the observed climate changes and the dangers they pose for our world are unreal and 'not a problem' because of some political/economic development or change. LOLOL You just demonstrate how much this debate for you has always been motivated and informed by your political and economic beliefs rather than any actual scientific facts. 

The educated and intelligent people of the world have, for some time now, been looking at you anti-science denier cult dingbats and asking _*"how could you be so effing dumb?"*_.


----------



## wirebender (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Sea levels are still rising and that still poses a serious problem for humanity even if you ignorant clowns are in denial.



Sorry guy, you have been duped.  Here, have some published, peer reviewed material regarding sea level.  

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

For a group who beleives that the science is settled and on your side, you sure don't have much in the way of published, peer reviewed material to support your claims.  You seem to operate almost entirely from a set of unpublished, pronouncements from your high priests.   It seems that there is a wealth of peer reviewed materials that contradicts everyting you have to say.

The published material suggests that sea level isn't cooperating with your doom and gloom prognistacators any more than global temperatures and a host of other failed predictions.


----------



## wirebender (May 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, we have the simple fact that Cap and Trade is dead and the global warming hysteria is dying all over the globe.  In a few years people will look at you and your kind and ask "how could you be so effing dumb?"
> 
> What you got bucko?



It will be eugenics all over again.  When eugenics was in vogue, it was settled science and the consensus was that it was the way of the future.  Today, you have a tough time finding anyone beyond those convicted for crimes against humanity who were onboard.  Same for the ice age scare in the 70's.  Those of us who are old enough to have been around and scientifically aware remember what it was like.  Today, they are scrambling to erase the fact that they were wrong.

What is funny is that they use the total number of published studies as evidence that the scare never happened.  When you look at the number of peer reviewed, published papers today, there will be a strong case to be made in the future that no one actually believed in the greenhouse hypothesis today because more published material rejects the IPCC view than endorses it.  

As with the ice age scare, the media attention is on a few wack jobs who are warning of crisis while the bulk of science is actually looking at the observable facts.  Note which side posts the most published peer reviewed material in support of its position and which relies on blogs.


----------



## wirebender (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> I've got a little thing called '*REALITY*', something you're obviously not very familiar with.



You have wiki and beleive you have reality?  I am laughing very loud and spewing my morning coffee in your face.  Are you unaware that wiki is about as credible where climate science is concerned as the national enquirer is for political news?

Have you never heard of william connolley?  He used to work for wiki.  He used wiki as his personal propaganda machine.  He created or rewrote over 5,400 articles regarding climate "science".  He deleted over 500 articles that he simply didn't like and banned over 2,000 wiki contributors.  

When you consider the sheer volume of material he altered, deleted, and banned from the site, it becomes clear that the majority of the material available was of a skeptical nature.  As always, the kooks are in the minority.



RollingThunder said:


> The educated and intelligent people of the world have, for some time now, been looking at you anti-science denier cult dingbats and asking _*"how could you be so effing dumb?"*_.



The educated are looking at the demise of the klimate kooks.  The educated actually know about william connolley and his corruption of wiki and wonder at the level of ignorance it must require to continue to reference wiki.  The educated daily note that the klimate kooks typically reference blogs and wacko sites in lieu of peer reviewed materials.  The educated know you for who you are and every day the evidence against you grows.

One must wonder how long before you and yours, like the eugenicists and ice age wackos  begin to deny that you were ever onboard the AGW crazy train?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







fail................and fAiL!!!!

The k00ks never got lessoned that reality is 95% perception. Always has been...............always will be. The k00ks cant fathom this for some reason, thus, they are k00ks!!!!


From Mirriam-Webster.....................


kook noun \&#712;kük\


Definition of* KOOK*:

 one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane : *screwball* 
 See kook defined for English-language learners »
See kook defined for kids »




Listen up s0ns...........is not 2006 anymore. Like Bin Laden..........your time has come and gone. Time to accept it and move on to some other OCD "cause".


----------



## skookerasbil (May 3, 2011)

*Poll: Belief in Man-Made Global Warming Still Dropping *

By Bob Ellis on October 22nd, 2009 

According to the Pew poll, the number of people who believe there is solid evidence of global warming (of any kind, natural or man-made) is down from 71% a year and a half ago to 57% this month.  That is a huge drop, especially considering the mainstream media and the socialists in our government havent slowed down in the slightest in their propaganda campaign.

According to the same poll, *the percentage of Americans who believe any global warming is anthropogenic (man-made) has dropped from 47% to 36%*.  Bad news for Al Gore.


http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/10/poll-belief-in-man-made-global-warming-still-dropping/


















Oh............and ummmmmmmm, a smiliar poll conducted by Rasmussen a month ago identified the exact same numbers!!!

*36% s0ns!!!!!!*




"Reality" sucks..................








[/IMG]


----------



## westwall (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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







The REALITY is there was a window when the world was cooperating wih whatever ridiculous statement the alarmists made.  That window closed about 10 to 12 years ago when the planet stopped the latest phase of warming.  Then, when REALITY started to bite them in the ass, the alarmists had to resort to falsifying their data and were caught.
That's when the REALITY of the pseudoscience was realized for what it is.  A hoax.

The twelve year olds, such as yourself, cover their ears and go "la la la" but the rest of the adults have moved on to beat down the next pseudo scientific fraud the alarmists are cooking up next.

That's the REALITY of the situation bucko.   You are no longer relevent.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2011)

the world is getting tired of the gross exaggerations of CAGW. the 'chicken littles' have 'cried wolf' so often that reasonable people can no longer muster alarm over predictions that are shown to be unrealistic in every case. that backlash may be unfortunate in the future when real problems may be ignored as just another hysterical horror story.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the tide gauge data from a recent journal paper show no acceleration.
> ...




kudos to you for a post that is not a rant of ad homs.

I think your memory is selective if you are calling 2010 a La Nina year. it started with an El Nino and with the lag time that pretty much wipes out all but the last 2 months. 

I think you misunderstand my position on flat ocean temps and sea rise. I am talking about roughly 2004 and later. as usual, when new and better technology is introduced the alarmist claims are shown to be exaggerated. ARGO is showing less warming than called for, even with a concerted effort to find 'adjustments'. likewise for the altimitry results. better precision in the instruments is making it more difficult to push the results in the 'right' direction although there will always be wiggle room. eg. the satellite altimetry is calibrated against tide gauges. does anyone think the selected tide gauges are ones showing less rise rather than ones showing more rise?

you complained about the report that used mostly US tide gauges, Old Rocks complains when US only temp data is highlighted. the information from the best measured and most completely reported areas always show less alarming statistics. could this be a fluke? yes, but it should be taken seriously as a signal that there is a problem in the certainties accorded to different data sets.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Sea levels are still rising and that still poses a serious problem for humanity even if you ignorant clowns are in denial.
> ...



Here's something more recent that was published this year in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, C02020, 16 PP., 2011 - doi:10.1029/2010JC006601

*Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model *

Abstract
*
Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model  Song & Colberg (2011) Observational surveys have shown significant oceanic bottom water warming, but they are too spatially and temporally sporadic to quantify the deep ocean contribution to the present-day sea level rise (SLR). In this study, altimetry sea surface height (SSH), Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) ocean mass, and in situ upper ocean (0700 m) steric height have been assessed for their seasonal variability and trend maps. It is shown that neither the global mean nor the regional trends of altimetry SLR can be explained by the upper ocean steric height plus the GRACE ocean mass. A non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model (OGCM), allowing the sea level to rise as a direct response to the heat added into the ocean, is then used to diagnose the deep ocean steric height. Constrained by sea surface temperature data and the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation measurements, the model reproduces the observed upper ocean heat content well. Combining the modeled deep ocean steric height with observational upper ocean data gives the full depth steric height. Adding a GRACE-estimated mass trend, the data-model combination explains not only the altimetry global mean SLR but also its regional trends fairly well. The deep ocean warming is mostly prevalent in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, suggesting a strong relation to the oceanic circulation and dynamics. Its comparison with available bottom water measurements shows reasonably good agreement, indicating that deep ocean warming below 700 m might have contributed 1.1 mm/yr to the global mean SLR or one-third of the altimeter-observed rate of 3.11 ± 0.6 mm/yr over 19932008. *

And

*Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets**, Purkey, Sarah G., Gregory C. Johnson, J. Climate, 23, 63366351. - doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1 

Also

*A 20th century acceleration in global sea&#8208;level rise* , Church, J. A. and N. J. White (2006), Geophys. Res. Lett. , 33 , L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.


----------



## wirebender (May 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's something more recent that was published this year in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, C02020, 16 PP., 2011 - doi:10.1029/2010JC006601
> 
> *Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model *



In reference to that paper, Pielke Sr. observes:

"There is a significant analysis quality issue with the authors using the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation measurements as one of the constraints on their analysis. These radiation measurements are of fluxes and have a signficant uncertainty."

Expect a rash of "debunking" papers to be published regarding that study.



RollingThunder said:


> *Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets**, Purkey, Sarah G., Gregory C. Johnson, J. Climate, 23, 63366351. - doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1



This paper claims 0.059 and 0.093 mm per year.  Are those statistically signifigant numbers?  I would also be interested in seeing a discussion regarding the physics of warm water accumulating under cold water.  The physical fact is that cold water is more dense than warm water.  Exactly how do you suppose it is staying below the cold water?    

Then they claim that the rise in temperature is due to CO2.  Upon what hard evidence do they base that statement, or is it, like so much of climate science, based on computer models as opposed to hard observation?  The paper brings up far more questions than it answers.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2011)

good points wirebender. I hate the way so many of the scientists proclaim conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence or are tangential to the studies


----------



## waltky (May 4, 2011)

Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...

*Sea levels could rise by 2-3 feet more, Arctic experts say*
_5/3/2011 - Report on melting ice, warmer sea temps issued for U.S., other Arctic Council nations_


> The Arctic is melting faster than expected and could contribute 2-3 feet more in global sea levels by 2100 than earlier thought, experts state in a report being presented to international officials on Wednesday. The report shatters predictions made four years ago by the authoritative U.N. climate change panel.  "The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program says in its report.  The report compiles the latest science on how climate change has impacted the Arctic in the past six years.
> 
> Melting Arctic glaciers and ice caps are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches by 2100, the program's scientists stated.  While the program noted the estimate was highly uncertain, the range was a sharp jump from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches by the U.N.'s scientific panel on climate change. Those numbers did not include a possible acceleration of a thaw in polar regions.  A leading ice specialist, Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, who did not take part in the assessment, agreed that recent scientific estimates generally support its central finding.  A sea level rise of more than 3 feet this century "fits well within these estimates, and a somewhat higher value cannot be excluded," Alley said.
> 
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

waltky said:


> Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...
> 
> *Sea levels could rise by 2-3 feet more, Arctic experts say*
> _5/3/2011 - Report on melting ice, warmer sea temps issued for U.S., other Arctic Council nations_
> ...




yup.........just like the forcasts of snow disappearing and Cat 5 hurricane's coming in packs of 12................

Some folks are just naturally drawn to the hysterical. These are the same people who sit their asses in front of the TV for days when a bizzard is forecast and it ends up being about 3 inches of snow. The same suckers will be right there in front of the boob watching the 15 mintues updates on the next storm!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 4, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...
> ...


Some folks, like you and the other denier cult dingleberries, are just naturally complete morons who reject science and evidence in favor of their political ideologies. 

How about F5 tornadoes in packs of a hundred? Sound familiar? As of May 3, there have been 1,197 tornadoes reported in the US in 2011.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

Where do these k00ks get it that tornoado's started touching down in the US starting in 2011?? WTF..........








What happens to people in their life that they go hysterical with every weather event that comes along? Is this the drop the baby on its head thing?? Plate in the head?


Anyway........so we have an uptick in tornado activity this year? So the fcukk what? Fat ass chance of us doing anything about it..............assholes. Meteorologist officials have already stated that its directly associated with a fading LaNina and NOT anything to do with warming.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

28 April 2011 - 22H45   

*Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials * 

In the aftermath of a severe tornado, owner Frank Evans stands on the rubble that was the Quik Pawn Shop in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south. AFP - US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials - FRANCE 24














*+1 for the denier cult dingleberries*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

*fake science is gay*


----------



## westwall (May 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...






And how many of those were F5's?   Oh, none of them.  That's what I thought.  Given to yet another flight of hyperbole are we?  I just have to inform you, movies like 2012 aren't science, no matter how much you wish them to be.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2011)

The Warmers response, "Oh yes the oceans really are rising!  Just close your eyes and believe it!!"


----------



## RollingThunder (May 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> And how many of those were F5's?   Oh, none of them.


I was watching the tornado coverage and I remember some meteorologists saying that a number of these tornadoes were F5's. But since you don't think there were any at all, let's reacquaint you with reality.

*Monster Alabama Tornado Spawned by Rare "Perfect Storm"
Clash of warm, cold air encouraged "history making" tornadoes.*

Willie Drye
for National Geographic News
Published April 28, 2011
(excerpts)

*The mile-wide (1.6-kilometer-wide) Tuscaloosa tornado may have had winds exceeding 260 miles an hour (418 kilometers an hour), which would make it an F5 storm on the Fujita scale. The scale ranks tornadoes from F1 to F5 based on wind speeds and destructive potential.

Investigators are trying to determine how long the tornado, which originated just southwest of Tuscaloosa, stayed on the ground.

Tornadoes usually touch the ground for only a few miles before they dissipate. But favorable meteorological conditions may have sustained the Tuscaloosa twister for a record-breaking trek of 300 miles (482 kilometers) across Alabama and Georgia. *


As far as that claim that global warming has nothing to do with tornadoes, that's a position that some meteorologists hold but top climate scientists have a different view.

*Given that global warming is unequivocal, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.*


----------



## rdean (May 4, 2011)

Toronado3800 said:


> Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes
> 
> Christ. I found some papers which seem to indicate sea level is rising.  Seems pretty slow to me mind you, but I dont live on a pacific island.
> 
> ...



The best way to decide which scientists are correct is to become one.

Of course, that takes years of study and hard work.  Then there's the mocking derision from the right wing of anyone with an education.  You could become an "expert".  Like the other two Republican scientists.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And how many of those were F5's?   Oh, none of them.
> ...





shit happens s0n.............its called nature. Happened in northern Japan two months ago.....perhaps you missed it?

The top climate scientists? Of course they have a different view. They better, or their asses will be shit-canned right out of the university!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2011)




----------



## westwall (May 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And how many of those were F5's?   Oh, none of them.
> ...






Yes ONE MAY HAVE BEEN AN EF5....ONE.  You equate ONE tornado into hundreds at once....and you wonder why people laugh at you now.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 4, 2011)

rdean said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes
> ...


So how's a food service goombah like you qualified to determine what a scientist is?  Contact high from the professors as they get fries from you?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 4, 2011)

westwall said:


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


Never forget that the US is geographically 'designed' to produce tornadoes more than any other place in the world.  They don't call it Tornado Alley for nothing.  The equivalent of calling a floodplain a floodplain.  Hmmmm maybe there are floods there?  noooooooo... that couldn't be.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2011)

Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.


----------



## polarbear (May 5, 2011)

westwall said:


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




Where You looking for hard data?
I got a good index library where to find the actually  recorded official data, no matter if it`s temps`, precips`, storms, ice sheet & glacier data,tidal gauge readings...whatever 
but I guess there is a world wide right wing conspiracy amongst all the technicians who do the actual measurements, because these sure as shit don`t conform to what these silly IPCC models had been forecasting 






Geophysical Research Letters, 1996  by Christopher W. Landsea 1 and Neville Nicholls (Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria Australia), William M. Gray, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State Universit)y and Lixion A. Avila (National Hurricane Center, Miami)  [http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/index.html]  states contrary to many expectations that globally tropical cyclones may be becoming more frequent and/or more intense due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, regionally the Atlantic basin has in recent decades seen a significant trend of fewer intense hurricanes and weaker cyclones overall. In addition, the maximum intensity reached in each year has shown no appreciable change. 












+ some more re.: So the Ocean levels are rising...?

The following figure shows sea level history at Tuvalu (an island that according to Al Gore is rapidly disappearing due to sea level rise).







And as far as the rest of the Ocean is concerned..:






The following figure shows the fluctuating rate of change in sea level  positive rates indicate rising sea level, while negative rates indicate falling sea level





Source 
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, by S. J. Holgate, Proudman *Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007)*






Greenland ice sheet ,the reconstructed runoff from the ice sheet from 1860  2004 






*The runoff figure shows that the melting is similar to the 1930s.*






Since the IPCC says that anthropogenic CO2-based warming has only had an effect since the 1970s (see: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/gw_nutshell.htm), the recession of glaciers cannot be due to anthropogenic CO2-based global warming. In fact many non-alps glaciers have either been increasing, or have had a decrease in the rate of retreat in recent decades (as indicated in the figures below).


The following figure shows the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier in Washington State, USA. The left-hand figure shows the reduction of the glacier from the early 1800s to 1997 (corresponding to the graph in the lower-right). The upper right graph shows the temperature trend from 1910 to 2007 for the closest temperature station at Longmire.






[/IMG]

See also the regional summary on western Montana at Montana State (West), USA for information on Glacier National Park* (while temperatures have not been warming, the glaciers have been receding since the 1800s).*


Of course none of the real observed facts on the ground are visible to liberals who  are blind in the right eye and therefore have no depth perception and to boot their right brain cavity is devoid of any grey matter.

All Reality is "right-wing-biased", so they rather go by Hansen`s Grand Daddy "Global Warming Computer Model"...the source for all these fucked up simple minded "computation" where Lambert-Beer`s laws don`t exist and a "AlGoreRithm" replaced the log function alogorithm and does these milk maid math line Graphs for morons...
Here is a copy of  page # 9347 of Hansen`s Book:
Hansen et al. 1988

Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231.







And the red line which was drawn in over Hansen`s moron math were the actual observed temperatures since he published this...

Did You know that there are lawsuits starting up, and in some countries "Climate Scientists" are following the advice of lawyers...?
The Australian Government adds this disclaimer for a while now, any time their Dept. of Environment goes public and uses "Climate Model Data" instead of the real thing...:



> CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research Ramasamy Suppiah, Kevin Hennessy, Tony Hirst, Roger Jones, Jack Katzfey, Barrie Pittock, Kevin Walsh, Peter Whetton and Steve Wilson
> 
> January 1998
> Important Disclaimer
> ...


----------



## wirebender (May 5, 2011)

waltky said:


> Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...
> 
> *Sea levels could rise by 2-3 feet more, Arctic experts say*
> _5/3/2011 - Report on melting ice, warmer sea temps issued for U.S., other Arctic Council nations_



My first question is whether or not that is a peer reviewed paper or a politically motivated paper by and for politically motivated people.  Which is it?  Second, the authors lose a great deal of whatever credibility they might have had from the beginning when they name the un climate change panel as "highly authorative"  Like all u n panels and organizations, it has become clear and undeniable that the climate council is corrupt, inept, and politically motivated.

The article states quite clearly that the sea level rise predicted is "highly uncertain".



> _While the program noted the estimate was highly uncertain, the range was a sharp jump from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches by the U.N.'s scientific panel on climate change._



I suggest that you look up what the term "highly uncertain" means in u n climate speak and if you are a rational person, you will understand that the prediction is no more than hysterical hand wringing and blatant unbased alarmism.  

One might reasonably wonder why the figures were based on measurements that cut of in 1990 as well when sea level records go back hundreds of years.  Might one reasonably suspect that if one uses records that are hundreds of years old, the sea level rise that is being claimed would seem just silly?

If this is the sort of tripe that motivates alarmists, when the article itself acknowledged that the figures stated are "highly" uncertain, then one can't avoid questioning the intelligence and mental state of those who promote this sort of hysteria.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2011)

Geee........looks like those graphs up there display frequencies that are UP AND DOWN over many decades!!!!


What a shock!!!!












Climate change computer model reliability = laughable. Go back and google weather related forecasts over the last 10 years...........hurricanes, snow, temperature, tornado's..........you pick. Put up a dart board and fire away for equivilent accuracy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Geee........looks like those graphs up there display frequencies that are UP AND DOWN over many decades!!!!
> 
> 
> What a shock!!!!



The Warmers are k00ks, s0n!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2011)

Only the k00ks get a bullseye EVERY shot!!!!



Hmmm............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2011)

Hey Polar..........you link in your sig gave me an idea...............

*We should waterboard the climate scientist assholes*


End this hoax inside of 30 minutes.


----------



## polarbear (May 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Polar..........you link in your sig gave me an idea...............
> 
> *We should waterboard the climate scientist assholes*
> 
> ...



I`ll try.
But I only have  degrees in "right wing"  Math, Physics and Chemistry", and every law in these sciences has a "right wing bias"

 I don`t have a degree like Al Gore etc.....so I guess that disqualifies me....



waltky said:


> Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...
> 
> *Sea levels could rise by 2-3 feet more, Arctic experts say*
> _5/3/2011 - Report on melting ice, warmer sea temps issued for U.S., other Arctic Council nations_
> ...



>>>>>
*The Following User Says Thank You to waltky For This Useful Post: RollingThunder (Yesterday)
*
>>>>>>>


> rdean
> 
> How can we decide which scientists are correct or even on the up and up?
> 
> ...




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


See, I`m not a  "climatology* grand-u ate-it all-up graduate*", and "educated" like this and the other morons here,like "OldRocks", Thunderfuckhead etc etc ..I only have a RIGHT "(wing-biased)" education...but I did read all of this the WRONG (wing) education..
*It takes less than the 30 minute time limit You asked for*
All You have to do is throw out very "right wing biased" physics law and do this..:



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



S why bother with curvatures, log functions and all these other right wing biased laws, just divide a solar *constant* by 4 and multiply 0.7  and that takes care of everything from Kepler`s laws all the way past every Schroedinger Equation, including these pesty reductions which are cosine functions of the latitude where the 1 m^2 "Climate Science" might be,...You know, the one which is always at the same constant Temperature and barometric Pressure and has no clouds.* And don`t forget...the sun must remain constant also...else Modtran & all the other "Climate Computer models" will go TILT
*
All I have is "right wing biased ", non-climatolgy Physics & Math which is apparently all based on delusions of Max Planck, Schroedinger, Sir Isac Newton,etc  etc etc who wrote books full of right wing biased Math & Physics...
And observations, like the delusional snow storm we had here a few days ago, and that video I filmed @ uploaded showing "Climatology non-modeled therefore "delusional" Blizzard of bullshit..as
Rollintheshit calls it.
So let`s get on with it and discuss another "right wing delusion" that every engineer who designed and built the Panama Canal had...
the Panama Canal...which of course has the same sea level elevation on both sides in Climate science, has in our "delusional world" Ocean  a whooping 20 cm higher seal level on the pacific side than on the Atlantic side of the Isthmus.

There must be a fuck of a lot more global warming going on just a few miles west of the narrow Panama Isthmus than on the other side of it, if you wanna stick with the Al Gorakle "science" that tells You ocean levels are pegged to Your SUV exhaust and all the ice that is melting.

In these right wing delusions  the ocean world looks like this...:






One other delusion "right wing" Physics teaches is that water flows downhill, Sir Isac Newton also succumbed to this "delusion" and a lot of "right wing biased" science is based on that...
I`m not sure in which direction water flows when You run it through an Al-Gore-rithm "Climate Computer Model" algorithm...but in the delusional ocean world  ships have to navigate through right wing delusional currents generated by what delusional Sir Isac Newton`s  laws have to say about a 20 cm height difference. All that "right wing delusional" water has to flow from the warmer Pacific Ocean to the colder Atlantic around the  either the Strait of Magellan or Cape Horn at the southernmost tip of South America. ...by the antarctic ice sheet ..*.and OH MY GOD dissolve SOME OF IT FROM UNDERNEATH*

That`s why icebergs roll  over Duh!


I guess if we throw away our car keys then water will quit flowing down hill...?

It`s no different on top in the arctic...we don`t live on a flat world, but on a right wing delusional globe...so You have to connect the arrow head of the top right arrow to the arrow tail on the top left..

Too bad they don`t show you more where the East Greenland Current comes from...You know the one where "Global Warming Science" keeps showing all this "CO2 melted ice"..

But all You have to do is follow these arrows and imagine a right wing delusional round planet..as opposed to flat earth "Climate Science"..
So warm Gulf stream water changes the name to 'North Atlantic Drift"...then the same warm water is called "the "Norwegian Current" and does the loop and comes back south again as the "East Greenland Current" .... *.and OH MY GOD DISSOLVE SOME OF IT FROM UNDERNEATH*
again, That`s why "melting" icebergs roll over...*ice mass that MELTS from the top down, does not roll over...!*


The Nares Strait, from which I already posted pictures which I brought with me from there...You know, the ones with the tree Stumps...is supplied by the same warm water and that`s why there never has been any summer ice in there and ships could navigate all the way to Fort Conger way back in 1870..
Because at that time, cow farts and stuff like that must have been "melting the ice" before we had SUV`s and MAN MADE CO2..

I kept posting the energy equations what it would take to "melt' the  ice-mass difference between arctic summer/winter in that short time  with air from the top, ...*Greenland would have to be so hot that You could fry eggs on the rocks...
*
But the AlGorerithms in "Climate science computer models" insist the ice in the arctic is melted from the top down by CO2 "feedback effect heated air"  we "un- educated right wing " people have been making ...

What can I say, like I said I don`t have a degree in "Climate Science"...
I only studied right wing biased Math and Physics



> *You could become an "expert".  Like the other two Republican scientists*



*So I guess I`l oblige him now, in true "right wing" fashion, to conform with his stereo-typical shit for brains idiotology, and I have every right wing right to do so, because I did study up on Al Gorakle "Science" just as soon as this crap backed up out of the sewer pipes...:
*








And from now on we won`t waste any more time with Baroclinic vectors, Sverdrup balance and so on and on and on...to give Sub-Skippers the data they need,...actual data under the ocean surface,...or actual data for  air-force pilots  for what`s going on above in the wild blue yonder...we`ll  just get the Mauna Lua CO2 ppm and put it into "Modtran", like "Climate Science" does it...






With "we" I mean what we all have been doing all these years at CFS Alert and Thule Air Base...we don`t just collect data for the Air Force...we also collect all the Data for "Sub-drivers" who have to know what`s under the ice @ under the Arctic Ocean surface as well..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M]YouTube - Thule Greenland Video 2005-2006[/ame]

"rdean" &	his "expert scientist" friends say it`s Okay to  throw all these "right wing biased" equations out the window..:



> Corporate Author : NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA
> 
> Personal Author(s) : Addison, Victor C., Jr
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2011)

*Circumpolar nations have some worries.*

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English

As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -  prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting.  The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought. 



The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

Gordon Hamilton is a leading glaciologist and professor at the University of Maine Climate Change Institute. He says the new assessment updates the U.N.&#8217;s Climate Change Panel&#8217;s 2007 report with data on Arctic conditions over the past five years.  

"And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate for sea level rise from 18 to 59 centimeters is a very large underestimate and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.


----------



## wirebender (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.



So 1998 is now out of the top 6?  What sort of changes to the historical temperature record is that going to require hansen et al to perform?



Old Rocks said:


> "And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate for sea level rise from 18 to 59 centimeters is a very large underestimate and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.



Does this bit of information come from the same report that described the ramped up predictions as "HIGHLY UNCERTAIN"?

Tell me rocks, do you refuse to actually think because it gives you a headache or are you just that damned lazy?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.



Real dumb ass statement, Frank. You think that Strata Smith, Lyell, and Hutton did their observations in a laboratory?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.
> ...



Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the world.

Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

Hey BiPolar, these people have far more degrees than you do, and they say that you are a screwball.

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources


----------



## wirebender (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:
			
		

> Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.



Interesting.  You and yours claim that the ice is melting faster than ever but the US Navy PIPs2 data shows that since 2008, the area of 2.5+ meter thick ice has nearly doubled.  NSIDC also shows that the amount of multi year ice has increased substnatially since 2008.

I guess your numbers are, once again, the result of computer models as opposed to actual observations.

By the way, 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick in Chicago.  What do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt?

The conditions in the Arctic are well within the norm for the past 5000 years.  You can relax, the sky is not falling.  Just remember, for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at one or both of the poles.  On earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.
> ...



Your, well, I can't even call it a theory -- your hunch, your conjecture is that 200PPM increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature....Show me!

Show the class how that happens, Timmy.

Take a control tank with earth atmosphere.

Add 200PPM CO2 to the second tank.

Measure the non-existent increase in temperature in the second tank.

That's science.

That's why there is not a single shred of real scientific evidence behind AGW.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2011)

wirebender said:


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



Clearly, that can only mean that the SUV is 20,000 years old


----------



## wirebender (May 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Clearly, that can only mean that the SUV is 20,000 years old



Obviously.  It wouldn't be the stupidest thing I have heard warmists claim in an effort to support their theory.  20,000 year old SUVs is light fiction compared to the idea that the sun has nothing to do with climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.



*My, my;*

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I dont think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (February 6, 2010): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 43007000 cm&#8722;1  Toth et al. (2008) A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence  Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values. [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment  Miller et al. (2005) The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions  Miller & Brown (2004) High-resolution near-infrared (40009000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMathPierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported.  This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537]. [Full text]

*And many, many more at this resource.*


----------



## wirebender (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the world.



Sorry guy, no comprehension problem here.  You, however have a serious shortcoming in your knowledge base.  Here, chew on some actual published, peer reviewed science.  The present warming is miniscule compared to the not so distant past.

Arctic vs. Global Air Temperature Change

Temperatures of the Past Six Millennia in Alaska

Arctic Warming "Then and Now"

A Brief History of Climate Change in the Arctic


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2011)

U of Colorado finally put up their new website.

while they made a passing reference to the decreased rising levels they added a new 'adjustment'


> One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.



hmmm.....adding 10-25% seems reasonable when things arent working out to plan. rightttttttttttt


----------



## wirebender (May 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *My, my;*
> 
> Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer



I see that you forgot to mention that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is then immediately emitted and none of those papers prove otherwise.  No one has argued that CO2 can absorb energy rocks.  The problem lies in your belief that the molecule then, somehow, holds on to the energy or "traps" it in some way.  The emission spectrum proves beyond question that this does not happen.

Do feel free, if you believe I am wrong, to read all that science that you don't understand, and point out where one suggests that the emission spectra of a CO2 molecule is not precisely the opposite of its absorption spectra.  Each and every one of those experiments that suppose to prove that CO2 drives the climate are still rooted in the faith based beleif that downward emitted radiation can warm the earth beyond the energy it recieves from the sun.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.
> ...





see post #274......................which makes your contributions =


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.
> ...



It's the Squid Ink Defense, you've cut and paste many abstracts that mention "CO2", none of them on point, but it looks like you actually did some work.

And for "Settled science" you think the Warmers would have something better than,  the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only *"In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only..."*

In any event, *NONE OF THE PAPERS LISTED SHOW THAT A 200PPM INCREASE (I'm being generous since the Warmer are contending that smaller increases are actually responsible for the temperature increases) IN CO2 RAISES TEMPERATURE*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKLYEAC4F2U]YouTube - Wonka says "So You Get Nothing, You Lose! Good Day SIr!" forwards and reversed[/ame]


----------



## polarbear (May 7, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the  red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the  warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was  not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the  world.
> ...


 
 Wirebender, You can`t bend things that are completely inflexible, like  Rocks no matter if they are young rocks or Old Rocks...as if this guy  would actually read physics...it`s not *"REAL CLIMATE Science"...*
 But I `m bending...from laughing. I came here and before the US-Message  board  reloaded my browser page with their stored ignore idiots list I  got a few second glimpses what he wrote ...again and again...It was a  few pages long...
 I just ran the mouse over it and pasted it into Notepad.
 Her are the highlights...it`s all from "Old Rocks" spread out over half a dozen "contributions":


> As government officials from eight Arctic nations
> 
> Gordon Hamilton is a leading glaciologist and professor at the University of Maine Climate Change Institute. He says
> 
> ...


So I got curious what he was so excited about and clicked on  that link, I`m always interested in "Advanced moron climax  science"...could be they know something we don`t..
 Saying it was funny would be the understatement of the year.
 Old Rocks never ever reads past the first 3 lines of any web page he  copy/pastes in here. Maybe he doesn`t have tables and chairs in his Fred  Flintstone cave and has to lay on his belly to read past line  #4...somebody should tell him what a scroll bar on a browser window  is...

 Any way here are the "Scientists" from the "Institute of advanced Physics" that impressed him to no end..:









 This is basically in "Institute for Physics" for high school kids who have trouble understanding Physics...!

 Here is the head honcho, top "Scientist..."









 "IUPAP`s" working group on women in Physics, she addressed, so I got  even more curious...and read the pdflile this was linked to...
 It`s pages and pages and pages of more of the same as this..:








 At that point, I began admiring them, because that would be a good thing  to do something just like what she appeared to be doing at first  glance.
*I`ts not that the kids aren`t intelligent enough to  understand Math, Physics & Chemistry...it`s the teachers that are  crap...they can`t explain it that`s the problem*..
 So I decided to read the whole shae-bang this web page is publishing and then I quit laughing...:



> *Mission*
> 
> *Support the  highest quality science education for all students.*
> 
> ...


 But so far so good...only once You keep on reading, then You realize  that the only "research " they do is to collect "Global warming  scientists say...that...blah blah blah"....and distribute these Internet  garbage collections to schools and school teachers...

 This is augmented by "case studies" they did, ....:
 They link the Highschool teachers to a shitload of these...:


> *Case study: Rosalind WestIn my third year I did a course on Climate Physics...*
> 
> I'm currently working on a DPhil in the Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary       Physics department at Oxford, in conjunction with the Hadley Centre at       the Met Office. I work in the Climate Processes group and use both computerised       climate models...


 ...and add that "climatology" is the easiest "science" to get a "science  degree"...if You can`t hack the kind of Math etc You`l need in Physics,  Math or Chemistry to qualify for a degree...they also advise the  schools, that the pay scale in "climate science" is by far better than  the established and more difficult to qualify for science degrees...

 After I read that I got curious just what does it take for a masters degree or Doctorate in "Climatology"...:



> *        PhD in Climatology*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 And that`s all folks...to become a highly respected "Climate Scientist" with a Dr. Title...
 Mathematics 1...
 I`ll show You what Math 1 is by American definition and International Standards...:

 I Europe the same thing is called "Math-A"...:



> *The History of A Level 1951-2000*
> 
> Between 1918 and 1951 the main qualification for school leavers was the Higher School Certificate.  This qualification required students to study for a range of subjects.  By 1951 it had become apparent that some students were failing a broad  qualification because of weakness in a single area and so the decision  was taken to develop examinations that assessed students in single  subjects. Thus was born the A Level (Advanced Level) exam which could be  taken on a subject by subject basis, according to the strengths and  interests of the student.
> The A Level at first was graded as simply pass or fail (although  students were given an indication of their marks, to the nearest 5%) but  by 1963 rising numbers of students taking the exam made it clear that  there needed to be more differentiation of achievement. Letters were  therefore introduced to award specific grades of pass to students. The  grades were determined by simply awarding the top grade to the top 10%  of students and the next grade to the next 15%, as follows:
> A-10% B-15% C-10% D-15% E-20% O (Ordinary Level) 20% Fail &#8211; 10%


 Then too many students started failing, so the made "Math-1" or "Math-A", whichever name You prefer easier...after 1980.


> *Grade inflation*
> 
> There most common criticism of the A-level system is an accusation of grade inflation. The steady rise in average grades for 27 consecutive years suggests that A-levels are becoming consistently easier.


 It`s all here...:
GCE Advanced Level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Here is the North American definition of "Math-1"...:


> *Math 010. High School Algebra.* (4-0) F.S.SS.For students who  do not have adequate facility with topics from high school algebra or do    not meet the algebra admission requirement.  The course is divided  into tracks of one- and   two-semester lengths.


 And every University I checked has no requirements going higher than  "Math-A" or "math-1" to get a Masters or even PhD. in "climate  science"...

*No wonder they all NEED computer models, they actually don`t know how to do the math...!*

 You can go up to whatever Math level You want to, *but You don`t have to!
*
*Take a look what it takes to go for a junior degree in Chemical Engineering...
**Absolute minimum entry level requirement...:*



> *Math 301. Abstract Algebra I.* (3-0) Cr. 3. F.S._Prereq: 166 or 166H, 307 or 317, and 201._  Theory of groups. Homomorphisms. Quotient groups. Introduction to  rings. Emphasis on   writing proofs. Nonmajor graduate credit.
> *Math 302. Abstract Algebra II.* (3-0) Cr. 3. S._Prereq: 301._ Theory of rings and fields. Introduction to Galois theory. Emphasis on writing proofs. Nonmajor graduate credit.
> *Math 304. Introductory Combinatorics.* (3-0) Cr. 3. F._Prereq: 166 or 166H; 201 or experience with proofs._  Permutations, combinations, binomial coefficients, inclusion-exclusion  principle, recurrence   relations, generating functions. Additional  topics selected from probability, random walks,   and Markov chains.  Nonmajor graduate credit.
> *Math 307. Matrices and Linear Algebra.* (3-0) Cr. 3. F.S.SS._Prereq: 2 semesters of calculus._  Systems of linear equations, determinants, vector spaces, linear  transformations,   orthogonality, least-squares methods, eigenvalues and  eigenvectors. Emphasis on   methods and techniques. Only one of Math  307, 317 may be counted toward graduation. Nonmajor graduate credit.
> ...


 *+ You must be able to write Computer Programs in at least one major Programming language, like say C++ or related code.
*
http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~popovici/S2011-Math266.html


> Department of Mathematics - North Dakota State University
> Math 266 Introduction to Differential Equations
> Spring 2011


 *That`s just so You can even enroll...never-mind GRADUATE in a REAL SCIENCE*

http://math.stanford.edu/~dlevy/classes/266/index.html



> *[SIZE=+4][SIZE=+3]Math 266
> Computational Signal Processing and Wavelets[/SIZE][/SIZE]*


 And that`s still way below what else it takes just for a BSc. in REAL SCIENCE...
 But of course that` all just "right wing-red-neck-CO2- denial" with an Oil Lobby spin..

*Okay.."Old Rocks"...
A lot of people have problems with math...that`s nothing to be ashamed about...shame on Your teacher...not shame on You*


 I`ll just run a few numbers by You so You can understand that there is a  huge difference between a "computer model" and REALITY...
 You don`t need a computer model, if You know the equations that govern a  process..take for example the firing solutions computers plot for  ICBM`s or already just for long range artillery...
 They all use equations, which figure in air density, humidity,  barometric pressure, right down to the directionally dependent Coriolis  effect...
 These are all equations, worked out by REAL SCIENTISTS, and the firing  solution computers have been programmed by REAL SCIENTISTS...and these  equations are so spot on, that they can rapid fire 3 rounds in short  succession with 3 different pre-calculated charges and 3 pre-calculated  gun barrel elevations, that drop after each shot...and 40 mile away,  they can land all 3 rounds on a target no larger than a 6 foot circle  and all 3 rounds arrive EXACTLY at the same time, for maximum effect...

 That`s real science, using real equations...
 There is no such thing as a climate equation...would we have such a  thing, we would have at least a few hours warning if there will be a  Tornado and EXACTLY WHEN AND WHERE it will touch down...
 Even little kids watching movies about tornadoes know, that "climate  scientists" don`t have these capabilities... and sure as shit not even a  single equation that can forecast 60 minutes...but you keep posting  "Climate scientists predict...."...what the oceans level will be in 100  years from now,...based on an average rise of 0.24 MILLIMETERS PER  YEAR...for Christ`s sake did You not even look at the ruler scale  picture I posted here ...?






 So now let`s do some real easy math with numbers...
 Let`s pretend we don`t know the equation for Y= Epsilon (1/x)...so like  we add up 1/1 +1/2+1/3+1/4....and we`ll stop at 12, to make the analogy  with the 12 months we have in a year... 

 So here is the Computer model...:

  print"======================Log Function==============="
  print"______________________Using Monthly increase-----------------"
  e=0
  for x=1 to 12
  e=e+1/x:d=e/x:s=e-s1:s1=e
  print  x,e,s
  next x
  print "1 Year Average = ";d
  print "100 Year projection using this average = ";100*d



  print"______________________Now Using Weekly increase -------------------"




  e=0:s1=0
  for x=1 to 12 step .25
  e=e+1/x:d1=e*.25/x:s=e-s1:s1=e
  print  x,e,s

  next x
  print"1 Year Average ";d1
  print "100 Year projection using this average = ";100*d1



  print"______________________-------------------"

  print "True function = ln(12)==>"; log(12)
  print" in 100 years with the true function the right result is ln(100) ";log(100)
  print" and not "; d1*100; " or ";d*100

 And here is the output...:


  ______________________Using Monthly increase-----------------
  1             1             1
  2             1.5           0.5
  3             1.83333333    0.33333333
  4             2.08333333    0.25
  5             2.28333333    0.2
  6             2.45          0.16666667
  7             2.59285714    0.14285714
  8             2.71785714    0.125
  9             2.82896825    0.11111111
  10            2.92896825    0.1
  11            3.01987734    0.90909091e-1
  12            3.10321068    0.83333333e-1
  1 Year Average = 0.25860089
  100 Year projection using this *+1/x INCREASE average* = 25.860089
  ______________________Now Using Weekly increase -------------------
  1             1             1
  1.25          1.8           0.8
  1.5           2.46666667    0.66666667
  1.75          3.03809524    0.57142857
  2             3.53809524    0.5
  2.25          3.98253968    0.44444444
  2.5           4.38253968    0.4
  2.75          4.74617605    0.36363636
  3             5.07950938    0.33333333
  3.25          5.38720169    0.30769231
  3.5           5.67291597    0.28571429
  3.75          5.93958264    0.26666667
  4             6.18958264    0.25
  4.25          6.42487676    0.23529412
  4.5           6.64709898    0.22222222
  4.75          6.8576253     0.21052632
  5             7.0576253     0.2
  5.25          7.24810149    0.19047619
  5.5           7.42991967    0.18181818
  5.75          7.60383271    0.17391304
  6             7.77049938    0.16666667
  6.25          7.93049938    0.16
  6.5           8.08434553    0.15384615
  6.75          8.23249368    0.14814815
  7             8.37535082    0.14285714
  7.25          8.51328186    0.13793103
  7.5           8.64661519    0.13333333
  7.75          8.77564745    0.12903226
  8             8.90064745    0.125
  8.25          9.02185957    0.12121212
  8.5           9.13950663    0.11764706
  8.75          9.25379234    0.11428571
  9             9.36490345    0.11111111
  9.25          9.47301156    0.10810811
  9.5           9.57827472    0.10526316
  9.75          9.68083882    0.1025641
  10            9.78083882    0.1
  10.25         9.8783998     0.97560976e-1
  10.5          9.97363789    0.95238095e-1
  10.75         10.0666611    0.93023256e-1
  11            10.1575702    0.90909091e-1
  11.25         10.2464591    0.88888889e-1
  11.5          10.3334157    0.86956522e-1
  11.75         10.418522     0.85106383e-1
  12            10.5018554    0.83333333e-1
  1 Year Average 0.21878865
  100 Year projection using this +1/x *INCREASE *of the "average" =* 21.8788653*
  ______________________-------------------
*True function = ln(12)==>2.48490665*
   in 100 years with the true function of the *+1/x INCREASE* the right result is ln(100)= *4.60517019*
*and not 21.8788653 or 25.860089*

I showed You all that already before...: right here...*they do EXACTLY the same "computer model" fuck-up with CO2 &* and the *% Absorption CO2 actually does have*,...fuck I must have done THOUSANDS of IR-spectroscopy analysis over the span of my working life..I can spot fuckups like that in *less than a heartbeat..*







 See how fucked up things get using an "average" and extrapolating...and 100 years ahead to boot...

 Mind You if we did have a* REAL climate EQUATION.*..it could  compute it just as accurate as making 3 shells fired out of one barrel  land all at EXACTLY the same time on a target way over the horizon.


 Just be a little more careful, trying to impress me with your "REAL SCIENTISTS"...Okay !
I can speed read in 3 languages, taking page snapshots like Your PC takes screenshots and write down days later letter for letter what was on the pages ...so it`s no bother at all for me to read *EVERYTHING you use a reference here*...by the time Your brain registers what it said on a traffic sign I can read a page of fine print and translate it to 2 other languages as well..including NAZI German...the language which "was forbidden in Your home"...
You know while we had the liberals in Ottawa, they "created" tons of jobs for all kinds of Enviro wacko "bird counters" (..we called them) fucking up everything from logging to Oil exploration...sure it got a lot of dim-wits off the welfare recipient rolls with instant "science Enviro-quacko-degrees"...
This was their "Al-Gorakle"...ever heard of him..."Old Rocks"...You must read up..!...You absolutely will fall in love,...he`s gay too...it would be a match  made...I won`t say in Heaven, because I`m a Nazi straight from hell...but You never heard of him...:







All he did study was how often Mosquitoes fuck...that`s how he got his PhD...then he started mouthing off about CO2 spewing and ice melting cars + throwing climatology buzz words like "Planck`s + Schroedinger equations" around, yet had no fucking idea about Math, Physics or Chemistry...Suzuki Motorcycles considered changing their brand name, because they were so embarrassed, that this moron had the same name...
But he`s got "Enviro-science awards" to the kazoo...
It was all quite funny to watch...I did`nt give a shit because I was with the military...but assholes like him made welfare recipient out of a lot of highly educated people...and it` ain`t as if the world has no need for them...Engineers have it downright easy to go somewhere else...we get snapped up...I doubt the "glow-ball-warming" bird counters will find gainful employment anywhere on this planet once people start scrutinizing the kind of quack these assholes publish..
REAL SCIENCE does`nt run to CNN or newspapers when they get a break through...they keep it a secret and even in the patent description we are coy with the "minor details" that a copy cat would have to know...that`s in the public sector...You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA...what real scientists who work in the military sector do know...
We`ld get a minimum of 10 years in jail bragging to CNN.
Well, we dirty Oil-corrupted Canadian engineers have the last laugh...last week there was a total blow out in our federal elections...and the Liberal Party got wiped right off the political map...and our Prime Minister has won for the first time in modern History a Conservative Party (=right wing to U.S. demo-assholes)...MAJORITY governemnt and he is right from the heart of Alberta,...where the world`s second largest Oil fields are...
So, the update on the Kyoto accord in Canada can be summarized to.:






So from now on these gay NDP, Green Party and the Liberal Party can veto all they want...even if they do it as a block...they are shit out of luck...
*Alberta Tar-sands is wide open for business now..and the pipe lines will run straight into the heart of Texas...
Get in the way, Oh baaah mama and You`ll experience a whole new meaning what "road kill" is...Texas & Alberta style,....!!!
*


----------



## polarbear (May 8, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Every time I stick these pictures in his face he either shuts up & disappears, or he side steps it trying to make these typically wit-less liberal insults, which are supposed to bother me...

Show him what`s really on the ground on Greenland along the Nares Strait he sticks his head in his shit pile...
I have yet to see one "Climate Scientist" even acknowledge that Fort Conger exists...:






In 1876 ships that were not icebreakers could sail all the way up the Nares Strait and Fort Conger was their base camp for Polar exploration...:






If You Google for it they won`t tell You much about it, only garbage like that because of "global warming" the wood is decaying...

You read that and You`ld think that`s the only Wood along the Nares Strait, almost all the way up to Thule airbase along the Nares strait You keep tripping over huge Tree- trunks, when we dig them up, they still have the roots on them..:






*And these Trees were HUGE...!!!!*









Look how pitiful small  the God`s of Climatology tree is in comparison...:






Where he claims tree growth-rates were way slower before we burned gas.

He could go up to Thule and get a sample of these trees from there any time he`d want to...but in the world of climate science there were never any forests just a few Chopper hours south of the North pole...

And I mean FORESTS...there are lots and lots of these trees and the left overs from Viking/Norsemen Camp sites..this one is just outside Thule:






We call them "Thule Rings"...The Vikings buried the Muscox they killed under "Old Rocks"... these were Fred Flintstone food staches...they are all over the entire area there...as close as ~ 500 mile from the pole...
Some still have skulls, bones and charred wood in these rings.

We really get around all over Greenland, out the ice sheet, to the pole etc etc...
it`s our job...we are sort of the "cable guys" for all the Mil-Sat relay links which run from there all the way to the Pentagon...:
well further south some is fiber optic, digital re- re and re- encrypted to the hilt...
But us "dumb bi-polar cable guys" have access to the raw data before we send it south





None of these "Climatologist Arctic Experts" have ever even been near these rings, or know about all these trees all along the Nares Strait...actually they can`t...the entire stretch is a no-go zone for civilians...because of our equipment, which is all over the place up there

Once in a while they do a quicky summer Tourism  feet fly-over @ 10 000 with a NASA Passenger Jet and TV Camera Crews to film the "melting ice"....where wooden boats used to cruise for centuries...for fucks sake how fucking dumb and ignorant can people get...*You don`t need a degree in Math or physics to go to a library and read a history book about the first arctic exploration missions...*

Or they could have asked one of us "cable guys"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyZYhobvc4"]YouTube - The Cable Guy - The Future Is Now[/ame]


But that`s beneath them...they have a much higher "Liberal education"...a B.of A. degree how to talk English out the asshole , the Liberal refuge of last resort,..... lame attempts to ridicule or insult the "lesser" folks once these found out that Mr.Buzzword College Graduate is dumber than a fence post..again, "Old Rocks" bastards like You  maybe can   fuck with the concierge, the waitress or the waiter ..
But try and Fuck with  a  "cable guy"....?
Even Oh bababaaaah mama know better...:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzt82V-xtfA"]YouTube - Jim "the Cable Guy" Carrey in the "Bathroom Beating" Scene[/ame]


Just as long as You keep just fucking around with the few mentally challenged folks  who watch this kind of garbage on cable TV, us "cable guys" don`t really care..
If You can pull it off then these trees are no longer an issue...they vanish from reality and are a "right wing delusion"...they seize to exist in Your climate model retard video game...
If You bastards over do it though, ...Then it`ll start pissung us "cable guys" off...and that would not be a smart move..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A5cIr-8s7w"]YouTube - Cable Guy - Funny how you call when you NEED something.[/ame]


Look where I always got picked up...when my "preferred customer called, our cable is out  !!...":
But it was doorstep to doorstep free transport,...although that kind of airline food, `s got to be the shittiest of all..




















But aside from that....our "preferred customer" knew better than fuck us around,....
*don`t fuck with the cable guy" Old Rocks"...:*



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJR8ZNAnRoM&feature=related"]YouTube - Oh billy[/ame]


Are You really that naive, or just pretending...:....????

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6A5QnnQAUc&feature=related"]YouTube - illegal Cable !!!!! (Cable Guy scene)[/ame]


But if You wanna stick with the game plan and discuss the finer points of REAL science, then count me in..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2011)

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2011)

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)


----------



## wirebender (May 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?



No actual rebuttal?  I have done quite a bit of looking at the responses you and yours make to polar bear and have yet to see an on topic rebuttal supported by credible materials.  Are you claiming that his assessment that the American Institute of Physics is no more than a place where high schoolers who are having trouble with the hard sciences go for tutoring is incorrect?  It is all right there on the site.  Try reading it for yourself.

You have proved over and over that you don't actually read the crap you post and whether or not it is credible doesn't even enter into the equation with you.  

How about you actually respond to what he is saying once.  How about any of you hand wringing hysterics actually respond to what he is saying once.  Demonstrate that you have even a tenuous grasp of the science by responding to the scientific content of his posts, on topic, in your own words and back your claims up with some credible material.  Or, just admit that he is talking so far over your head that an impotent ad hominem is really the best you can do and ask him to explain what he is saying in terms you can understand.

And before you claim that you do understand what he is saying, I challenge you to explain, and demonstrate any scientific error he has made in just his past two posts on this thread and do it in your own words.

My bet is that you can't do it.  

As with most warmists rocks, it is only your abject ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed entirely off this forum.  If you only knew enough to be able to see how bad you look in comparison, your humiliation would be epic.  

Now feel free to insult me because I have taken the trouble to expose the fact that you can't answer polar bear in a rational intelligent manner.  Personally, I love the mewling tone of your insults.  Exposes you for who you really are.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2011)

LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy? 

And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered? 

Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2011)

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there&#8217;s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there&#8217;s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. 

The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica. 
Larger Image 

Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2011)

Melting Accelerating, Satellites Report, But Data Flow May Cease - ScienceInsider

Data published yesterday by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, and colleagues revealed that Earth's ice sheets are melting at a rate that could mean more than 32 centimeters of global sea level rise by 2050. But scientists say their ability to continue to collect and analyze such data is threatened by the commercial sale of the some data, and the possible failure of a key satellite. 

The paper, in Geophysical Research Letters, is seen as authoritative because it draws upon and compares two techniques for measuring ice mass. The first is the so-called mass-balance method. It utilizes measurements from satellite and airplane images along with data from computer models to calculate the comings and goings of ice and to produce a total flux. The second is the gravity method, which utilizes NASA's GRACE satellite pair to essentially weigh the ice sheets from space (it measures minute changes in their flight path due to the shifting gravity field of mass below).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2011)

PolarBear!!! Your posts should be stickys in the Environmental Section!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2011)

"In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only..."

Settled Science?

Seriously?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 8, 2011)

That's some impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo.  When I was in engineering school, I knew students who would pepper their papers with similar terms that they didn't really understand.  They still ended up getting a C-



Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.
> ...


----------



## polarbear (May 8, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PolarBear!!! Your posts should be stickys in the Environmental Section!!


Okay, Old Rocks...
I have read Your numerous responses...once I subtract the all too typical liberal rhetoric there are actually some quite sense cal residual words left...
like "I`m just a millwright, so I copy and post...etc"....what scientists publish..
*#1,* "Just a millwright"....leave the word *"just"* off in the future
being a millwright is quite respectable and You`ld have every right to be proud of it.
A lot of modern day engineers do rely on input from experienced millwrights.
Some are too arrogant and then  design cars where you have to cut a hole in the fender to get at the spark plugs...
Others could give You tons of other examples here, ...
*#2,.*...Millwrights, Electricians, Machinists, Mechanics, Plumbers, Carpenters...etc etc...all these "They are just"...this- or that- people in the words of arrogant "highly educated people" have to deal with the REAL WORLD and produce REAL THINGS, that ACTUALLY WORK....else they get fired...same thing applies to engineers of all sorts...!
*#3,* Please do take this advice...:
Next time You think about scientists, in Your mind`s eye rip off the white lab coat they all love to wear when posing for a public image.
Scientists, no matter if they are the Climatologists You admire or the other Scientists for which You already have great disdain all have this in common..:
Aside from producing publications, *they don`t have to produce anything else..*and as I`m sure You do know, paper is patient.
The main difference between the Climatologists and all the other "XYZ-ists" is, how they define peer review..
For example if a guy with a PhD in Bio-Chemistry or in Medicine writes a paper about harmful effects of Cholesterol, he has to defend his Thesis in a peer review which does not exclude everyone else who does not have a degree say in Medicine...
An scientist with a degree in Organic Chemistry can challenge this thesis any time and any place, if he noticed that the thesis neglected the fact that there are Cholesterol isomers *possible*, which have LLL,LDL,LDD,DDD,DDL,DLL stereo molecular configurations, and each of these isomers, although all being "Cholesterol" have a totally different metabolism..
I picked this Example, because that actually did happen and in Medicine it was an accepted "fact" that "Cholesterol" is bad news...
Every Newspaper, TV ...in short all the media world wide was quoting this crap for many years...
Till Chemists had enough and challenged this thesis...and since then every MD = the News media have to distinguish between "good Cholesterol" and "bad Cholesterol"....because the asymmetry of a Carbon atom inside a Molecule having 3 non-identical bonds and yield different polarized light rotations, is way over their head...unless of course they did study Chemistry...
*So that`s how all the XYZ-non Climatology does a peer review...
*
And now take a look what happens to XYZ-scientists who are not "Climatologists" do a review of the physics, chemistry or the math a climatologist publishes...
*
"Mob tactics" doesn`t even begin to adequately put it into words how these bastards operate

**#4*
No matter if You are a *"just"* cook, a mechanic, a construction worker, etc etc..; you are what You are *not for genetic reasons*, but rather are *a product of Your environment *in which You grew up.
So if You think, that a cook or a construction worker is not intelligent enough to understand science, then You have made a huge judgement call error.
I have had a lot of fun during my working life talking a lot to "I`m just a cook." people...and noticed they have no trouble at all to understand anything in the main "hard" sciences, as long as it can be properly explained...
*By EXPLAINING I don`t mean just quoting a book or a text as sadly enough almost all teachers and mentors do it;... I MEAN EXPLAINING...WHY IT IS LIKE THIS AND NOT LIKE THAT....*
So, when You directed me to this "Physics Institute" about 2 dozens of Your posts ago...I went there and read it...
After having read the first layer of links on that web page , I said to myself...this is great stuff, there should be a college like that in every town in North America...
*If there was, a cook would no longer say "I`m just a cook...and I don`t understand Science"
....because that`s all it would take...EXPLAIN IT, talk plain English and leave all the over bloated Latin term rhetoric buzzwords off for starters...*

But when I started reading through the next layer of links posted on this web-page it became quite obvious, that sadly, that was not their mission or intent.

I`t a real shame with all the money we blew on "Climatology Research"...imagine how many "Science Institutes" like that could have been financed, that could do just that,...*and  explain hard science in plain no nonsense English...*

*Imagine how much further America`s technology  would leave the rest of the world in the dust,  if there was a "Science Institute" for all the "I am just a cook"...or I`m just a this or that people in every town throughout the United States of America.
P.S.:
I`ld never eat in a restaurant where a "Scientist" is the Chef, instead of "just" a cook*


The best meals I ate, I got on Americas "RedNEX" back roads...
Every time the waitress asks me "What would You like...Sir...?"
I reply "I want You to leave off the "Sir", my first name is Bernhard...and I want to eat the same thing,what You or the cook here ate for lunch today...and prepared exactly the way You liked it done...and if there was a fly in the soup, then I want him to put a fly in my soup too...!"
I tell You that with no exception I got meals served, that were way above  what any $100 ++ per plate fancy shmancy Hotel Restaurant meal serves to a "preferred customer" ...
*And that`s why I like the movie "cable guy" and the "Rednex" video "Cotton Eyed Jo"...*
* 




*


----------



## polarbear (May 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> That's some impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo.  When I was in engineering school, I knew students who would pepper their papers with similar terms that they didn't really understand.  They still ended up getting a C-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am an "old whore" on that block, and I recognize another one (like You) when I see one...!
So I can tell that You are a "been there done that" engineer with quite a few Years of experience under Your belt
*What You just said there is soooo true...! *
We have turned science into a publish or perish comedy...in which everyone quotes everyone else and there is a total lack of courage and originality in most of the modern day dissertations...
It has been trumpeted by the media, that China will soon overtake the U.S.A. in science & technology...it was based on U.N. findings...
So I got curious how the U.N. defines progress in Sci&tech...
Would`nt You know...!!! They base it on the number of "scientific papers" any nation publishes and how often said papers are quoted by other scientists...
So, China came out almost on top, trend = climbing steeply upwards...
But a lot of the Chinese "scientific publications" deals with stuff like how You might acquire a more "Tiger Like Attitude" if You eat raw Tiger liver,...bought from illegal poachers or how ground Rhino horn & Elephant tasks improves Your health...
So, I was not worried about the Chinese out-doing us any time soon.
But CNN etc left all that out..

I just want to touch on the subject of Math  etc again, and what I mean by explaining why this is like that and not the other way around...

I still do some off time teaching whenever I fell like it in both the public sector and inside the Military...explaining this or that in plain no bullshit English...and I just remembered something...
I`ll quote what Wikipedia still says to this day about the Pythagoras theorem...
Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Relation to proof*
> 
> The notion of a theorem is deeply intertwined with the concept of  proof. Indeed, theorems are true precisely in the sense that they  possess proofs. Therefore, to establish a mathematical statement as a  theorem, the existence of a line of reasoning from axioms in the system  (and other, already established theorems) to the given statement must be  demonstrated.
> Although the proof is necessary to produce a theorem, it is not  usually considered part of the theorem. And even though more than one  proof may be known for a single theorem, only one proof is required to  establish the theorem's validity. *The Pythagorean theorem and the law of  quadratic reciprocity are contenders for the title of theorem with the  greatest number of distinct proofs.*


So officially it`s still just a theorem and not a proven Math law..
Here is Wikipedia`s definition of "Theorem" & Pythagoras...:

Pythagorean theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> the theorem can be written as an equation relating the lengths of the sides _a_, _b_ and _c_, often called the _Pythagorean equation_:[1]





> The Pythagorean theorem is named after the Greek mathematician Pythagoras, who by tradition is credited with its discovery and proof,[2][3] although it is often argued that knowledge of the theorem predates him. There is evidence that Babylonian mathematicians understood the formula, although there is little surviving evidence that they fitted it into a mathematical framework.[4][5]
> 
> The theorem is about both areas and lengths, or can be said to have both areal and metric interpretations.[6][7] Some proofs of the theorem are based on one interpretation, some upon the other, using both algebraic and geometric techniques.[8] The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.
> 
> ...


*That`s not how I teach that....I use what highly educated Liberals would call "RedNex" math...*
Forgive me I was bit sloppy with my writing and drawing...but I just scanned and uploaded it...I`ll re-write a more legible text below after..:







If You don`t like drawing then all You have to do is take 2 sheets of paper and make a diagonal cut through each then label the sides and angles and arrange them like in the sketch I just made..

So now we have a large square where the diagonals of the cut paper forms the sides "c" and there is an area missing in the Middle I called "Z"..why not call it Z, but feel free to chose a different name..
The 4 triangles MUST form a square, because independent from Pythagoras we know that in any triangle all angles ALWAYS add up to 180...I mean all You have to do is drive a car following these lines and You will have done a 180 backtrack..
So then the middle piece has 4 sides which are all a-b long.
And the area of Z is then (a-b)^2= a^2  -2*a*b +b^2

And the actual area of all the paper we have laying on the table are 4 right angle triangles each being (a*b)/2 large for a total area of 2*a*b

C^2 = then a^2 +b^2 -2ab + 2ab,...which leaves us with c^2= a^2 + b^2

I did that in a "Hillbilly" Restaurant once using 2 napkins and not a single person in that "road-kill-caffee" had any problems with Pythagoras 5 minutes later.

That`s what I mean by EXPLAINING...
So "Old Rocks" which *EXPLANATION do You prefer.*..*my "bi-ploar" Red Neck math* or all that swollen "academics- is-over-the-head-of-I`m-just-a-waitress-people" *fucking arrogant typical Liberal talk*...

You know I`m not coming here to score points, I just want to explain to some guys here *who are in fact way more intelligent than they think they are, but heard nothing but this arrogant talk since they left school..*.
Had they had teachers in school that actually *UNDERSTAND math*, then they could have *EXPLAINED math *the way I do it all the time
And there would not be a single American waitress or Restaurant cook who would say "I`m just a waitress" or "I`m just a cook"..
I cracked way more complicated equations just for the fun of it with truck drivers, cooks, waitresses and even hitch-hikers I found on the Interstates + back roads

...even to this day to Military Engineer candidates in Mil-colleges or whichever base I was stationed for a tour of duty...then I did it in my time off..:






*'Old Rocks"...You can call me whatever the fuck You like..."Bi-Polar" or "Nazi" or...or...
I really don`t give a shit...I have a shitload of friends in the REAL WORLD all over the U.S. and Canada...
I`m not that lonely and desperate that it would decimate me if You don`t wanna be the "cable guys`s" friend
*But unlike the "cable guy" I don`t have to play "mortal combat" Internet video games with my friends in Vietnam"...I have *REAL *(good) friends in *REAL* Vietnam...








Like this Guy 2.nd over at the table with me..Dr.Kahi...blank last name.... from Vietnam who`s brother is one of the top Generals in today`s V.Armed Forces.. Khai is a PhD in Chemistry...the guy next to me has amongst other things a PhD in Physics.
Arnie, I masked his face is a well published Chem Professor and still active...often quoted on the Net...so I don`t think he`ld appreciate me posting him in a forum...But he doesn`t mind if my wife snaps photos of him having a good time @ our home...
The little Chinese kid next to Arnie...the Mom is from China proper and currently studies Physics in Canada
The Canadian Government often asked me if defectors from hostile countries could bunk at my house, because I`m easy to talk to...so the guy from Iran,(top picture with all the Government & immigration spooks)  who was a Biologist with in the Iranian Military & defected to Canada was my house Guest for ~ 1 Year...The military gave me time off at home all that time because of Mostafa staying at my place...
Every one of them is still in every day contact with me...and I have a lot of very pleasant e-mail...which is where I`ll be...in the inbox at my .....@gmail.com  with my next mouse click...
I`m not the kind of coward who hides faceless, so feel free and download the picture and do whatever You want to let out Your frustrations..I don`t give a shit...
KLICK...bye bye *and have some fun for a change*


----------



## polarbear (May 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy?
> 
> And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered?
> 
> Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.




I`m going way out on a limb here and  may regret that, but I `m a risk taker and "playing safe" bores the hell out of me..
By the way, after You referred to Yourself "I`m *just *a millwright...so I go by what other scientists say"...I started viewing You in an entirely different light...
*You are not really the typical arrogant Liberal *who`s guts I hate with a passion...so I may have made an error in judgement when  I  interpreted wrongly,what You wrote so far.
 I just  changed my ignore list, in case You care, not that You`ld have to...That "bi-polar" etc stuff never did bother me, it was all these quotes of these "sam-o" web pages that I wanted off my screen pages.

So I uploaded a short video just *for You,  who is "just" a Millwright 
and actually does work for a living.*
Millwrights are busy people, but now and then it`s Okay to have some fun.
This is just one example when I get bored and want to win some easy lunch money.
I go in the machine shop and make a sucker bet with the designated welder..
It`s all in the video @ YouTube...I titled it "gravity lock" because that`s the trick.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5qBZFCXnsI"]YouTube - Gravity Lock.wmv[/ame]

Engineers use that term a lot. For example at some Hydro Electric dams, the Power dam, Reservoir dams + the Spillway Gates etc are *"just*"  gravity lock anchors and not  "construction anchors"..
"Construction Anchor" means the dam is anchored with re-bars in deep holes drilled  into the bed-rock and then You cast the concrete for the dam...so no way can it shift position, unless the concrete cracks first.
See, for a nuclear power plant You`ld never want to use a construction anchor. If a quake hits a "gravity lock" is way better than a rock solid  connection  with the underlying bed-rock.
I figured with a user-name like *"Old Rocks" *that bit of  non-climatology technology might interest You...???
As a Liberal, You should be interested in how huge the ramifications can be later when that subtle difference in construction engineering comes into play when it matters.
Do You know what kind of anchor they used for the Nuke-PP`s in Japan?
I never even checked yet and suspect there is sfa-  published about it  on the net.

Anyways,  Physics is not as boring as a lot of people think and You can have a lot of fun with it. 
Of course I could not refrain from adding a sub-title @ the end yanking 
Al Gore`s chain...*it`s a duty of every true patriot to this that at least once a day.* the word $$$udy in the subtitle is not a typo...it`s an  acronym in German, You don`t want to know the details ....If I tell You that it ain`t exactly polite, will be good enough.
As a devote Liberal You must know their motto, *never to cement your current position *with a "construction anchor" which *would make it impossible to change position*,... a position which might at any time become totally indefensible.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy?



Are you saying that you don't recognize the on topic science that is contained within his posts?  If that is your claim, I am not surprised in the least.



Old Rocks said:


> And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered?



So he is talking so far over your head that you don't recognize the information he is giving.  In the "spew of garbage" as you call it that I challenged you to answer, he described, in quite basic terms first the fat that the institute of physics that you place so much trust in was little more than a tutorial business for high schoolers who are having problems with science, second, he showed you quite clearly that the scientific requirements for those you place so much trust in are not very impressive.  He pointed out inarguable proof that climate science is an out for those who can not, or don't want to do the work required to become an actual scientist.

Then he went on to describe, explain, and demonstrate to you one of the fundamental errors to be found in most climate models upon which you place so much trust and you respond by admitting that the material is so far over your head that you don't even recognize it as pertinent information.  Geez rocks, if you knew just a bit more, you really would be embarassed off the board. 



Old Rocks said:


> Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.



The fact is, old rocks, that the real scientists (chemists and physicists) are coming out in droves against the piss poor hypothesis of CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.  There have been quite a few papers being published lately by physicists disproving the notion that CO2 drives the climate and to date, none of those you believe are scientists have made an adequate response to any of them.  That is because the material they are posting is too far over your climate "scientist's" heads for them to understand.  Instead, like you, they believe that if they ignore the material, it will somehow go away.

Judith Curry recently took on Claes Johnson regarding his work disproving the hypothesis of greenhouse gasses.  She began with some bolster about college students being able to disprove his work.  It didn't take long before it became clear that she was depending on college students because she certainly couldn't do it.  Turned out that her college students couldn't do it either.  You can read the exchanges between those who study climate science and those who are physicists and chemists and see the difference in the command of the science even if you are not a scientist yourself.  The climate scientists proved themselves woefully inadequate to the task of actually proving their claims while the actual scientists (chemists and physicists) were never unable to prove their points.

You have made it brutally obvious that you don't understand any of the science and therefore hold a purely political position.  You don't know whether the position is based on good or bad science or whether it is right or wrong.  You hold it for entirely personal reasons and the correctness of the material you use to support your position does not even enter your equation.  As such, you aren't even qualified to enter the discussion on any but the most rudimentary terms and you have proven beyond any doubt that if you knew any more, you would indeed be embarassed off the board.  It is only your ignorance that allows you to remain here believing that you are relevant.


----------



## konradv (May 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, that can only mean that the SUV is 20,000 years old
> ...



Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate.  If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?


----------



## stephenwv (May 9, 2011)

Create Hysteria. On the Federal level: "Cut social security. Cut medicaid. Cut child services etc" on the state level: "Cut teachers. Cut police. Cut firemen etc" Create Hysteria to get the people to beg "OH NO! You can't do that! Please take more of our money! PLEASE!" Never do you hear them say: "Cut the duplication and waste in a bloated bureaucracy full of political hacks!" Create Hysteria.

Global Warming. We all know the successful hysteria created there. Billions paid in grants to "prove" man caused global warming is a problem. The people are begging for the government to take TRILLIONS of dollars from us for their "solutions." What the people do not realize is we do not have the trillions to do anything about it. We don't even have the few paltry trillions to pay off the debt let alone the hundreds of trillions they want to manufacture that will wind up in the hands of those at the top while the rest of us become "equal with all the people of the world." It won't matter whether you live in the US or Mexico or Africa. We will all have the same standard of living. Those at the top, then the rest of us.

Any studies that might prove otherwise are not paid for, are vilified, and the media refuses to bring even the peer reviewed ones to light. No one hears about them. If there was any real validity to all of this don't you think that when the Cancun Global Warming Convention met that they would have come out like gang busters? "The proof is here! the proof is here!" NOT. There was hardly a whisper.

Well that didn't work.

Hysteria. "Ocean Acidification! Ya Thats it! Ocean Acidification will keep the hysteria going." Billions spent on new ocean studies at NOAA for a huge fleet of expensive scientific ocean going monsters full of Phd's and greenies to prove the new hysteria of Ocean Acidification! You know, the ocean getting saltier, more basic on the Ph tests. Saltier means people float easier. Fewer drownings! 

I have already seen the media hysteria begin with such things as "dead spots" in the Pacific. This is the natural circulation that takes 1000 years, of cold CO2 laden H2O rising from the ocean floor creating areas of high CO2 concentrations in the water as the rising warming water gives of CO2. Also coral dissolving is a natural chemical reaction when water warms and the aqueous CO2 combines with the coral. Incidentally, the little almost microscopic animal that creates coral can live for years in the ocean away from the coral environment it created. It stopped creating it as it looks for a new food source. Considering this has all happened in other interglacial warming cycles, what makes man think he can or should stop it this time? Of course that has nothing to do with it. 

Truth is you never see credible sources mention "man caused" any more. It is only "global warming" which of course is a naturally occurring cycle.

So they have come up with the new hysteria of "ocean acidification" so for the next 20 years they can spend billions of our money funding studies to "prove" it is a problem. I have heard that they expect it to get so warm that no mile deep glacier will form over Washington DC. But fear not the next likely hysteria will likely be "The Glacier is coming! The Glacier is coming!" Create hysteria and we can get them to BEG us to take trillions from them.  This is like a solution to herding cats!


----------



## konradv (May 9, 2011)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Answer my question first.  That's a lie in itself.  You ignore my post message in order to turn it around and push your own agenda.  The lies all come from the the skeptic side, IMO.  What you call lies are either failures to understand or deliberate attempts to cloud the issues AGW believers present.  Look what we have on this board.  Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!!  That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.  It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Do you even know what "Parts per million" means?


----------



## westwall (May 9, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






No, konrad is even more scientifically illiterate then olfraud or trolling blunder.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate.  If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?
> ...


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



what question am I ignoring? that foolish claims have been made on this message board by both sides? the CAGW side has had 25 years, the vast majority of funding for research and media support to prove its case. after appearing to come close a few years ago their evidence is falling to pieces now. why? because it was never really there. exaggerations and unfounded opinions are daily shown to be false and many of the public are pissed that the wool was pulled over their eyes.

I am willing to discuss any topic but only if you are willing to make some attempt to understand the many other sides to this subject.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!!  That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.



I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy.  Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof.  If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true?  If it is so, then prove it.



konradv said:


> It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.



The dishonesty is all yours.  If it isn't then provide the hard, observed evidence to support the greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Here are some links to pronouncements by your side that the sun is not causing climate change or at best, a very small bit of the change that your climate models predict.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'No Sun link' to climate change

'Sun not responsible for climate change' - Telegraph

Climate Change: It Is Not the Sun « Lean Left

It&#8217;s likely not the <em>primary</em> cause | Grist

Nobel-winning climate change scientist speaks at Expo Center tonight | OregonLive.com

It's still not the sun, stupid : A Few Things Ill Considered


----------



## konradv (May 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (May 9, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!!  That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.
> ...



Another lie!!!  A mechanism HAS been posted.  It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab.  Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.  *NEXT?*


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> But, but, but... YOU said they said it had NO role!!!  Are you backtracking?  What else is just made-up BS?  Oh yeah, your lie about CO2 not being a GHG.



Did you read the titles to the references I provided?  

"No Sun link' to climate change"

"Sun not responsible for climate change"

"Climate Change, It's Still Not the Sun"

"It's Still Not the Sun Stupid"

Which one of those titles suggests that they acknowledge a connection between the climate and the sun?  If picking nits is the best you can do, then you have lost, and lost terribly.

You will find that calling me a liar is pointless and stupid.  I rarely say anything that I can't back up.  As you can see above, your people clearly claim that the sun is not responsible for climate change.


----------



## wirebender (May 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



You lose again guy.  Don't show up to an inellectual gunfight armed with a nail file.

Why lie when you have to know that you will be called on it.  I clearly stated that CO2 has no mechanism by which to absorb and retain or trap IR energy.  Were the words I used to big and complicated for you to understand.  As I have repeatedly explained to you, the emission spectra of CO2 proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is immediately emitted.  No trapping of heat or energy is possible.

Now, if it is in your nature, acknowledge that you mischaracterized my statement in a juvenile attempt to dodge the challenge put before you, or man up and provide the evidence that CO2 can absorb and retain energy as you have claimed.  Or do the predictable thing and prove your impotence by engaging in some juvenile name calling and dodge the issue entirely.  That seems to be your favorite tactic when you are called on anything.


----------



## IanC (May 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



konradv- CO2 slows down one avenue of escaping heat, infrared radiation. there are other ways to move heat, conduction, reflection and (mostly) convection. no reasonable person is saying that CO2 has no part, just that CO2 is a much smaller part than many think and that it is highly unlikely that water based feedbacks are positive. wirebender brings up an important point, that many climate scientists and organizations have dismissed solar variability as a principal cause of warming because the simplistic solar imputs into climate models are insufficient to generate enough impact. Is that the Sun's fault or perhaps the modeller's?

there are many known factors involved with climate and probably just as many unknown ones. you are focussed on one aspect and refuse to even look at the much larger picture.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 10, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...












Wire bro............laugh...........my..........balls.............off. You gotta give them credit though. They show up with their nail files every day.............and God bless them.


----------



## polarbear (May 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?


 
 I showed You these pictures more than once, in quite a few of the other "Global Warming threads"...
 And so far neither You nor the other "arctic experts" or the ones that  keep quoting these "experts" have had any comments other than crap like  that

Your responses to REAL MATH & Science are also always the "sam-o"
But that`s Okay with me, because You did admit that You know nothing about science...
I  just wonder how someone like You could then possibly make these  judgement calls You keep making which is real science and which is just  plain bullshit...

You don`t need to know shit about science if You see what is in these pictures I posted...
I  wonder then how limited the mind-set of a person has to be not to  realize what these pictures of the facts on the ground in the high  arctic should tell even a child...
....only to comment:



Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?



Alright  then so in Your expert millwright scholarly opinion it follows if I  change "just" 2 words the same can be said about history books..



Old Rocks said:


> Egad,*Lieutenant Adolphus Greely* , are you sure that your reports  have enough BS in it?



Seems  to me, that aside from being totally ignorant about math or science in  general, You are also totally ignorant of history in general.
You  call Yourself an American and yet You don`t even know shit about the  history of You own country and who achieved what, when and where..

Let`s start here..:


> The British Arctic Expedition of 1875-1876, led by *Sir George Strong Nares*, was sent by the British Admiralty to attempt to reach the North Pole via Smith Sound. Two ships, *HMS Alert and HMS Discovery *(captained by Henry Frederick Stephenson), sailed from Portsmouth on 29 May 1875. Although the expedition failed to reach the North Pole, the coasts of Greenland and Ellesmere Island were extensively explored and large amounts of scientific data were collected.


*Till now  You had not even a fucking clue why the Nares  Strait is called Nares  Strait...no matter how many pictures I showed you..*

And when I  showed You the pictures I took at the Nares Strait and said it was  always open for ships..even wooden sail-ships You comment...:



Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?



So let` check in the history books what they have on the Nares Strait, Fort Conger, CFS Alert and Ellesmere Island...:

Parks Canada - Quttinirpaaq National Park - Cultural Heritage



> Pre-Contact History
> 
> It is believed that the Paleo-Eskimos of the Independence I culture (2000 &#8211; 4000 B.C.) were the first to arrive in Quttinirpaaq after crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia. Their campsites in the park, characterized by box-shaped hearths, tell us that their numbers were low and that they only occupied the area for 300 &#8211; 400 years. These people hunted muskox and caribou and survived the long dark arctic winters with very little that could be used to produce heat.
> 
> For many centuries afterward, it appears no humans lived on Quttinirpaaq. *Then about 3000 years ago, a second wave of Paleo-Eskimo people, the Independence II culture (1000 &#8211; 500 B.C.) migrated across the arctic islands and reached Quttinirpaaq. A third distinct culture, the Dorset culture (A.D.800 &#8211; A.D.1000), endured on Quttinirpaaq until about a 1000 years ago. They in turn were supplanted by the Thule people who were skillful hunters of whales and other marine mammals.* *While the Thule culture survived elsewhere in the arctic, Quttinirpaaq was abandoned by the Thule as the climate became colder leading up to the Little Ice Age (A.D.1600 &#8211; 1850).*


So, "Old Rocks"...as a scholarly millwright, which of these 2 statemnts has more bullshit in it ...

The history book, or "Your real science"..:

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science



> Phil Jones&#8217; email is often cited as evidence of an attempt  to &#8220;hide the decline in global temperatures&#8221;. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn&#8217;t make this error &#8211; he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
> Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. *However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.*


Aha...so  in your "climate science" only trees up to a certain latitude North  count as "reliable" and south from that only trees before 1960 are  "scientific evidence"...
And in You expert millwright scholarly opinion the history book and my posts, including this one  are ...:


Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?



Let`s explore some more "bullshit" history books, Wikipedia`s posts have the same "bullshit" as my posts, see...:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/HMS_Alert.jpg/300px-HMS_Alert.jpg



> On this expedition, Nares became the first explorer to *take his ships all the way north through* the channel between *Greenland and Ellesmere Island (now named Nares Strait in his honour) **to the Lincoln Sea.*


So why don`t You get a climatology map and look it up where he sailed his wooden ships.
I bet You still don`t even know where CFS Alert is, and why we call that northern most base on this planet "Alert"..




and I also bet not a single one of these fuck head idiots You keep quoting knows shit about it either...
Every  one of us military "cable guys" do...we have even display cases of all  the stuff we found the crew of HMS Alert left behind where we built our  base...:






I could have made a fortune selling what I found to...:
*arctic.noaa.gov/*
All they have in their museum are pictures of the expedition...:
And their museum is full of the same ..as You say...:


Old  Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS  in it?


...bullshit as the posts and the stuff I`ve been showing  since I registered as a user in this forum...:







And here is a picture I took when I walked into that same shack at Fort Conger..:







Of course, I had a lot less trouble getting there because us military cable guys have to go there and everywhere anyways...:







To check on our "cable guy" equipment...:








None  of us "cable guys" pulled a hoax here, this "Inukchuk"is genuine and  Lord only knows for how many 1000 years it`s been there...








> It is believed that the Paleo-Eskimos of the Independence I culture (2000 &#8211; 4000 B.C.) were the first to arrive in Quttinirpaaq after crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia. Their campsites in the park, characterized by box-shaped hearths, tell us that their numbers were low and that they only occupied the area for 300 &#8211; 400 years. These people hunted muskox and caribou and survived the long dark arctic winters with very little that could be used to produce heat.


Let`s get back to "the full of bullshit *arctic.noaa.gov*

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/US-LFB-P4.htm



> *Game stand, Fort Conger, *Grinnell Land. SS Proteus in harbor. Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, 1881-1884
> http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/images/B-91121.JPG


Here is a close-up of what`s hanging off the game-stand...:







*So I guess, it`s not only the trees...:*

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science



> *This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.*


In "climate science" we also have a "little divergence problem" with ducks too..

I`ld say we have a little divergence problem with reality in general..

Here are some more pictures I took around Fort Conger..:












The  grass is still there, but they must have killed all the ducks that  where there ~ 1870-, I never saw one on any of the many trips I did to  Fort Conger..
But we found massive trees just a few inches under the  soil,...tree trunks everywhere and in some areas there were forests,  judging by the number of stumps per area..







Let`s see what else...


Old Rocks said:


> Egad,*Lieutenant Adolphus Greely* , are you sure that your reports  have enough BS in it?



Like what he recorded on his maps..:







*Look at all the "bullshit rivers" and "bullshit Lakes"...*

*They are EXACTLY the same bullshit rivers and Lakes as in ...:*



Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?









The only difference is, that if You squint, You can see the "cable guys" air taxi at the shore
Of course we must apply the same climate science religious dogma again...:


> *This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.*


*So,  it`s not just the trees and the ducks, we also have a divergence  problem with grasslands, rivers and Lakes that have no business being  there when Lieut.Greely drew his maps..*










I  have told You on my very first posts, that it hardly ever snows  there...and it`s natural that most of this area is bare,...no snow...



Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?



So let` see what Lieut. Greely recorded ...hey his report is full of the same "bullshit"  he wrote on his map..


> *Bare Hills, ~ 2 -3000 ft. elev. intersected by many ravines *










His "bullshit"...:








My bullshit...:





































I`m  just yanking your chain "Old Rocks" I don`t really give a fuck what You  believe or what kind of shit for brains dumb ass comments Yo make..

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/History.htm



> &#8220;But whatever interest all these observations may possess, they do not possess that scientific value, even supported by a long column of figures, which under other circumstances might have been the case. *They only furnish us with a picture of the extreme effects of the forces of Nature in the Arctic regions, but leave us completely in the dark with respect to their causes.&#8221;*


 And today we have a lot of utter morons who don`t need facts and figures...




Old Rocks said:


> Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?




*This para-phrase of  C.Weyprecht describes exactly the arrogance and utter stupidity of  You and all the other liberal morons *:

all "non climate scientists" are not real scientists "they  do not possess that scientific value, *They only furnish us with a picture of the extreme effects of the forces of Nature in the Arctic regions, and only we the climatologists are  completely enlightened  with respect to their causes.&#8221;*

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science


> Phil Jones&#8217; email is often cited as evidence of an attempt  to &#8220;hide the decline in global temperatures&#8221;. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn&#8217;t make this error &#8211; he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
> Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. *However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.*


*They don`t "just" have a "divergence problem"  with facts and reality, ..




They truly did go, where no man has gone before....they`ve gone to all the way to Absurdistan 

*


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2011)

IanC said:


> konradv- CO2 slows down one avenue of escaping heat, infrared radiation. there are other ways to move heat, conduction, reflection and (mostly) convection. no reasonable person is saying that CO2 has no part, just that CO2 is a much smaller part than many think and that it is highly unlikely that water based feedbacks are positive.



I don't acknowledge that CO2 is able to slow down heat escaping from the atmosphere any more than any other gas that absorbs and emits IR.  In an open atmosphere, any gas that absorbs and emitts IR serves to increase the scattering of IR, not the consentration of it.  That is precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse gas hypothesis suggests.  By serving to diffuse IR, socalled greenhouse gasses, in reality, serve to cool the atmosphere during the daytime, not slow the escape of heat.

You can verify that statement by looking at the moon.  It is roughly the same distance from the sun as the earth and therefore recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth but has no "greenhouse" gasses present.  In fact, it has no atmosphere at all.  Compare the daytime temperature of the moon to the daytime temperature anywhere on earth and then make a rational case for the idea that greenhouse gasses serve to warm the earth.  

The atmosphere does serve to slow heat loss at night, but in no way is it able to warm the earth.  Consider for just a second, how hot each of the 400 molecules of CO2 would have to get in order to effectivlely raise the other 999,600 surrounding molecules in each "part" of air by even a tiny fraction of a degree; while at all times convection is carrying the heat to ever higher altitudes.

No, CO2 does not slow the escape of heat during daylight hours.  It, along with the other gasses in the atmosphere serve to keep the earth from buring up in the face of the sun.  As to the night time effects of the atmosphere, simply consider why climate models do not factor in the rotation of the earth.  It is the presence of humidity in the atmosphere that provides most of the "blanket" effect attributed to the atmosphere.  This is easily observable by picking two points along the same line of lattitude at roughly the same altitude; one coastal, one desert.  At night, the coastal area cools much more slowly than the desert area due to the difference in relative humidity.  

I appreciate your comments in an effort to explain to konradv, but if I thought that CO2 served to slow down the escape of IR energy from the sun, I would have stated as much.  If CO2, or any other gas served to slow down the escape of IR escaping from the atmosphere, during daylight hours, the surface of the earth would be hotter than the surface of the moon during dayling hours. 

Water vapor is the only gas found in our atmosphere that can absorb and retain IR energy but water vapor, due to the phase changing nature of water absorbs heat without actually warming its surroundings.  I have already provided an explanation to konradv regarding this trick that water can perform at this link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3528156-post96.html


----------



## westwall (May 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







No, it doesn't.  The "experiment" that was posted (and I'm being very kind in calling it that) has no controls, and in fact allows massive external intrusion into the experiment, something that a scientist (well a good scientist) realises invalidates any results obtained.
The only thing being demonstrated in the "experiment" was the various gas laws, not how CO2 traps energy (which it can't).

I showed this to you months ago and even showed you the gas laws that were in actual fact being demonstrated but as usual you ignored that and here you are yet again calling someone a liar when you know very well that it is you who is the intellectually dishonest person involved in the discussion.

Typical.


----------



## wirebender (May 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, it doesn't.  The "experiment" that was posted (and I'm being very kind in calling it that) has no controls, and in fact allows massive external intrusion into the experiment, something that a scientist (well a good scientist) realises invalidates any results obtained.
> The only thing being demonstrated in the "experiment" was the various gas laws, not how CO2 traps energy (which it can't).
> 
> I showed this to you months ago and even showed you the gas laws that were in actual fact being demonstrated but as usual you ignored that and here you are yet again calling someone a liar when you know very well that it is you who is the intellectually dishonest person involved in the discussion.
> ...



The primary problem with his experiment, and in fact, all experiments that claim to show that CO2, or any gas other than water vapor can absorb and trap heat is that they take place in a closed system.  The fact that the actual world is an open system invalidates the experiments in so far as they claim to prove that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs and retains heat.  

We can confidently ask for any experimental data that proves that CO2 or any gas other than water vapor can absorb and trap or retain heat with perfect confidence that no such experiment exists that relates to the actual world we live in.


----------



## konradv (May 11, 2011)

The moon analogy is ludicrous, since it has no atmosphere to heat up.  Don't really see your point.  Any heat you're talking about is surface heat.  Thermometers measure "in the shade", therefore the temp wouldn't be much different whether it was day or night.  Try again, this seems to be in the same vein as "CO2 isn't a GHG", i.e. shows a lack of true knowledge of the subject.


----------



## wirebender (May 12, 2011)

konradv said:


> The moon analogy is ludicrous, since it has no atmosphere to heat up.



Sorry it is over your head.  If the atmosphere were capable of holding in, and according to wackos, multiplying the amount of energy via downward emitted radiation, the daytime side of the earth would be hotter than the moon.  The fact that it isn't is undeniable evidence that the atmosphere serves to keep the earth cool.




konradv said:


> Don't really see your point.



Wouldn't expect you to.  Clearly this is all waaaaaayyyyy over your head.  You proved that when you acknowledged that you didn't know how water vapor might trap heat when no other gas can.  That is very basic stuff and you were completely unaware.



konradv said:


> Any heat you're talking about is surface heat.  Thermometers measure "in the shade", therefore the temp wouldn't be much different whether it was day or night.



Thermometers measure in the shade or in the sun.  If the atmosphere didn't keep the earth cool, then during the daytime, the surface of the earth would be the same temperature as the surface of the moon during the day.  If the atmosphere could trap and multiply heat via downward emitted radiation, then the surface of the earth during the day would be even warmer than the surface of the moon.




konradv said:


> Try again, this seems to be in the same vein as "CO2 isn't a GHG", i.e. shows a lack of true knowledge of the subject.



You have lost and aren't bright enough to know it.  I am still waiting for you to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 is able to absorb and retain heat.  You claim it can happen and yet, you can't post any actual evidence of it.  

Since you can't post any sort of evidence for your claim, perhaps you might be able to tell me how hot you believe the 400 CO2 molecules in any given million parts of air would have to get in order to raise the temperature of the other 999,600 molecules even a tiny fraction of a degree.


----------



## konradv (May 13, 2011)

Done repeatedly.  The explanation has been posted.  Do a search and quit lying.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2011)

I wonder how much of the CO2 effect on Mars is diminished by the phase change heat transfers on the polar dry ice caps?


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> Done repeatedly.  The explanation has been posted.  Do a search and quit lying.






You have not done so.  And in fact you merely make yourself look more foolish every time you post.   You should just stop.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

polarbear said:


> _[....blather, drivel and totally moronic nonsense....]_



Ah, another meaningless and very worthless 'blizzard of bullshit' from ol' PeanutBrain.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Done repeatedly.  The explanation has been posted.  Do a search and quit lying.
> ...



That's really funny, walleyed, since you make yourself look like a retarded chipmunk every time you post. You should just take a long walk on a short pier.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






I do that frequently so I can go swimming.  It's good excercise and you should do it too!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!!  That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.
> ...



Not at all difficult, Bender ol' buddy.

A23A


----------



## wirebender (May 15, 2011)

konradv said:


> Done repeatedly.  The explanation has been posted.  Do a search and quit lying.



So post a link to your alledged proof and prove that you are not a liar.


----------



## wirebender (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Not at all difficult, Bender ol' buddy.
> 
> A23A



Your link goes to nothing.  Got any actual evidence or is fantasy the best you can do?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

Got an old out of date computer there, Bender? 

A23A

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The links are to the 2009 American Geophysical Union convention. They present a series of lectures and make them available to the public. No one else seems to have a problem with either link.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Show us a single laboratory experiment demonstrating how an increase in the deminimus trace element CO2 raises temperature.

Just one experiment.

Not that CO2 is a GHG, but how a 60-200 PPM increase raises temperature.

One Experiment


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2011)

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.



And you've eliminated all variables except for a 100PPM increase in CO2?

Show me how that works


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.







What about all the glaciers that are advancing?  What about the thousands of feet of ice that has been discovered accreting to the bottom of the Antarctic ice?  If what you are saying were true, none of that would be happening.  None of it.

Fail...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.
> ...



No walleyed, you fail, as usual. You fail to check out the facts about the misinformation that fills your head before mouthing off.

What about the glaciers that are advancing, walleyed? How many are there relative to the number that are shrinking? Do you have any idea? Why are some glaciers advancing when others are shrinking? Any clue, walleyed? LOL. Of course not. You are such an idiotic, closed-minded little dupe.

Between 90 and 95 percent of the world's glaciers are shrinking and losing ice mass. Climate scientists understand why some glaciers are (or were) bucking the trend and growing and it has to do the with increased moisture content of the atmosphere due to global warming. Some glaciers, like some of the ones in Sweden and Norway, were growing for a while and then started shrinking around 1999 as the melting on the lower end of the glacier finally got faster than the increased snowfall on the upper end. Currently many of the ones that are still growing/advancing and aren't yet shrinking are in New Zealand and they are all located on the western side of the Southern Alps facing the prevalent wind where increased atmospheric moisture from the rapidly warming Tasman sea (warming at 3 times world average rate) is causing higher snowfall on the upper parts of the glaciers. Other isolated glaciers around the world that are similarly positioned to catch the prevailing winds off the ocean are still growing and some glaciers in the Himalayas were recently found to be still resisting the general melting trend because they are covered in more than two inches of rocky debris that is insulating the ice somewhat and they are mostly in deep mountain shadows. But globally most glaciers are still shrinking and shrinking at increasing rates as the Earth warms up, so scientists think most of the ones that are now growing will soon be shrinking too as the melting overwhelms the gains from increased snowfall at higher elevations.

*Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview*
Mar 11, 2011
(excerpt)
*Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world  [1].*

*Glaciers melting faster than originally thought: study*
April 4, 2011
(excerpt)
*Research shows that the rate of melting from the beginning of the 20th century was slower than previously thought; their research, however, also shows that since 1980, the rate of glacial loss has increased by over 100 times that of the previous 320 year long-term average.*

*A global glacier index update*
Dr. Mauri Pelto (Professor of Environmental Science, Director of the North Cascades Glacier Climate Project,  studied the glaciers in the North Cascades since 1984.)
Jan 31, 2009
(excerpt)
*Those results indicate that 95% of the glaciers are retreating... In 2005, for the first time ever, no observed Swiss glaciers advanced.
*


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Got an old out of date computer there, Bender?



Not at all.  The lecture played later yesterday evening.  I watched the video (what a load of crap and a wasted hour that I will never get back) but I digress.  I asked for some actual proof that CO2 molecules can trap and retain heat.  Exactly which part of that painfully long and distored view of paleohistory do you believe constitutes observed, experimental proof that CO2 has the ability to absorb and retain heat?  Just reply with the time marker on your video and I will gladly return to your reference.  

I predict no answer from you.  As I have stated earlier, neither you, nor any of yours has a link to even a small shred of experimental evidence that CO2 has the capacity to absorb and retain heat.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

​


Old Rocks said:


> And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion.  For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?  

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.  

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.



The glaciers and ice caps started melting 14,000 years ago and have melted back nearly 2000 miles so far.  Atmospheric CO2 was considerably lower when the melting started and during all but the past half a century or so of the past 14,000 years of melting. Then there is the fact of several periods in which the earth was considerably warmer than present and warmed faster than the present without the benefit of increased CO2.  Those two facts alone disaualify any claim that CO2 is driving the melting.

Your confusion regarding cause and effect do not qualify as experimental evidnece of anyting other than your lack of a grip on the science.

Now again, can you point to any experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can trap and retain heat?


----------



## Kelly3Joe (May 16, 2011)

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level  around the world. At the end of this century or  in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20  feet according to scientists .


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2011)

Kelly3Joe said:


> Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level  around the world. At the end of this century or  in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20  feet according to scientists .



Sure it will, sure it will.

Click your heels together three times are repeat "...and its all because of the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster"


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> ...



Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...



You were asked to provide experimental evidence showing how increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 raises temperature, all you did was provide an article from The American Institute of Physics that mentions CO2.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Kelly3Joe said:


> Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level  around the world. At the end of this century or  in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20  feet according to scientists .



Will rise up to 13 to 20 feet according to kooks you mean.  Can you show me any credible peer reviewed material from the past few years that suggests such a thing?


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?



As I predicted, you can point to no single part of that blog as anything even approaching proof.  At best, it is an appeal to authority, but when the authority bases its assertions on assumptions rather than hard, observed, experimental, REPEATABLE evidence, then one must wonder if any crediblity rests with the "scientific body" being appealed to.

Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.




Old Rocks said:


> I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.



As to which of us is stupid, I routinely reference my claims and assertions with published, peer reviewed material.  You, on the other hand seem to rely entirely on blogs.  Not very bright if you ask me.


----------



## wirebender (May 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> You were asked to provide experimental evidence showing how increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 raises temperature, all you did was provide an article from The American Institute of Physics that mentions CO2.



Did you read polar bear's catch last week regarding the american institute of physics?  It is a place where high school kids go to be tutored when they are failing in physics and the site exposes itself as little more than an indoctrination center.  What is funny, and pathetic is that rocks views them as some sort of authority who need not provide proof of anything.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

Kelly3Joe said:


> Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level  around the world. At the end of this century or  in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20  feet according to scientists .







According to Hansen in a prediction he made over 15 years ago parts of New York should allready be under water.  He was wrong then, and your pseudo scientists are wrong now.
No "prediction" they have ever made has occurred.  They allways couch their "predictions in "coulds", and "May's" and "Might's" which means they are not predictions.

Of course I am not touching on the fact that they "predict" both sides of every possibility.  When you do that you can never be wrong.  That too invalidates anything they say.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...







I guess you forgot that the American Institute of Physics is a charter school for poor students who can't do math.  olfraud is probably one of their dropouts.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Kelly3Joe said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level  around the world. At the end of this century or  in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20  feet according to scientists .
> ...



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


United Nations climate change negotiations have failed to deliver an agreement on reducing future greenhouse gas emissions to levels that avoid dangerous climate change. This increases the possibility that global temperatures will rise by four degrees or more in the 21st Century, with potentially serious consequences for ecosystems and society. In this issue leading international scholars explore the likelihood of large climate changes, the potential impacts of these changes, and challenges involved in both avoiding high levels of warming, and in adapting should we fail to do so.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...




*LOL. Well, that is the best answer you can give, Walleyes. You are one stupid individual.*

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

Dedicated to the advancement of physics, AIP serves a federation of physical science societies, and provides leadership through its own programs and publications


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.



You've been shown so many times that it is obvious that you are fixated on a belief that doesn't rest on science or evidence and that probably can't be shaken no matter how much evidence is shoved in your face. You can't see it if your eyes are closed.

But OK, one more time....about 1:38 into this ten minute video...

*YouTube - This Year's Model*


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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



An article in their own magazine reviewed by their own members.  Some review process.  I did ask for credible as well.  That hardly makes the cut rocks; but the fact that you repeatedly reference this sort of tripe as evidence to support your position does explain much about you and the mind set required to hold a position such as yours.  

Thanks.


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.
> ...



You doofus.  Is that what you have been claiming was proof that CO2 can absorb and retain heat?  You really don't hav a clue do you.  First and foremost, that experiment is performed in a closed system which invalidates any inferrence that it may have anything to do with the open atmosphere of the earth.  The guy claiming that it in any way represents CO2 in an open system is no more than a huckster pulling the wool over your eyes via your own ignorance.

Because it is in a closed system, the only proof that is happening there is that one molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission spectrum of another CO2 molecule.  TThe system is closed and there is no where for the energy to go.  An emission spectrum is precisely the opposite of an absorption spectrum and as such, a molecule of a given gas can not absorb the emission spectrum of a molecule of the same gas.  In a closed system, it doesn't take long to run out of molecules capable of absorbing the transmitted light and transmission drops off very quickly.  There is no proof in that experiment of anything having to do with CO2 molecules in an open system.

I ask for some proof that CO2 can absorb and retain heat with perfect confidence thunder because no such evidence exists.  If it did, and were proveable, my position on AGW would be entirely different.  Of course the laws of physics would be different as well and I suppose we would be in a different universe.  Your experimental "evidence" isn't.  It is a side show and proves nothing about open systems.

Keep trying though.  It is always entertaining.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists. You just keep yapping with no referances of your own as refutation. We are to believe an ananomous poster on a message board over real scientists?


----------



## konradv (May 17, 2011)

But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation.  Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. 

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. 

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. 

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. 

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. 

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Is sea level rising?
> 
> There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
> 
> ...









This is one of many studies that refute your statement.

E-mail Abstract
Export RIS Citation
Permissions


Join AGU



Journal Services
 E-Alert Sign-Up
 RSS Feeds
 Cited By
 Scitopia
 Reference Tools
 Contact AGU


Bookmarks

Connotea

CiteULike

del.ico.us

BibSonomy


Keywords

&#8226;sea level change
&#8226;neural network

Index Terms

&#8226;Global Change: Sea level change
&#8226;Global Change: Oceans
&#8226;Oceanography: General: Climate and interannual variability



Abstract

Cited By (0)




JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2009JC005630 

Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks



Manfred Wenzel

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

Jens Schröter

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany


The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50&#8211;75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins. 




Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation.  Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.



So your contention is that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat.  Perpetual motion.  Excess energy with no additional work.  Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that if I set a heater in my living room that is capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter and then set a reflective surface in front of that heater, that the reflected heat from the heater will then raise the output of the heater beyond 1000 watts per square meter thus producing more energy than is coming from my wall socket?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists. You just keep yapping with no referances of your own as refutation. We are to believe an ananomous poster on a message board over real scientists?



Pointing to the weather somewhere on the planet is not science. You know that, right?


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists.



Thus far, I have been presented with no real science.  Your mantra certainly doesn't contain any real science, and the video from konradv is nothing more than a side show trick filmed by a huckster.  That is the point.  You have no real science to support your claim.  What you call real science doesn't even involve the scientific method.

Since by now it is abundantly clear that you don't have a clue as to what the scientific method is, here is a working definition.

scientific method -noun 
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested. 

Now by all means, provide the empirical material that proves the hypothesis.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation.  Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.
> ...






Yes, basically that is his claim.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



No, that's just the 'best' (but still very flawed) interpretation that a couple of idiots like you two can come up with when you're so totally ignorant about the whole subject. The greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact and carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Your denial of basic physics only highlights what politically motivated morons you are.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...






Describe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in your own words.   No cut and paste.  In your own words bucko.


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> No, that's just the 'best' (but still very flawed) interpretation that a couple of idiots like you two can come up with when you're so totally ignorant about the whole subject. The greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact and carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Your denial of basic physics only highlights what politically motivated morons you are.



Sorry guy, but the greenhouse effect is little more than a piss poor hypothesis that, to date, remains unsupported by any empirical evidence whatsoever as evidenced by the complete inability of any of you wackos to provide any observed, experimental proof to support the hypothesis.

I have asked you repeately to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 is able to absorb and retain energy in spite of the fact that its emission spectra is preciesly the opposite of its absorption spectra proving beyond doubt that it does not retain energy at all.

Care to describe the mechanism or is it, as I suspect, no more than an article of faith for you and the rest of the congregation?


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Describe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in your own words.   No cut and paste.  In your own words bucko.



You dont' really expect any of them to speak on the subject in their own words do you?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Is sea level rising?
> ...



Excellent, Walleyes, excellent. I like real science. So we have one group basing their estimates of the rate of rise by tidal gauges, and another using both tidal gauges and satellite altimitery. One finds a steady rate, the other a rate that is accelerating. Seems we need to look at other studies. So that is what we will do.


----------



## hendrickL (May 18, 2011)

I think it's true, we better be prepared.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2011)

hendrickL said:


> I think it's true, we better be prepared.



what do you think is true? that sea level is rising? or that sea level rise is accelerating? 

pretty much everyone agrees that there has been a small amount of increase in sea levels, just as pretty much everyone agrees that there has been a small amount of global temperature increase. of course the two go hand in hand. thermal expansion is the main cause of sea level rise.

when you say we need to be prepared, are you talking about the <1 foot rise per century track that we are on presently or are you talking about the exaggerated claims of Hansen or Gore or whomever that predict meters of rise?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Why? To further demonstrate what a clueless fool you are?

The 2nd Law is a statement about entropy that can be stated a number of ways but I'm sure the specific formulation you're fishing for states that heat always transfers from something hotter to something cooler. Some of the more idiotic and scientifically ignorant denier cult douche-bags imagine this means that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the warmer Earth but that just demonstrates how little they, or you, understand the physics involved.

It actually works like this. The sun warms the Earth and, in the natural course of things, the Earth and its atmosphere radiate away into space almost all of the heat that is received from the sun so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Pre-industrial levels of the main greenhouse gases served to keep the Earth about 33° C warmer than it would be without them. Greenhouse gases, like CO2, methane and water vapor, absorb some of the escaping infrared radiation and re-radiate it in all directions with about half going back towards the ground and half going up to be absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some of the energy escapes to space. Some of the absorbed infrared energy is also transfered through conduction to nearby oxygen and nitrogen molecules and warms the atmosphere. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer, like a blanket conserving body heat, and, as humans have pushed up CO2 levels by 40%, it is like adding another blanket and so we have global warming. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics entropic energy transfer is from the Sun to the Earth to the heat sink of empty space and the atmosphere acts as an insulator to retain some of heat that the Earth is constantly receiving from the sun.


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> It actually works like this. The sun warms the Earth and, in the natural course of things, the Earth and its atmosphere radiate away into space almost all of the heat that is received from the sun so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Pre-industrial levels of the main greenhouse gases served to keep the Earth about 33° C warmer than it would be without them.



You start losing it about there.  When you compare the daytime temperature of the earth to the daytime temperature of the moon which recieves roughly the same amount of solar energy per square meter that the earth does, it becomes abundantly clear that the atmosphere serves to keep us cool, not warm us.  

Secondly, we know that there are a great many pre industrial periods within the past half a million years or so which were considerably warmer than the present without higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  This alone makes claims of CO2 highly suspect.  The roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were both global and warmer than the present and both periods warmed more quickly than the present.  Again, this makes any claim that CO2 is to blame suspect.



RollingThunder said:


> Greenhouse gases, like CO2, methane and water vapor, absorb some of the escaping infrared radiation and re-radiate it in all directions with about half going back towards the ground and half going up to be absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some of the energy escapes to space. Some of the absorbed infrared energy is also transfered through conduction to nearby oxygen and nitrogen molecules and warms the atmosphere.



Couple of serious mistakes there.  First, oxygen is invisible to IR.  It has no capacity to absorb IR.  It is great at absorbing UV, but alas, can not absorb IR so no energy is transferred via CO2 to O2.

Your second crucial mistake is the fact that you don't understand that if any energy is being transferred from one gas to another, it is being transferred from nitrogen to CO2.  Nitrogen, unlike CO2 is not a trace gas in the atmosphere.  In fact, some 75% of the atmosphere is nitrogen.  As an absorber of IR, nitrogen is a couple of hundred times more potent than CO2 but like CO2, it has no capacity to trap or retain IR.  That being said, the sheer abundance of nitrogen would make its heat capacity many orders of magnitude greater than CO2 and therefore any transfer of energy would be from nitrogen to CO2 if such a thing were happening (which it is not).

Your third error is the simple understanding that energy the earth has absorbed from the sun is what warms the atmosphere.  The earth can not reabsorb energy it has emitted and be further warmed.  A passively heated object (the atmosphere) can not warm its source of heat (the earth) without the input of additional work.  



RollingThunder said:


> So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer, like a blanket conserving body heat, and, as humans have pushed up CO2 levels by 40%, it is like adding another blanket and so we have global warming.



The atmosphere keeps the earth from burning under the sun and like a blanket, slows the escape of heat during night time hours.  And just as a blanket can not multiply your body heat and give you a fever, the atmosphere can not multiply the heat the earth recieves from the sun.




RollingThunder said:


> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics entropic energy transfer is from the Sun to the Earth to the heat sink of empty space and the atmosphere acts as an insulator to retain some of heat that the Earth is constantly receiving from the sun.



Again, the atmosphere keeps the earth from burning during the day and slows the escape of heat during the night time hours.  You should somehow make yourself aware of the fact that slowing the escape of heat is an entirely different thing from warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

Bender, you are one silly fool. Sematics is certainly not your strong suit. 

You wish to argue the subject, go talk to the physicists who worked all of this out over a century ago. You can find how GHGs work on many differant sites. And your analysis is lacking, to say the least. I suggest you retake grade school science.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L01602, 4 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2005GL024826 

A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise
John A. Church

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Neil J. White

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr&#8722;1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr&#8722;2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise
E. Rignot

Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

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

I. Velicogna

Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

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

M. R. van den Broeke

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

A. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

J. Lenaerts

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Ice sheet mass balance estimates have improved substantially in recent years using a variety of techniques, over different time periods, and at various levels of spatial detail. Considerable disparity remains between these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties of each method, the lack of detailed comparison between independent estimates, and the effect of temporal modulations in ice sheet surface mass balance. Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years: one differencing perimeter loss from net accumulation, and one using a dense time series of time-variable gravity. We find excellent agreement between the two techniques for absolute mass loss and acceleration of mass loss. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr 2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr 2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr 2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr 2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

AGU: A 20th century acceleration of sea

A 20th century acceleration of sea&#8208;level rise in New Zealand

W. Roland Gehrels

School of Geography, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

Bruce W. Hayward

Geomarine Research, St. Johns, Auckland, New Zealand

Rewi M. Newnham

School of Geography, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

Katherine E. Southall

Department of Geography, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland


Sea levels in New Zealand have remained relatively stable throughout the past 7000 years, but salt&#8208;marsh cores from southern New Zealand show evidence of a recent rapid rise. To date and quantify this rise we present a proxy sea&#8208;level record spanning the past 500 years for Pounawea, southeastern New Zealand, based on foraminiferal analyses. Ages for ten sea&#8208;level index points are established from AMS14C, Pb concentrations, stable Pb isotopes, pollen markers, charcoal concentrations and 137Cs. Sea level was rising slowly (0.3 ± 0.3 mm yr&#8722;1) from AD 1500 to AD 1900, but during the 20th century the rate increased to 2.8 ± 0.5 mm yr&#8722;1, in agreement with instrumental measurements commencing in 1924. This is the first sea&#8208;level record from the southern hemisphere showing a significantly higher rate of sea&#8208;level rise during the 20th century as compared with preceding centuries.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

*And another article from the AGU;

*
Melting ice sheets becoming largest contributor to sea level rise


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It actually works like this. The sun warms the Earth and, in the natural course of things, the Earth and its atmosphere radiate away into space almost all of the heat that is received from the sun so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Pre-industrial levels of the main greenhouse gases served to keep the Earth about 33° C warmer than it would be without them.
> ...


You obviously 'lost it' big time quite a while ago.




wirebender said:


> When you compare the daytime temperature of the earth to the daytime temperature of the moon which recieves roughly the same amount of solar energy per square meter that the earth does, it becomes abundantly clear that the atmosphere serves to keep us cool, not warm us.


LOLOLOLOL....."_abundantly clear_" only to uneducated, scientifically ignorant retards like you, wiredup&bentover. That's idiotically and laughably wrong.

As is the rest of your nonsense. 






wirebender said:


> Secondly, we know that there are a great many pre industrial periods within the past half a million years or so which were considerably warmer than the present without higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  This alone makes claims of CO2 highly suspect.  The roman warm period and the medieval warm periods were both global and warmer than the present and both periods warmed more quickly than the present.  Again, this makes any claim that CO2 is to blame suspect.


LOLOLOL. "_We know_" obviously refers to you and your fleas, scabies and bedbugs (or, possibly, the other denier cult dingbats, although there doesn't seem to be much difference). But then most of what you imagine you 'know' is total bullshit anyway because you're so obviously severely retarded and dead ignorant.





RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouse gases, like CO2, methane and water vapor, absorb some of the escaping infrared radiation and re-radiate it in all directions with about half going back towards the ground and half going up to be absorbed and re-radiated again and again until some of the energy escapes to space. Some of the absorbed infrared energy is also transfered through conduction to nearby oxygen and nitrogen molecules and warms the atmosphere.
> ...


Are you incapable of reading simple words, numbnuts? I said that "some of the absorbed infrared energy is also transfered through *conduction* to nearby oxygen and nitrogen molecules". Do you even understand that heat = molecular motion and that when a molecule of CO2 absorbs some longwave radiation and increases its energy level, some of that energy will be transferred through conduction to neighboring molecules that don't themselves absorb infrared radiation.

The rest of your post is meaningless, irrelevant nonsense and isn't even worth taking any time to debunk. You are a clueless moron with no knowledge of science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

There are cities undersea off Cuba, the Caribbean, Japan, India and a host of other places on the planet. It means one of two things: the land fell of the sea rose.  If the land fell the wouldn't be much left except rubble, that means the sea must have rose.

Japan&#39;s Ancient Underwater "Pyramid" Mystifies Scholars

http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855

Windows Media Guide | Home




Since these cities date back before recorded time that cam only mean one thing,the SUV is far older than any of us suspect.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2011)

There are cities undersea off Cuba, the Caribbean, Japan, India and a host of other places on the planet. It means one of two things: either the land fell or the sea rose.  If the land fell there wouldn't be much left except rubble, that means the sea must have rose.

Japan's Ancient Underwater "Pyramid" Mystifies Scholars

Previously undiscovered ancient city found on Caribbean sea floor | Herald de Paris

Windows Media Guide | Home

Since these cities date back before recorded time that can only mean one thing, the SUV is far older than any of us suspect.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bender, you are one silly fool. Sematics is certainly not your strong suit.
> 
> You wish to argue the subject, go talk to the physicists who worked all of this out over a century ago. You can find how GHGs work on many differant sites. And your analysis is lacking, to say the least. I suggest you retake grade school science.






olfraud here's a little bit of advice.  Neither you nor trolling blunder can insult us enough to make us go away to avoid your juvenile insults.  We enjoy making you look like fools too much and more importantly we enjoy teaching those who wish to learn.

trolling blunder has alienated any who he might have won over by his ignorant insults (which we appreciate) and you did the same a long time ago, so if you wish to be more relevent I suggest you change your style.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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








No, the only ignorant moron with no clue of science is you.  Bender is well versed in it.  You on the other hand are merely an obnoxious troll with a vainglorious opinion of yourself not backed up by accomplishment.

Let us know when your mom finally kicks you out of the basement you live in.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, the only ignorant moron with no clue of science is you.  Bender is well versed in it.  You on the other hand are merely an obnoxious troll with a vainglorious opinion of yourself not backed up by accomplishment.
> 
> Let us know when your mom finally kicks you out of the basement you live in.



That's another one of your delusions, walleyed. You and wiredup&bentover have demonstrated a deep ignorance of science and the facts. I post scientific facts from actual working climate scientists and peer-reviewed science journals and you post nothing but misinformation and pseudo-science from denier cult blogs.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, the only ignorant moron with no clue of science is you.  Bender is well versed in it.  You on the other hand are merely an obnoxious troll with a vainglorious opinion of yourself not backed up by accomplishment.
> ...







Really?

Global Warming Effects: Seasonal Timing Shifts | Sustainablog

Who posted that link?  Oh yeah it was *YOU!*

What a clown.


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bender, you are one silly fool. Sematics is certainly not your strong suit.



And you remain unable to offer up any observed evidence to support your claims.



Old Rocks said:


> You wish to argue the subject, go talk to the physicists who worked all of this out over a century ago. You can find how GHGs work on many differant sites. And your analysis is lacking, to say the least. I suggest you retake grade school science.



Actually, I prefer to pay attention to modern physicists who state that the greenhouse hypothesis is a steaming pile of crap.  Want to see the published peer reviewed papers saying so?


----------



## wirebender (May 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL....."_abundantly clear_" only to uneducated, scientifically ignorant retards like you, wiredup&bentover. That's idiotically and laughably wrong.



Really?  Then explain how it is wrong.  The moon has no atmosphere and has a daytime temperature of over 250 degrees F.  The earth has an atmosphere and has a daytime temperature that is considerably lower.  If the atmosphere is not keeping the earth cool, then kindly explain what is.

The remainder of your non rebuttal is equal nonsense.

I am really interested in your explanation as to how our atmosphere warms us while the moon with no atmosphere during daylight hours is over 250 degrees F.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Yeah, I posted that link. A link to a good science blog with accurate scientific information that you can't refute, as I demonstrated on that thread. The difference, as I mentioned, is that your denier cult blogs are full of misinformation and pseudo-science.

I also have posted citations like this on just this thread. You haven't.

Post #330 - *Glaciers melting faster than originally thought: study* - a report on a study published in the journal *Nature Geoscience* that was posted on a major physics/general science news site *PhysOrg.com*.

*Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview* - the science web site of the *NORTH CASCADE GLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT*, founded in 1983 and directed by *Dr. Mauri S. Pelto, Professor of Environmental Science* at Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts, *who writes the section on Glacier and Ice Sheets for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Annual State of the Climate report*.

Post #238 - 
*Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation model* - Y. Tony Song, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; Frank Colberg, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research -  *JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH*, VOL. 116, C02020, 16 PP., 2011 doi:10.1029/2010JC006601

*Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets**, Purkey, Sarah G., Gregory C. Johnson, *Journal of Climate of the American Meteorological Society*, 23, 63366351. - doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1

*A 20th century acceleration in global sea&#8208;level rise* , Church, J. A. and N. J. White (2006), *Geophysical Research Letters*, 33 , L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

Post #219 - 
*NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record* - report from *the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration*

Post #196 - 
*SAARC Meteorological Research Center - The Maldives*

*National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)*

*Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study* - a report on a study published in the journal *Nature Geoscience* that was posted on a major physics/general science news site *PhysOrg.com*

....
There's more but that makes the point.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2011)

Ah, but those are scientists, Bender only gets his science from obese junkies on the radio.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You wish to argue the subject, go talk to the physicists who worked all of this out over a century ago. You can find how GHGs work on many differant sites. And your analysis is lacking, to say the least. I suggest you retake grade school science.
> ...



Sure, wiredup&bentover, I'll call your bluff. Show us all of these supposed "_peer reviewed papers_" by "_modern physicists_" that debunk the greenhouse effect. 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bender, you are one silly fool. Sematics is certainly not your strong suit.
> ...



Yes I do.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2011)




----------



## RollingThunder (May 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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



Well, the retard with the cartoon mentality is still playing with himself but I notice that ol' wiredup&bentover can't back up his lies with any evidence, as he claimed he could. As usual.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2011)

> Sea Level Update: More Upward Revision Found
> 
> 
> 
> ...



all of these data sets keep getting revised, and always in the same direction. up.

UC tipped their hand by delaying the updates so many interested spectators made sure the past info was archived, and the same thing is happening to other data sets that seem to change more often than Old Rocks' underwear (just teasing).

why dont the organizations involved ever post up the changes so that people can see the differences? why not list the adjustments, give the reasons, and show the difference pre and post. it would be a lot less suspicious than the large discrepancies we see from one version to another.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

In other words, the University of Colorado found some errors in their previous data, and corrected those errors. But the dingbat thought the errors should have gone the other way. 

Sorry 'bout that, old boy, reality often intrudes on one's daydreams.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In other words, the University of Colorado found some errors in their previous data, and corrected those errors. But the dingbat thought the errors should have gone the other way.
> 
> Sorry 'bout that, old boy, reality often intrudes on one's daydreams.




"Data"


Nobody cares about the data anymore s0n.......its 2011.







Maybe makes for some lame party discussion though..................


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In other words, the University of Colorado found some errors in their previous data, and corrected those errors. But the dingbat thought the errors should have gone the other way.
> 
> Sorry 'bout that, old boy, reality often intrudes on one's daydreams.



the problem with adding 0.3 mm per year per year is the starting point. before the sp you have to subtract 0.3 mm to even things out (unless you think the rebound only started 20 years ago). I guess the 30 mm per century 'adjustment' helps bring the unadjusted real sea rise more into line with the exaggerated predictions.


----------



## clanthar (May 28, 2011)

cow farts


----------



## lehr (May 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Well no, it appears they are not.  Surprise surprise.  And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists.    Poor oltrakarfraud.
> 
> worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)
> 
> ...



the whole world drills our oil in the gulf of mexico - amerika builds useless 10th. centure chi com windmills - the world laffs at amerika !


----------



## frazzledgear (May 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> But...but...I believe Al Gore. I...I..mean just because he admitted to lying a few times. I just know he was telling the truth about the oceans rising 20 feet.



I despise that man.  That man wouldn't tell the truth to save his own mother's life.  Since the day he stood before the NAACP while running for President and claimed his father lost his bid for re-election because of his support for civil rights, I knew NOTHING that came out of his mouth would be the truth.   And it hasn't.  He is a hardcore, skilled and PRACTICED liar of the first rank.  

His father LED the Senate Democrat filibuster trying to PREVENT the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   His father was a lifelong FILTHY DEMOCRAT RACIST and he died as one.  Since he was willing to stand up before a black audience and tell that whopper, I have no reason to believe the acorn didn't fall far from the tree and that he too, after talking about how much he ADMIRED his father is also a filthy racist at heart.  He is just more willing than the average politician to say whatever he thinks will get him votes even if it means lying about what his own father REALLY did and REALLY believed.

Let me see, Gore claims New York City would be under water in less than 20 years and that was several years ago -meaning sea levels should have already risen at least 7 feet since then.

But in fact sea levels have been rising for the past 14,000 years as the result of leaving the last major ice age.  That is what happens after leaving an ice age -and if sea levels were dropping, it would indicate moving towards another ice age. That rise has been linear at a rate of about 3.3 millimeters a year -or about 1 foot per CENTURY.  But the really bad news for that lying asshole Gore -that rate has actually SLOWED since 2004.   We are actually just a little bit overdue for another ice age which is the NORM on this planet -while the amount of time spent in the climate mankind has lived in is actually fleeting.  Geologically speaking of course.  Earth spends most of its time in one ice age or another and the fact the rise in sea levels indicates a slowing is probably an indication that the cycle between ice ages is just about at its peak and will (geologically) soon start swinging back the other way.  But man didn't cause earth to leave the last ice age -and he won't be the cause of it entering the next one either.  That gives the little scraps of life scrabbling on the surface a lot more POWER than they really have.  Man is NOTHING compared to forces of nature -that is so powerful that if all mankind died tomorrow, nature can and will remove the surface evidence we even existed in an amazing short period of time.  In spite of the insistence of the left, man isn't capable of destroying the planet which will survive anything we do and get on like we never existed.  We can only destroy ourselves.

And WHY is it people are still FALSELY claiming the hottest years on record were all in the last decade?  We now know that was a LIE.  It is a FRAUDULENT claim based on deliberately rigged calculations that were made by a team led by James Hansen -you know, the same guy who created the phony hysteria about the Y2K bug?   And we now know most of the hottest years on record happened before WWll.  And the single hottest year on record was in 1934 -long before any of this supposed "massive" build up of CO2 that is in reality not "massive" after all.    The fraud was proven by a Canadian statistician -who initially was trying to verify the data of global warming scientists only to discover one fraud after another -and also discovered that famous "hockey stick" chart was also a FRAUD.  Which everyone with any knowledge in climatology already knew indicated a huge error and was fraudulent right off the bat -because climate change never looks like a straight line in any direction under any circumstances -but a roller coaster.  Amazing that Hansen got a dramatic hockey stick straight line up though -but oops, it too turned out to be FRAUD and a deliberate one at that.  *And let's not forget this was done by the very same LYING ASS DELIBERATE FRAUD PUSHING SCAM ARTIST who publicly stated that all global warming deniers should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity".*

People are still repeating the claim that the arctic ice is rapidly melting with predictions about it being bare of ice in 20-30 years.  Turns out that melting was due to KNOWN cyclical weather patterns -a pattern that all scientists knew about but the dishonest saw as too good to pass up to promote their LIES.  When the cycle continued and the ice stopped thinning and started growing again -the liars scrambled claiming the new ice was somehow "thinner" and and therefore would vanish again as soon as it got warmer again.  Two trips to try and measure this "abnormal" ice had to end due to ice but in fact there is no abnormal melting/icing patterns going on at all.  It is still part of the same cycle of wind change that even the liars KNEW they would be lying when insisting it was due to warmer temperatures.  In reality it was due to the WIND blowing ice further into warmer waters -something that occurs in CYCLES.

Or how about Gore's LYING ASS claims about the polar bears he is STILL lying about!  Efforts to get him to admit his claims about them are wrong are met with more LIES.  Turns out his favorite picture of the stranded, desperate polar bear that EVERYONE has seen by now -is a total FAKE.  It was taken nearly ten years earlier, close to shore and NOT out to sea as Gore claimed -and was part of a documentary following the hunting habits of the polar bear.  Not a picture showing a bear stranded out to sea who was going to drown because the sliver of ice he was on was melting.   Polar bear populations have gone from about 18,000 to close to 27,000 over the past 40 years with a healthy breeding population.  In spite of that FACT, the US put the polar bear on the "endangered" list last year.  For POLITICAL reasons -not because its true.

How about the claims tree rings prove temperatures have risen dramatically WORLDWIDE?  The basis for this claim were measurements taken ONLY at a Siberian peninsula of just......wait for it.......12 trees.  TWELVE FUCKING TREES all located in the same spot and the global warming SCAM ARTISTS claimed tree rings proved there had been a dramatic rise in temperatures AROUND THE WORLD.  

*Come on you mindless liberal lemmings.  If global warming had been part of the political agenda of the right who pushed it nonstop, beat that drum -and then all this identical and nonstop fraud and corruption kept pouring out of it like pus, showing how the right has bastardized and corrupted science, willing to set back scientific advancement for as long as it took before the real facts were undeniable  -would you STILL be a dumb ass PATSY and insist that in spite of the nonstop PROOF this has been an orchestrated fraud perpetrated by the corrupt right, it is still all true anyway?  Really? *  If so you HAVE to be a real danger to yourself.

I think a hell of a lot of people belong in prison over this DELIBERATE FRAUD and the bastardization and politicization of science in the effort to pressure the entire world to worship at the altar of the leftwing extremist agenda.  The real question is who was scheduled to be the REAL beneficiaries of this?  Because the people behind this chose to sacrifice TRUTH and set back scientific advancement for as long as possible, hoping the truth would never come out in their lifetimes.  If you put a political agenda before TRUTH and HONEST SCIENCE FREE FROM BEING POLITICALLY HIJACKED - that makes you pretty fucking evil in my book.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > But...but...I believe Al Gore. I...I..mean just because he admitted to lying a few times. I just know he was telling the truth about the oceans rising 20 feet.
> ...



Just more nutjob delusional denier cult myths and lies. 

Not worth debunking really.... but just as an example....let's look at *just one sentence* in your braindead rant.

"_*And the single hottest year on record was in 1934 -long before any of this supposed "massive" build up of CO2 that is in reality not "massive" after all.*_"

1934 was one of the warmest year on record for the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet. Globally, 1934 was the 47th warmest year on record.

In November of 2009, USHCN version2 made a slight adjustment upward in U.S. mean temperature over the last decade, which puts 2006 and 1998 above 1934. Almost nil implication as far as global warming goes, just like the previous adjustment.

Global data: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Revised U.S. data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Denier cult myth - *1934 is the hottest year on record*
(excerpts)

The skeptic argument..._1934 - hottest year on record
"In August 2007, Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech)._

What the science says...*1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005 [update- 2010 is now tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record].*

Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?

NASA's "Y2K" glitch

Contrary to many reports, the error wasn't a Y2K bug but a mixup over data corrections with the NOAA. NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time-of-observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments). From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data.

USA temperature versus global temperature trends

What is often overlooked is *the temperature adjustments only applied to temperatures in 48 U.S. states*. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. *Thus this has had infinitesimal effect on global trends.*

The graph below (courtesy of Open Mind) compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.





Figure 1: Global temperature anomaly before (red squares) and after (black diamonds) NASA's "Y2K" corrections (Open Mind).

© Copyright 2011 John Cook

(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.)


And then there's this nonsense you pulled out of your ass:
"_*...this supposed "massive" build up of CO2 that is in reality not "massive" after all.*_"

CO2 levels in our atmosphere are currently at 393ppm, which is about a 40% increase over pre-industrial levels.

*Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

*The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260&#8211;280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2010 [393 now] and rose by 1.9 ppm/yr during 2000&#8211;2009. Carbon dioxide is...a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect. The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.
*


***


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Wait a second, 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 and you throw that out because "the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet"
but a killer Tornado in one city in one of those lower 48 states means AGW is for real?

Seriously?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > But...but...I believe Al Gore. I...I..mean just because he admitted to lying a few times. I just know he was telling the truth about the oceans rising 20 feet.
> ...



Are you and BiPolar cousins?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bender, you are one silly fool. Sematics is certainly not your strong suit.
> ...



Still waiting, dingbat, still waiting.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait a second, 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 and you throw that out because "the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet"
> but a killer Tornado in one city in one of those lower 48 states means AGW is for real?
> 
> Seriously?



*** Strawman Alert ***

No, dimwit, nobody says that. Nothing was "_thrown out_", all the data is  till part of the record but it just isn't very significant when talking about *global* warming.

Also no one claims that one tornado in one city means anything, but a widespread increase over time in the number and severity of extreme weather events worldwide, as we have been seeing and as climate scientists have been predicting would happen, is another pretty good confirmation that the climate is changing. 

The US tornado season usually happens in the spring and lasts through July with May and June being the peak months. So we're still in the middle of it with months to go and it is already one of the worst on record. Let's see what happens by the end of summer.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Mad About The News, U.S. weather extremes show 'new normal' climate

Amplify&#8217;d from Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American


U.S. weather extremes show &#8216;new normal&#8217; climate A child&#8217;s doll sits among the ruins of homes badly damaged in April 27&#8217;s deadly tornados in Tuscaloosa, Alabama May 2, 2011. REUTERS/Lee Celano  

* &#8220;Global weirding&#8221; seen in violent storms


* More frequent so-called 100-year floods


* Global cost of natural disasters escalating


WASHINGTON, May 18 (Reuters) - Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a &#8220;new normal&#8221; of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.


&#8220;It&#8217;s a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we&#8217;re seeing,&#8221; climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.


&#8220;We are used to certain conditions and there&#8217;s a lot going on these days that is not what we&#8217;re used to, that is outside our current frame of reference,&#8221; Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.


An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.


Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as an factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.


----------



## RWatt (May 29, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> But in fact sea levels have been rising for the past 14,000 years as the result of leaving the last major ice age.  That is what happens after leaving an ice age -and if sea levels were dropping, it would indicate moving towards another ice age. That rise has been linear at a rate of about 3.3 millimeters a year -or about 1 foot per CENTURY.



The rise hasn't been linear. The bulk of the sea level rise, of over 100 meters, happened between about 14,000 and 7,000 years ago. Since then, since the dawn of human civilization, sea level has risen very slowly compared to that previous period and compared to recent sea level rise.



> But the really bad news for that lying asshole Gore -that rate has actually SLOWED since 2004.



Sea levels are about 15-20mm higher than they were back in 2004.



> Earth spends most of its time in one ice age or another and the fact the rise in sea levels indicates a slowing is probably an indication that the cycle between ice ages is just about at its peak and will (geologically) soon start swinging back the other way.



The trend since 2004 simply isn't significant enough to bear on the question of another ice age. Another ice age isn't expected to happen naturally for thousands of years.



> But man didn't cause earth to leave the last ice age -and he won't be the cause of it entering the next one either.



We might very well prevent the next one though.



> People are still repeating the claim that the arctic ice is rapidly melting with predictions about it being bare of ice in 20-30 years.  Turns out that melting was due to KNOWN cyclical weather patterns -a pattern that all scientists knew about but the dishonest saw as too good to pass up to promote their LIES. When the cycle continued and the ice stopped thinning and started growing again -the liars scrambled claiming the new ice was somehow "thinner" and and therefore would vanish again as soon as it got warmer again.



Arctic ice continues downwards and you might not have to wait 20-30 years. It might be gone in summer this decade.



> It is still part of the same cycle of wind change that even the liars KNEW they would be lying when insisting it was due to warmer temperatures.  In reality it was due to the WIND blowing ice further into warmer waters -something that occurs in CYCLES.



Thinner ice, caused by longer melting season due to higher temperatures in the arctic, is more prone to being pushed around by wind. Arctic sea ice melt during summer is affected by the ice conditions at the start of the season - thinner ice melts down more easily - and also by weather conditions that occur during the melt season. Some weather patterns accelerate ice melt, others slow it down.

[quote[Polar bear populations have gone from about 18,000 to close to 27,000 over the past 40 years with a healthy breeding population.  In spite of that FACT, the US put the polar bear on the "endangered" list last year.  For POLITICAL reasons -not because its true.[/QUOTE]

Polar bear numbers were artificially suppressed by hunting. The increase in the polar bear population was due to hunting restrictions being put in place. However that tells us nothing about how polar bears will cope with arctic ice declining and the arctic warming up. Not only is there less sea ice in summer months now, but other animals are breaking north as the climate up there warms.



> How about the claims tree rings prove temperatures have risen dramatically WORLDWIDE?  The basis for this claim were measurements taken ONLY at a Siberian peninsula of just......wait for it.......12 trees.



Even studies that don't use tree rings show the recent global temperature rise is dramatic.


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait a second, 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 and you throw that out because "the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet"
> but a killer Tornado in one city in one of those lower 48 states means AGW is for real?
> 
> Seriously?



if the USA was warming faster than the rest of the world you certainly wouldnt be hearing the 2% excuse. instead you would be told that the USA has the most weather stations, with the best equipment and data collectors. and it would be true. 

but the USA isnt warming as much, the sea levels arent rising as much, etc, etc, and it is more convenient to say it is just a small portion of the world rather than the best measured and analyzed.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 29, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Im going to keep it simple...
> 
> I have lived on the coast all my life, and the beach is still in the same place as it was when I was a little bitty boy



me too.  The point hasn't gotten skinnier or wider.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a second, 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 and you throw that out because "the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet"
> ...



Uh huh

Meanwhile the rest of us are still waiting for those Cat 5 hurricanes and for one single lab experiment that shows how a 60PPM increase in CO2 is responsible for any of it


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Like most myopic rightwingnut Americans, you seem to think that the world begins and ends at our borders. A couple of examples that you've never heard of.

_*Cyclone Nargis was a strong tropical cyclone that caused the worst natural disaster in the recorded history of Myanmar.[1] The cyclone made landfall in the country on May 2, 2008, causing catastrophic destruction and at least 138,000 fatalities.[2][3] The Labutta Township alone was reported to have 80,000 dead, with about 10,000 more deaths in Bogale. There were around 55,000 people missing and many other deaths were found in other towns and areas, although the Burmese government's official death toll may have been underreported, and there have been allegations that they stopped updating the death-toll after 138,000 to minimize political fallout. The feared 'second wave' of fatalities from disease and lack of relief efforts never materialized.[4] Damage was estimated at over US$10 billion, which made it the most damaging cyclone ever recorded in this basin.[5]* _

_*Cyclone Sidr was the strongest named cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. The fourth named storm of the 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, Sidr formed in the central Bay of Bengal, and quickly strengthened to reach peak 1-minute sustained winds of 260 km/h (160 mp/h), which would make it a Category-5 equivalent tropical cyclone on the Saffir-Simpson Scale.[2] The storm eventually made landfall in Bangladesh on November 15, 2007. The storm caused large-scale evacuations.[3] 3,447 deaths were blamed on the storm.[4] Save the Children estimated the number of deaths to be between 5,000 and 10,000, while the Red Crescent Society reported on November 18 that the number of deaths could be up to 10,000.[5] International groups pledged US$95 million to repair the damage,[6] which was estimated at $1.7 billion (2007 USD).[6]
*_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



And a 60PPM increase in CO2 did that? 

Or was it far less than that?

We didn't have that last year and this year we added only 4PPM of CO2, so are you claiming that a 4PPM increase in CO2 causes Killer Cyclones?

Again, the lower 48 states don't count....but a Cyclone in the Bay of Bengal and we all have to shut off Western Civilization for fear of Mo' n Betta' Global Warming

You Warmers are a Cult


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm before 1800 to about 393ppm now. That is an increase of about 113ppm, or about a 40% increase over pre-industrial levels. And yes, that is what is causing the current abrupt warming and climate changes, including stronger storms and more rain.







CrusaderFrank said:


> Again, the lower 48 states don't count....but a Cyclone in the Bay of Bengal and we all have to shut off Western Civilization for fear of Mo' n Betta' Global Warming


You're really confused, crustyfrankfurter, as usual. You were the one who claimed there hadn't been any major storms; I was simply pointing out that there have been some extreme storms around the world in the last decade, not claiming that those storms are any kind of ultimate 'proof' of anything.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a second, 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 and you throw that out because "the lower 48 states of the USA only, which is less than 2% of the entire planet"
> ...



Ian, you are turning into a serious wingnut. Look at your avatar. It is generated by the readings of satellites that measure the temperature of the troposphere of the whole world, excepting the polar areas.

Guess what, as anyone can see the direction of the temperature is definatly up.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

In just the last eleven months, there have been far more than normal extreme weather events worldwide.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 31, 2011)

Rocks, I am not sure I blame many if any of the extreme events on Global Warming.

Just doesnt seem like Hurricanes care that much about a matched two degree increase in the temperature of the air over Cuba and the water around it.

More I watch meterology the more I am interested in urban/suburban heat islands affecting the weather.

Talk receeding ice and I get interested.  Remind me my kids have to live on the planet we leave behind and I get interested.   

Being a conservative stick in the mud I do believe in greenhouse gasses and pollution controlls.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2011)

You cannot blame any one event on the warming. It does not work that way. It is like loading dice. Just increases the likelyhood of extreme weather.


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2011)

IanC said:


> > Sea Level Update: More Upward Revision Found
> >
> >
> >
> ...



bump so that people realize this was a story before it appeared on FoxNews


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2011)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/vers-diff-may-2011-550x371.png[/IMG]
> ...



LOLOL...it wasn't a 'story' before or after it appeared on FauxNews and it is even more trivial and meaningless coming from your denier cult blog. Faux's own article highlights just how spun up and distorted the story you're pushing is. Some idiot lawyer from the fossil fuel industry sponsored Heartland Institute that pushes their global warming denial bullshit, comes along and lays out another bullshit scenario that plays on dimwits' paranoia and ignorance of science while the scientists plainly and simply explain the facts of the matter that debunk the lawyer's distortions and lies.

Some excerpts from the *FauxNews article*:

"*Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy&#8230; [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.*"


Another sign of how phony this joker and FauxNews' nonsense is, he actually tries to use Al Gore as an argument instead of contesting the actual science. The dumbass lawyer even repeats the moronic denier cult myth about Gore's Montecito home which is actually over a thousand feet about sea level in the hills. It is an 'ocean view' house, not an 'ocean front' house as the denier cult propaganda sources 'reported'. But FauxNews, eternally bereft of fact-checkers, put this buffoons idiotic lie at the very end of their article to give it 'final-word' prominence. Here's this stooges 'logic':

"*When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that&#8217;s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn&#8217;t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California.*"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



Faking data =/= science, hmmmkay?

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2011)

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.

Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



In just the last eleven months, there have been far more than normal extreme weather events worldwide.[/QUOTE]

So? Is this predicted by the hypothesis you never post but have tons of fake data to back up?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today
> 
> Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.
> 
> Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.



Expressed mathematically we get the following:

ClimateGate + Hide the Decline + Fake Sea Level data = Warmers are Liars


----------



## konradv (Jun 20, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Expressed mathematically we get the following:
> 
> ClimateGate + Hide the Decline + Fake Sea Level data = Warmers are Liars



I like,  Einstein + Frank = Einstein.


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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



not a story? hahaha. 

let's look at the timeline. tide gauges show a small and steady increase for 100 yrs, then satellites are put up and find double the rate during a warming trend. global warming is declared settled science in 2001. then the oceans stop warming as much as the models predict, the oceans stop rising as predicted, people start noticing and global warming becomes climate change. the 'play' in the measuring system is used up to support the models. 2010 is found to be tied for the warmest ever but the ocean temps and levels just arent cooperating. data updates are too embarrassing so they stop being released. what can be done?

obviously a new website must be prepared with the necessary corrections and adjustments! and so it came to pass.


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2011)

while I take Stephen Goddard's site with a grain of salt, here is an example of the subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of the satellite data before the latest round of 'hide the decline.
Hiding The Decline In Sea Level | Real Science

coloured to distract





coloured to make Envisat visible





Envisat plotted to line up with other data instead of starting high before dropping





I am not saying this is fraud, just suspiciously convenient


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2011)

IanC said:


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


Yeah, your wacked out 'denier cult timeline' that is idiotic and mistaken.





IanC said:


> tide gauges show a small and steady increase for 100 yrs, then satellites are put up and find double the rate during a warming trend. global warming is declared settled science in 2001. then the oceans stop warming as much as the models predict, the oceans stop rising as predicted, people start noticing and global warming becomes climate change. the 'play' in the measuring system is used up to support the models. 2010 is found to be tied for the warmest ever but the ocean temps and levels just arent cooperating. data updates are too embarrassing so they stop being released. what can be done?


More of your usual mindless drivel, lies and mistaken nonsense. Please post a citation to 2001 official 'Declaration of Settled Science' announcement you mention. The oceans did not stop warming. Some instrumentation calibration problems gave that impression for a while but further studies corrected the issues and revealed that the oceans have continued to warm. The oceans have continued to rise at the late twentieth century rate of about 3.3mm per year. Both of the terms "global warming" and "climate change" have been is use for decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on *Climate Change* was established in 1988. Last year was tied with 2005 as the warmest on record and the data on ocean temperatures and sea level rise is in accord and also reflect the warming trend. Data updates are still being released from all of the usual research centers.

As usual, you post some lies from a denier cult blog that have nothing to do with the scientific reality.

_*Global temperatures were 10th warmest on record for May*
NOAA
June 16, 2011

Global surface temperature Anomalies - May 2011.

The globe experienced the 10th warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, as the climate phenomenon La Niña ended its 2011 cycle. The Arctic sea ice extent was the third smallest extent for May on record.

Global temperature highlights:  May

    * Last months combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was the 10th warmest on record for May at 59.50F (15.30 C), which is 0.90 F (0.50 C) above the 20th century average of 58.6 F (14.8 C). The margin of error associated with this temperature is +/- 0.13 F (0.07 C).
    * Separately, the global land surface temperature was 1.31 F (0.73 C) above the 20th century average of 52.0 F (11.1 C), which was the seventh warmest May on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.25 F (0.14 C).
    * *The global ocean surface temperature was 0.74 F (0.41 C) above the 20th century average of 61.3 F (16.3 C), making it the 11th warmest May on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.07 F (0.04 C). The warmth was most pronounced in most of the central and western Pacific, most of the Atlantic, and much of the mid-latitude southern ocean regions.*

Global temperature highlights: March  May

    * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March  May 2011 was 0.95 F (0.53 C) above the 20th century average of 56.7 F (13.7 C), making it the 10th warmest on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.14 F (0.08 C).
    * The worldwide land surface temperature was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average of 46.4 F (8.1 C)the 10th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.27 F (0.15 C).
    * *The global ocean surface temperature for March  May was 0.70 F (0.39 C) above the 20th century average of 61.0 F (16.1 C) and was the 11th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/-0.70 F (0.39 C). The warmth was most pronounced across the central Pacific Ocean, the eastern and equatorial Atlantic, and the mid-latitude southern oceans.*

Global temperature highlights: Year-to-date

    * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year to date (January 2011  May 2011) was 0.86 F (0.48 C) above the 20th century average of 55.5 F (13.1 C), making it the 12th warmest on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.16 F (0.09 C).
    * The year-to-date worldwide land surface temperature was 1.33 F (0.74 C) above the 20th century average  the 15th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/- 0.36 F (0.20 C).
    * *The global ocean surface temperature for the year to date was 0.68 F (0.38 C) above the 20th century average and was the 11th warmest such period on record. The margin of error is +/-0.07 F (0.04 C). *_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2011)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Expressed mathematically we get the following:
> ...



Day 22, still no theory, but tons of fake data to prove ManMade Global Warming.

Priceless


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What kind of delusional nonsense are you babbling about now, CraaazyFrank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."

Another Warmer caught faking data to support the "ManMade Global Warming" Scam


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

*"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."*

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for _you_, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

"The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the *GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.*"

What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group

Translation: We just made it up.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...









Prove it.   The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from the initiation of warming till there is an observed increase in CO2.  The Medieval Warming Period was around 800 years ago.   It is just as likely (if not more so based on the empirical data we do have) that the CO2 increase today is a product of the MWP.

But that would be science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Things seem "_just as likely_" to you, walleyedretard, because you're so clueless and completely ignorant about the scientific facts. Isotope analysis shows that the source of the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels.

*Isotopic Fingerprints*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



So what?

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that a 100PPM increase in CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Climate.

None.

Not one single experiment.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...










Yo Thunder..........I heard that guys who are perpetually angst really like the big butted women.............

Here ya go s0n..............


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's your retarded delusion, CraaaaazyFrank, but it has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






All that site tells us is the predominant CO2 is carbon 12 or 13 and not 14.  It makes the claim that man is the source yet has no data to support it.  Mans yearly contribution to the entire planets CO2 budget is less then 5%.  What evidence do they use to support their contention?


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Please show us then, the peer reviewed experiment where a 200ppm increase in the atmosphere will cause the temp increase claimed.  Not a computer model, but a real empirical experiment.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



OK, retards, here you go.

Here's one that a teacher designed that you can do yourselves with fairly simple and inexpensive equipment. Since you're both idiots and don't trust actual scientists, your only real 'peers' would be other idiots like yourselves, so do it yourselves.

"*I ended up designing a very simple experiment that Ive used in my astronomy labs since then. Using two 2-liter bottles and a couple of cans of Coca-Cola, I create two environments in the bottles. In one bottle, I pour the Coke in and agitate it within the bottle. In the other case, I agitate the Coke and remove the carbonation before pouring it in. This creates two environments that are identical with the exception that one has nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, and the other has a carbon-dioxide atmosphere. Then, you stopper them and put the two bottles in the sunlight with a thermometer in the stopper to measure the rise in temperature. My classes have consistently obtained results that show the carbon dioxide atmosphere goes up a couple of degrees higher than the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere.*"

Assuming (good bet) that you're far too retarded to actually do this experiment, here's some other experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

*A TEST OF THE EFFECT OF INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE ON THE THERMAL PROPERTIES OF AIR*
Department of Geology - Centenary College of Louisiana


*The Greenhouse Effect*
Practical Chemistry


*Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect*


*Creating a greenhouse gas*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo]YouTube - &#x202a;CO2 experiment&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


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






Read what I requested again.  You clearly don't understand what I asked.  i want to see an experiment that shows a 200ppm increase in global CO2 will do what you all claim.  I don't need yet another example of the Ideal Gas Laws in action (which is what these people are doing).   Maybe you need to take a chemistry class to figure out exactly what they are doing?


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2011)

I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?

anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?
> 
> anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?








Certainly makes sense.


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2011)

still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?
> 
> surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.
> 
> ...







It's all they've got Ian.  Even the US Supreme court has figured that out now.  The Supremes ruling is the beginning of the end for this crap.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 26, 2011)

IanC said:


> I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?
> 
> anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?



On average I would expect more humid spots to be hotter yes


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 26, 2011)

IanC said:


> still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?
> 
> surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



*Shit. Even this old millwright knows the answer to that one. *

The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation

The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation 
 The vaporization curves of most liquids have similar shape. The vapour pressure steadily increase as the temperature increases. A good approach is to find a mathematical model for the pressure increase as a function of temperature. Experiments showed that the pressure P, enthalpy of vaporization, DHvap, and temperature T are related, 
P = A exp (- DHvap / R T) 
where R (= 8.3145 J mol-1 K-1) and A are the gas constant and unknown constant. This is known as the Clausius- Clapeyron equation. If P1 and P2 are the pressures at two temperatures T1 and T2, the equation has the form: 
     P1    DHvap    1     1
ln (---) = ----  (--- - ---)
     P2     R      T2    T1

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation allows us to estimate the vapor pressure at another temperature, if the vapor pressure is known at some temperature, and if the enthalpy of vaporization is known.

*About 7% more water vapor can be held for every 1 degree C. That is why even in the bone dry desert where the air has a humidity in the single digits in the daytime, at night the temperture drops, and there is dew on the ground in the morning.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?
> ...



Sure, Walleyes, sure. The SP is going to stop the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Going to stop the precipitation events on the Missouri at present, and stop the flooding. Put out the fires in the Southwest. Sure, Walleyes, sure.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2011)

so two votes for more humid being hotter. any more votes out there?

has anyone tried looking for examples?


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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






The fires started by illegal aliens, and made worse by forest mismanagement?  Those fires?  Or the advancing glaciers worldwide?  Or the recovering Arctic and Antarctic sea ice?  As far as the "precipitation events" (what a laughable term) they happen more frequently when its cold.  Not warm....but once again that's science...something you are unqualified to speak on.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> YouTube - &#x202a;CO2 experiment&#x202c;&rlm;



Pretty good experiment thunder.  Proves very convincingly that one molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 moleucle. I believe it was IanC that I mentioned that fact to and he questioned the validity of the statment.  Maybe you should point that experiment out to him.  Of course, that has nothing to do with warming, but hey, hucksters are what they are.  

You have to wonder whether the guy in the video actually believed he was proving that CO2 is warming the atmosphere, in which case, he can't be very good at his job if his job involves anything like the experiment; or if he knew he was perpetrating a fraud and was merely giving hand wringing warmist hysterics something they might be able to use to fool someone else with.  My bet is that he is a koolaid drinker himself and really doesn't know that he has done no more than prove that CO2 emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - &#x202a;CO2 experiment&#x202c;&rlm;
> ...




hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2011)

http://atmo.tamu.edu/class/atmo251/251Ch6.ppt#257,2,Satellite Thermal Sounders

here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?

edit- sorry I meant to say _still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?_


----------



## wirebender (Jun 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?



You didn't notice that he turned on the CO2 to the chamber after the candle was lit and didn't turn it off?  As the chamber filled with CO2, it soon reached a saturation point where no emission spectra could reach the camera lens.  Or do you really believe that the CO2 in the chamber actually absorbed ALL of the radiant energy of the candle and could continue to absorb and retain all of the energy from the candle indefinately?  Is that what you believe you were seeing?  

That experiment is very basic hucksterism.  If you can be fooled by that, then I am not surprised that you are in the lukewarmer camp.

The experiment had no bearing on CO2 in the atmosphere and proved nothing about the climate other than one CO2 molecule emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.  What do you suppose that fact has to do with climate change and the hypotheses relating it to CO2?


----------



## wirebender (Jun 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?
> 
> edit- sorry I meant to say _still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?_



Yes.  You just observed evidence of it if you looked at the video and still don't believe the evidence of your eyes, and then you link to a power point presentation from who knows where with no reference at all as proof otherwise?  I am sure that if you search the topic you will find others (perhaps even scientists) who will say that CO2 emits and absorbs at the same wavelength.  That doesn't, however, change the observational evidence of the video that proves that it doesn't.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2011)

[ QUOTE=wirebender;3795327]





IanC said:


> hahaha, you are a wacko. the only thing that experiment shows is that CO2 scatters some wavelengths of light coming off the candle. didnt we already know that?



You didn't notice that he turned on the CO2 to the chamber after the candle was lit and didn't turn it off?  As the chamber filled with CO2, it soon reached a saturation point where no emission spectra could reach the camera lens.  Or do you really believe that the CO2 in the chamber actually absorbed ALL of the radiant energy of the candle and could continue to absorb and retain all of the energy from the candle indefinately?  Is that what you believe you were seeing?  

That experiment is very basic hucksterism.  If you can be fooled by that, then I am not surprised that you are in the lukewarmer camp.

The experiment had no bearing on CO2 in the atmosphere and proved nothing about the climate other than one CO2 molecule emits radiation in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.  What do you suppose that fact has to do with climate change and the hypotheses relating it to CO2?[/QUOTE]

the experiment is hucksterism. the false colour palette given to the IR camera is set to fool people into thinking that it is visible light they are looking at. some wavelegths were scattered but there were others that continued to shine through. obvious enough. what isnt obvious or logical are your conclusions drawn from the experiment.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2011)

[ QUOTE=wirebender;3795391]





IanC said:


> here is a slide from a college class. still think that CO2 cant emit the wavelength it absorbs?
> 
> edit- sorry I meant to say _still think that CO2 cant absorb the wavelength it emits?_



Yes.  You just observed evidence of it if you looked at the video and still don't believe the evidence of your eyes, and then you link to a power point presentation from who knows where with no reference at all as proof otherwise?  I am sure that if you search the topic you will find others (perhaps even scientists) who will say that CO2 emits and absorbs at the same wavelength.  That doesn't, however, change the observational evidence of the video that proves that it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

are you really that dense? I posted a slide from a lecture on atmospheric measuring to directly refute your statement that CO2 CANNOT emit the same radiation that it absorbs. that you make such statements leads me to infer that you are self taught in these areas with large gaps and misunderstandings. according to your statements satellite measurements could not be made. it is a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths, therefor you do not have even the basic understanding of physics. can I make myself any clearer? you think you are lecturing the message board on physics but in reality you are a pathetic joke.

I apologize to the other readers. I do not like making unkind posts and usually avoid doing so.


----------



## wirebender (Jun 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> are you really that dense? I posted a slide from a lecture on atmospheric measuring to directly refute your statement that CO2 CANNOT emit the same radiation that it absorbs. that you make such statements leads me to infer that you are self taught in these areas with large gaps and misunderstandings.



Really?  I believe the misunderstanding is all yours.  Your reference was nothing more than a slide from a powerpoint presentation from who knows where.  Do you simply accept the statement because some one told you?  Here, have a look, and this is from the warmist camp.

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "_What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."_

They release exactly the same amount of energy but at a lower wavelength.



IanC said:


> according to your statements satellite measurements could not be made.



You are aware, aren't you, that air is mostly invisible to IR?  Exactly how much CO2 do you think might have to be in the atmosphere to actually interfere with satellite measurements?



IanC said:


> it is a basic concept of physics that molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths, therefor you do not have even the basic understanding of physics. can I make myself any clearer? you think you are lecturing the message board on physics but in reality you are a pathetic joke.



Some molecules do, some don't.  GHG molecules (for the most part) don't.  I believe it is your own basic misunderstandings that led you to join the lukewarmers camp.  The pathetic joke is that so many people have been taken in to one degree or another by the warmist propaganda.  To date, you have not moved even an angstrom closer to proving me wrong and yet, you have now started calling names.  You still haven't shown any problem at all with the claims I have made with regard to EM fields and thier propagation and instead jump on this issue of GHG emission spectra which really doesn't make a whole lot of difference with regard to the hypothesis put forward by warmists.  It amounts to little more than complaining about punctuation and as you can see, I was quite correct in my assertion.



IanC said:


> I apologize to the other readers. I do not like making unkind posts and usually avoid doing so.



Don't worry.  You didn't hurt my feelings.

One other tidbit.  CO2 can emit IR INTRAmolecularly at 15um in addition to intermolecularly while some other so called greenhouse molecules can not do this particular trick.  The fact that it can radiate intramolecullarly as well as intermolecullarly makes it a more efficient "scatterer" of IR than some other molecules.  Far from making it a heat trapping molecule, this extra "trick" means that it radiates (read dissipates) IR more efficiently.


----------

