# 2011 global temperature thread



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2010)

here we will watch the global temperature from all the temperature data ranging from the noaa, Nasa giss, UAH, RSS, ect. Cool or warm....

I think January 2011 will be 3rd for Giss and 4th for noaa, 5th for UAH.

On the other hand I think 2011 could start out for the first couple of months within the top 3-5 range for all the global temperature. But Once we get to May I feel that we will go into a moderate like ENSO...This will remain so throughout the rest of the year getting us into the top two or three warmest years within the last 130 years.

This thread is for both warmers and coolers.

Noaa http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

giss http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

UAH http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


----------



## westwall (Dec 25, 2010)

Personally I think all the temperature monitors are suspect.  GISS is a joke.  NOAA is not much better, UAH at least makes an attempt but Spencer admitted that the satellite data is suspect.

In the end though it honestly doesn't matter.  We are seeing the second year in a row where the winter temps have been far colder than was predicted by the best "consensus scientists on the planet" so their opinions rally don't hold much water anymore.

Piers Corbyn and others like him accurately predicted last winters record cold and they predicted this years.  More troubling is Corbyn has predicted that this could go on for the next 20 years or even a little longer.  So I'm going to follow Corbyns lead and say the temps are going to continue cold for the next 20 years or so.

And it is all natural.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2010)

westwall said:


> Personally I think all the temperature monitors are suspect.  GISS is a joke.  NOAA is not much better, UAH at least makes an attempt but Spencer admitted that the satellite data is suspect.
> 
> In the end though it honestly doesn't matter.  We are seeing the second year in a row where the winter temps have been far colder than was predicted by the best "consensus scientists on the planet" so their opinions rally don't hold much water anymore.
> 
> ...



Westwall, It's hard to believe that a lie of this scale could be happening if it was occurring.  If global warming is proven to be a fraud then all our temperature data has been screwed with to the point that we may never have had a record that is trustworthy and would need to start over again. A trillion dollar scam....The skeptics argue a case of fraud and it is all a lie, but can they prove that the arctic has not warmed and that the theory that this air could be caused by a shift within the weather pattern as the pro global warmers say? And since the pro global warmers have nearly total control over all temperature data then how would we know one way or the other? 

No data shows a cooling trend and being such it is controled by the scienctist that are pro global warming then we wouldn't know if a full fledged ice age was coming either way. 

It is hard for me to wrap my head around such treason and fraud if that was the case. Most of science would be damaged for a long time. I'm just going to assume for the time being that there is slightly more truthfulness and honor within science then this. To think otherwise would believe that the whole system has swirled down the crapper and outright treason throughout the scientific community and political alike is occurring.

It is my belief that the forcing of co2 is much less then any of these scienctist would like us to believe. We're following A1F1 or worst case for co2 over the last 5 years and no where near even seeing the middle ground warming even based on the data supplied by the giss and noaa. I call into question just how strong of a green house co2 really is...We will see. Now saying we're seeing now warming at all or even cooling is yet to be proved...I believe some warming is occurring. Using the noaa and giss data doesn't show a huge increase over 1990-1999, but of a moderation of the temperature being each year hits close to the other, but doesn't beat it by a large amount, which helps up the avg, but is not a sign of a increase of the warming. Our friends badly need 2010 to be number 1 and maybe 2012 beating it by a larger a mount to prove that the warming is occurring faster...

Yes the solar output from our star has been decreasing and could be a case for those prediction of such cooling, but how would we know?  Who knows because all temperature data says otherwise...Be it fraud or that the earth maybe warming up...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2010)

*It is my belief that the forcing of co2 is much less then any of these scienctist would like us to believe. We're following A1f` or worst case for co2 over the last 5 years and no where near even seeing the middle ground warming even based on the data supplied by the giss and noaa. I call into question just how strong of a green house co2 really is...We will see. Now saying we're seeing now warming at all or even cooling is yet to be proved...I believe some warming is occurring. Using the noaa and giss data doesn't show a huge increase over 1990-1999, but of a moderation of the temperature being each year hits close to the other, but doesn't beat it by a large amount, which helps up the avg, but is not a sign of a increase of the warming. Our friends badly need 2010 to be number 1 and maybe 2012 beating it by a larger a mount to prove that the warming is occurring faster...*

Making this post to show what I mean...The reason last decade was warmer then 1990-1999 was because every year is close to each other near the peak, which avgs much higher. This can only get so far and if we don't have a lot of record years in this decade then the rate of warming will slow to craw. 

Chart A=top chart shows what is occurring
Chart B=Bottom shows what supposed to be occurring, with a increase or a compounding of the warming(Speeding up of the warming).

This shows us following A1F1...But the warming is far below A1F1 would support at least so far.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2010)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think all the temperature monitors are suspect.  GISS is a joke.  NOAA is not much better, UAH at least makes an attempt but Spencer admitted that the satellite data is suspect.
> ...






Here's a group of scientists who got caught falsifying the temperature record.  They were responsible for keeping the Official New Zealand Temperature Record and they falsified it to conform to the AGW program.  New Zealand has actually experienced a flat line or even a minor drop in avg temperature over the last 40 years.  The scientists involved tried to alter that record to make it look like New Zealand was warming like the rest of the world is supposed to be warming.


They were caught, there were public hearings in Parliament.  The lead scientist is gone and ALL of the "adjustments" have been removed because they could not show a reason for the adjustments.

Australia too has been found to have altered 40% of the old temperature record and you will soon see hearings begin on that falsification as well.  GISS here in the US has systematically been going back and altering the old temp record for the last 50 years to make the old temp numbers colder and the more recent ones warmer.

Don't believe me one bit but do some research on your own.  The evidence is out there for the locating.


Climate Science Coalition Vindicated | Scoop News


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2010)

Matthew said:


> *It is my belief that the forcing of co2 is much less then any of these scienctist would like us to believe. We're following A1f` or worst case for co2 over the last 5 years and no where near even seeing the middle ground warming even based on the data supplied by the giss and noaa. I call into question just how strong of a green house co2 really is...We will see. Now saying we're seeing now warming at all or even cooling is yet to be proved...I believe some warming is occurring. Using the noaa and giss data doesn't show a huge increase over 1990-1999, but of a moderation of the temperature being each year hits close to the other, but doesn't beat it by a large amount, which helps up the avg, but is not a sign of a increase of the warming. Our friends badly need 2010 to be number 1 and maybe 2012 beating it by a larger a mount to prove that the warming is occurring faster...*
> 
> Making this post to show what I mean...The reason last decade was warmer then 1990-1999 was because every year is close to each other near the peak, which avgs much higher. This can only get so far and if we don't have a lot of record years in this decade then the rate of warming will slow to craw.
> 
> ...






CO2 is irrelevant.  It is only the target because it is something that man does indeed produce (though only around 4-5% of the yearly output) and can be quantified, thus charged for.  ALL of the carbon trading schemes have one common denominator and that is none of them have a mechanism for pollution control.  You can pollute all you want, you just have to pay for the priviledge.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2010)

Warmer or colder? Ask your local glacier. Ice has no politics, it knows no ideology, it has nothing to prove. It just melts.


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Warmer or colder? Ask your local glacier. Ice has no politics, it knows no ideology, it has nothing to prove. It just melts.






Yeah, why don't you ask it when it _started_ melting there fella.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 26, 2010)

Clearly........the enormous increase in snow cover is BECAUSE of global warming!!!

How do I know???????????

Because today..........the New York Times says so...............

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 26, 2010)

But according to this article..........the global warming faithers violate the principle pillar of all science: 
 For something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method...............

.............*but not to global warming faithers*

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers - Investors.com


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 26, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Because today..........the New York Times says so...............
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion



article was so bad, I stopped considering Global Warming, and started to think about the NYTimes' terrible financial state


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2010)

Going to be really fucking close...Our global warming friends may get their number one year, but maybe not. I'm think 7-8th for Noaa and 5th for Giss, 12th for UAH for December.

Most of Alaska outside of the northern part remains -2 below normal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

The earth does it's own cooling and warming. Care to explain why the earth was warmer in  12th century than it is now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2010)

It was not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

The Global Warming Scare


----------



## westwall (Dec 26, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> It was not.






Yes, it was!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 26, 2010)

By the record in the ice, while it was warmer in some areas, there were others where there was really no change. That in contrast to the present worldwide change. The ice does not lie'

A42D


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> By the record in the ice, while it was warmer in some areas, there were others where there was really no change. That in contrast to the present worldwide change. The ice does not lie'
> 
> A42D



That does not explain why some as you say part's of the earth was way more hotter than it is now.


----------



## IanC (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > By the record in the ice, while it was warmer in some areas, there were others where there was really no change. That in contrast to the present worldwide change. The ice does not lie'
> ...




proxies for temperature, CO2, etc need a lot of manipulation and generalizations therefor the scientists' frame of mind can have a lot of impact on what is concluded for the data. once a general mindset is in place excuses for evidence that contradicts the theory are found and put down as fact even if the excuses would seem unreasonable without the theory for context. just look at the herculean efforts to remove the Midieval Warm Period which would be totally ridiculous except that it helps the AGW cause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I'm no science wiz but the information I read tells me the earth warms and cools in cycles. We are ending a warming cycle and now entering a cooling cycle


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The Midevil warm period lasted 400 years and the roman warm period close to that if not more...We just came out of a little ice age...One of the coldest periods since the younger dyas of 8,500 years ago...I doubt we're quite ready for another cold period...At least like the one we just got out of.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Matthew said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If you look at the chart I used you will see what I mean


----------



## IanC (Dec 27, 2010)

Matthew- given that there have been warm periods in the past, and we know that CO2 is released by warming oceans, do you think that there is some magical significance to the pre-industrial level of CO2 that is bandied about by AGW alarmists? Do you think that the earth has homeostasis systems in place that work to limit any disruptions, or do you think there are tipping points that we are approaching due to human interference?


----------



## IanC (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




Some people think that the cathederal construction in europe was only possible because of the warm weather which led to good crops and people freed up to do other things. Mind you, others think that the population decrease caused by the Black Plague was the reason for many advancements due to the fact that people could charge more for their labour.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> Matthew- given that there have been warm periods in the past, and we know that CO2 is released by warming oceans, do you think that there is some magical significance to the pre-industrial level of CO2 that is bandied about by AGW alarmists? Do you think that the earth has homeostasis systems in place that work to limit any disruptions, or do you think there are tipping points that we are approaching due to human interference?



The level of co2 *pre-Industrial* (1700 and before) at least by the official data was near 270-280 range. There is many factors that keep co2 at near that level during the interglacial periods like we're within...For one carbon sinks of the ocean, forest, and rock wearing that takes in co2. If you believe the official co2 record of the last 800 thousand years it has never not once been this high. Maybe 300 plus 120-150 thousand years ago for a period...You can go back 15 million years to find co2 levels this high. Again if you trust any of the ice cores or anything...During the ice ages the level drops to around 180 ppm because colder oceans=less co2 in the Atmosphere. 

Of course naturally the earth removes the co2 and there are cycles of warm and cold. The midevil warm period was in a time of high solar activity and the little ice age was within a time of low solar activity...Our current warm up makes up the highest solar activity since the mid evil warm period...So of course what do you expect. But on the other hand it maxed for output in the 1950's...In has been going down since...We maybe being lied to, but that would lead to very bad things as the people would find out their government is trying to steal all the power and rule over the people of the world. In which could lead to much pain. 

Of course there is cycles, but co2 is acting different if you have any trust at all within the offical data.


----------



## IanC (Dec 27, 2010)

I must admit I am a little skeptical of the ice core records. I can see how there could be many confounding factors involved, and much loss of peaks and valleys. 

I suppose my biggest difference with AGW alarmists is over the ability of CO2 to cause a major impact on climate. A doubling of CO2 (and we're not there yet) only causes a theoretical 1C increase. And it seems to me that the cloud system is a built in thermostat that has kept the temperature of the earth awfully steady over the life of the planet. The young faint sun, active volcanic eras, continental shifts and ocean current disruptions and changes have all been smoothed out and those were a heck of a lot bigger changes to the system than a doubling or two of CO2.


----------



## westwall (Dec 27, 2010)

Matthew said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






The evidence of the last two winters is allready proving you wrong Matthew.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2010)

ncdc 

1# for jan through nov...Dec is what need to watch!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2010)

Global Highlights

    * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record.

    * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for fall (September&#8211;November) 2010 was the sixth warmest on record for the season, 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).

*    * For the 2010 year-to-date (January&#8211;November), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average&#8212;the warmest such period since records began in 1880.*

    * The November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest November on record, while the Southern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest November on record.

    * The November 2010 global land surface temperature was the warmest on record, at 1.52°C (2.74°F) above the 20th century average, while the November global ocean temperature tied with 1987 and 2008 as the tenth warmest on record, at 0.39°C (0.70°F) above average.

    * The January&#8211;November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, while the Southern Hemisphere was the fourth warmest on record.


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Global Highlights
> 
> * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record.
> 
> ...






And what is the quality of the data?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Global Highlights
> ...



I think the majority of it is fair to good.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 29, 2010)

The attachment is me fucking around with the paints.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2010)

IanC said:


> I must admit I am a little skeptical of the ice core records. I can see how there could be many confounding factors involved, and much loss of peaks and valleys.
> 
> I suppose my biggest difference with AGW alarmists is over the ability of CO2 to cause a major impact on climate. A doubling of CO2 (and we're not there yet) only causes a theoretical 1C increase. And it seems to me that the cloud system is a built in thermostat that has kept the temperature of the earth awfully steady over the life of the planet. The young faint sun, active volcanic eras, continental shifts and ocean current disruptions and changes have all been smoothed out and those were a heck of a lot bigger changes to the system than a doubling or two of CO2.



Where is your link for an increase of 1 C for a doubling of CO2? While a few studies put that number that low, the vast majority put it about 2.5 C, and more put it far higher than put it lower than that. Here is where you can see a compilation of scientific studies on that subject and the conclusions.

Climate Sensitivity


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

I just spent some time mapping dec temps...here is what I found. I doubt this dec is going to be within the top 5. 

Here is my prediction for the numbers for dec
Uah 8th
RSS 10th
Giss 5th
Noaa 7th
Hadley center 12th

This shoud end any chance besides the giss for 2010 being number one. 

giss 1st
Noaa 2rd
Uah 2nd
Rss 3rd
Hadley center 7th

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/global_temp_accum.shtml


----------



## code1211 (Dec 30, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




The instrument you are using to mark time is a stop watch and you need a calendar.  The planet's climate moves with glacial speed.  Sometimes slower.

The talk of climate change within the course of years is hogwash.  Any cycle that can be observed within a lifetime is like a sunrise compared to a season.  50 thousand years, 100 thousand years, a million years.  These are the little black lines on the time line of the climate.

The link below will show you a graph of the roughly 14 degree drop in global temperature for our climate over the last 65 million years to date.

Our current period is labeled as the period of rapid glaciation.  From a historical point of view, we are pretty cold in relative terms.  The question should not be why are we warming, but, rather, why are we so cold?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## SwingVoter (Dec 30, 2010)

We're exactly at our average number of heating degree days in Central Virginia since July 1, meaning that in total the fall/winter's been average, but December much colder than usual.   We've had 70% of our seasonal average for snow, and we're not out of December.   Most east coast cities are about the same - hotter than average summer, average fall/winter in total, colder than avg December.   

Some areas have had a cold year.   Los Angeles had just 346 cooling degree days this year, normal is 644.   This means fewer days than average have had median temps above 65.   It's also had more heating degree days than average 429 vs. 363, meaning more days than average have had median temps below 65.

Personally, I like looking at NWS source data better than media reports about global temps, especially with all the hype and the IPCC's political agenda.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2008/nov2008/30-yearTrendMap.jpg


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

code1211 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Odd, that is not at all what you site says or shows. At the end of the Eocene, there was a very big drop, very rapid. And there have been many periods of rapid change before and after that, as the graph showl. 

Most recently, we have evidence of very rapid climate change going into and out of the Younger Dryas.*

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Also appearing on this graph are the Eocene Climatic Optimum, an extended period of very warm temperatures, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (labeled PETM). The PETM is very short lived high temperature excursion possibly associated with the destabilization of methane clathrates and the rapid buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Due to the coarse sampling and averaging involved in this record, it is likely that the full magnitude of the PETM is underestimated by a factor of 2-4 times its apparent height

*Now that is from your site. Clearly says we have evidence of a large and rapid change in planetary temperature due to the build up of GHGs. 

Do you ever read before you post? Why in hell do you think that this site represents proof that only slow changes occur? It state right within the site that there have been rapid changes, some of them associated with the rapid build up of GHGs. *


----------



## zinadinpeterson (Dec 30, 2010)

I do not think there is no major revelations. More a matter of putting things in what is perhaps a more realistic time scales and the need to act sooner rather than later.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It wouldn't fucking suprize me once the methane dam breaks the arctic warms 15c in a few years time. Once that occurs the entire earth warms and the rate of warming doubles or triples.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

That is one of the major fears. Problem is, we have no idea at what temperature the release becomes inevitable. We may have already passed that point, it may well be at a higher temperature and GHG content in the atmosphere. That is the problem with the AGW. We know little about what the results are, and in what manner they will come about. 

Thus far, we know for sure that the experts predictions concerning results have been far to conservative.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> That is one of the major fears. Problem is, we have no idea at what temperature the release becomes inevitable. We may have already passed that point, it may well be at a higher temperature and GHG content in the atmosphere. That is the problem with the AGW. We know little about what the results are, and in what manner they will come about.
> 
> Thus far, we know for sure that the experts predictions concerning results have been far to conservative.



Yeah...I doubt that the methane can remain capped for more then 5-10 more years tops...

Anyways this thread is where we post temperature data from the giss, Noaa, UAH, Rss, ect...Discussion on the temperature of earth. I hope the skeptics could bring some data too? But anyways this thread is for serious discussion. So only serious debate of temperature of our earth and data in this thread.* This thread is not to mess around, but facts and data.
*

past 7 days


----------



## code1211 (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...





In all but a very few instances, 2 or 3 in the 4 billion year long history of the planet, the increase or decrease of GHG's is caused by temperature variation.  To claim that the GHG's Cause temperature change historically is just not supported by facts or history.

The PETM happened about 50 million years ago and then the temperature rose to the peak of the PETM gradually following that if the graph is to be believed.  The little space covered by the time elapse of the PETM on the graph represents about a half million years.

Checking the graph as it comes to the more recent times, the radical moves up and down are far quicker than the PETM or any other period for the last million or so years and the part you are exhorting us to panic over is the last 150 or so years.

My contention is that the planet has cooled by about 14 degrees in the last 65 million years.  Are you saying that it has not?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> That is one of the major fears. Problem is, we have no idea at what temperature the release becomes inevitable. We may have already passed that point, it may well be at a higher temperature and GHG content in the atmosphere. That is the problem with the AGW. We know little about what the results are, and in what manner they will come about.
> 
> Thus far, we know for sure that the experts predictions concerning results have been far to conservative.





Results of what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

code1211 said:


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



Red herrings and strawmen are your specialty, Code.

Real science from real scientists

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2007GC001784.shtml

On the duration of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)

On the duration of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)
Ursula Röhl

Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM), Bremen University, Leobener Strasse, D-28359 Bremen, Germany

Thomas Westerhold

Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM), Bremen University, Leobener Strasse, D-28359 Bremen, Germany

Timothy J. Bralower

Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

James C. Zachos

Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) is one of the best known examples of a transient climate perturbation, associated with a brief, but intense, interval of global warming and a massive perturbation of the global carbon cycle from injection of isotopically light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system. One key to quantifying the mass of carbon released, identifying the source(s), and understanding the ultimate fate of this carbon is to develop high-resolution age models. Two independent strategies have been employed, cycle stratigraphy and analysis of extraterrestrial helium (HeET), both of which were first tested on Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 690. These two methods are in agreement for the onset of the PETM and initial recovery, or the clay layer (&#8220;main body&#8221, but seem to differ in the final recovery phase of the event above the clay layer, where the carbonate contents rise and carbon isotope values return toward background values. Here we present a state-of-the-art age model for the PETM derived from a new orbital chronology developed with cycle stratigraphic records from sites drilled during ODP Leg 208 (Walvis Ridge, Southeastern Atlantic) integrated with published records from Site 690 (Weddell Sea, Southern Ocean, ODP Leg 113). During Leg 208, five Paleocene-Eocene (P-E) boundary sections (Sites 1262 to 1267) were recovered in multiple holes over a depth transect of more than 2200 m at the Walvis Ridge, yielding the first stratigraphically complete P-E deep-sea sequence with moderate to relatively high sedimentation rates (1 to 3 cm/ka, where &#8220;a&#8221; is years). A detailed chronology was developed with nondestructive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) core scanning records on the scale of precession cycles, with a total duration of the PETM now estimated to be &#8764;170 ka. The revised cycle stratigraphic record confirms original estimates for the duration of the onset and initial recovery but suggests a new duration for the final recovery that is intermediate to the previous estimates by cycle stratigraphy and HeET.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Earth's five mass extinction events

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Earth's five mass extinction events
> 
> What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.






And not one of them from heat.  The only climatic possibility (with any science to back it up) for an extinction is cold.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Back on topic of the thread what do you think December rank is going to be? In what is 2010 going to rank...I don't care if you think it is a fraud or not, but what would be your guess for each giss, noaa, uah, rss.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Earth's five mass extinction events
> ...



Lordy, lordy, faux geologist, you are one dumb fuck. PT Extinction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

December. Hard to tell at this point. Some exceptionally cold areas, some esceptionally warm areas. I would go with around 5th.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> December. Hard to tell at this point. Some exceptionally cold areas, some esceptionally warm areas. I would go with around 5th.



The more I study the temperatures the more I come to the concussion that the nina has kicked in big time this month and the below avg areas where huge this month. I'm going to say this for dec...

giss 5th
Noaa 9th
uah 12th
rss 14th

This should make 2010
giss 1st
Noaa 2nd
uah 3rd
Rss 3-4th


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2010)

Yes, I would definately go with 2010 being in the top 3. However, the other results, the precip events, exceptional weather, have been greater this year than any I remember. Wonder how long we will have to wait for an article reviewing this years weather from that perspective to appear in a peer reviewed journal?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2010)

The nina started in May and reached -1.8 in Oct. It is around -1.7c in area 3.4 today...Most respectable nina in about 40 years. In were discussing top 3 years with it? Wow...I thought about this hard and believe that if we had a moderate year, no nino needed...We woud be number one by .02c+. I thought about a few other things and come to the idea that were .15c to .17c warmer then 1998 right now. 2005 even had a weak nino conditions in 3.4 for awhile(.2 to .4c in 3.4). Which got us into the nino of 2006. 

2007, 2008 and early part of 2009 had some Nina or weak effects of one. I do believe that the warming has decreased sighty, but maybe because of other factors as the sun spot minimum that we are in.

I believe that around 2012 any nina weaker then the 1954 event could give a number one year over 1998 and 2005.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 2, 2011)

Rss data for Dec 

Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
December 2010: +0.25 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.24 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 °C

Peak recorded anomaly:
April, 1998: +0.86 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.61 °C

Last update: January 3, 2011 


RSS MSU 12-2010: +0.25 °C. *Rank: 7/32*
Warmest December in this series was in 2003.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

A good amount better then the 14th I predicted above.


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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






Yeah sure nimrod.  There are 6 accepted theories for the PT extinction.  One of them is climate change.  Here is one of the better presentations (you'll notice they present evidence for both sides..something you clowns are incapable of) you will also notice that the preponderance of evidence is for cooling as the proximal cause not heat.  And that is if that is the actual cause.

"Getting HOTTER 
During the Permian the continents were in one landmass called Pangea. As all the land was together and was so large, it created a hot dry interia because a majority of the land was away from the sea so it experienced little rainfall. It also had great seasonal fluctuations due to the lack of the modeerating affects of a large water body. 
 The climates temperature may have risen due to the increase in volcanic activity. During the end of the Permian the Siberian traps were erupting, releasing vast amounts of different gasses into the atmosphere. One of these gasses was Carbondioxide (CO2). This has an insulating affect on the atmosphere making the climate temperature warmer.

Increased climate temperature has also been shown to slow the metabolism of creatures, and upset the formation of internal and external carbonate (CaCO3) skeletons. Many marine organisms have carbonate skeletons. If these creatures were unabale to form their skeletons they would have either no support for their bodies or no external protection, so would be unable to survive. (A. H. Knoll)

A hotter climate of the low latitudes during the Permian lead to a reduction in the area of coal swamps. As this habitat decreased, species that lived there such as amphibians and some spore bearing plants became extinct. 



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


Getting COLDER


As well as getting hotter there is evidence that the climate also cooled. Sedimentological evidence for cooling comes from glacial deposits in polar zones, and thick dune sands and evaporites from temperate zones that represent a cool dry environment.
Some of the volcanic gasses released from the Siberian trap flood basalts could have the opposite affect to the CO2, cooling the climate insted of heating it. Why these had this affect is mentioned in volcanism

Other evidence comes form the reduced presence of carbonate limestones around the end of the Permian. This process would have had the greatest affect in the tropics where most of the Earth's limestone production occurs. Cooling would eliminate the tropical ares and kill tropical species, and if there were less Carbonate produceres there would be less Carbonate which is what is seen. 

Another cooling affect comes from glaciation. Cooling can happen in low latitudes without there being glaciation and in this way just the cooling of the climate would be the cause of extinction by the method mentioned above."
Palaeobiology and Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol


----------



## Douger (Jan 2, 2011)

If it gets too hot ? I'll add shade.
If it gets too cold ? Plastic.
If it rains too much ? More plastic.
If it doesn't rain enough ? Another solar powered pump, or 10, for my drip systems.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 2, 2011)

rss microwave data for dec 2010


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2011)

*There is a very good paper out concerning trapp events of this period, the the coal beds they covered and intruded, and how it became an intense methane forming event. If I can find it, I will post it. And it definately was very hot during the event, and the O2 level in the atmosphere dropped to about 11%.*

Permian-Triassic extinction event - Paleontology Wiki

Duration of eventEditAt one time, this die-off was assumed to have been a gradual reduction over several million years. Now, however, it is commonly accepted that the event lasted less than a million years, from 252.3 to 251.4 Ma (both numbers ±300,000 years), a very brief period of time in geological terms. A detailed study of plutonium-to-lead decay in zircons in ash beds in China dates the extinction 252.6 ± 0.2 million years ago, synchronous with the Siberian flood volcanism (Mundil 2004). 

Organisms throughout the world, regardless of habitat, suffered similar rates of extinction over the same relatively short period, showing that the extinction was global and sudden, not gradual or localized. 

New evidence from strata in Greenland shows evidence of a double extinction, with a separate, less dramatic extinction occurring 9 Ma before the Permian-Triassic (P-T) boundary, at the end of the Guadalupian epoch. Confusion of these two events is likely to have influenced the early view that the extinction was extended


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Permian extinction - Palaeos.org

Not one but two Permian Extinction Events
Originally there was thought to be only a single end Permian mass extinction. More accurate stratigraphic resolution reveal two huge mass extinction events, one at the end of the Guadalupian epoch and the other at the end of the Permian (and because taxonomic losses were divided between the two crises and the intervening interval, the terminal extinction eliminated only about 80 percent of marine species, not 95 or 96 percent as previously estimated) (Stanley & Yang 1994, although this thesis is not without its critics, e.g. Clapham et al 2009). Gregory Retallack (a specialist in fossil soils) and co-workers have associated these mass extinctions with catastrophic greenhouse events and hyperanoxia. Retallack 2005 Retallack et al 2006. They use new paleobotanical, paleopedological, and carbon isotopic studies of Portal Mountain, Antarctica, and comparable studies in the Karoo Basin, South Africa to shown that there were two separate abrupt mass extinctions on land, which can also be linked to corresponding marine invertebrate extinctions. One was the end Guadalupian (end Capitanian), the other the better known end Permian extinction. Both were times of short-lived warm and wet greenhouse climate, marked soil erosion, transition from high- to low-sinuosity and braided streams, and wetland soil stagnation. Retallack et al 2006 (abstract) 

This research with carbon isotopes also hints at a further, earler mass-extinction at the end of the Cisuralian. If so, these extinction events would explain the three radically different dynasties of terrestial life during the Permian - the pelycosaur, dinocephalian, and advanced therapsid. 

In order to explain how the necessary amounts (a hundred to a thousand gigatons) of methane could be released into the atmosphere within a period of 10 to 100 thousand years, Retallack et al 2006 p.1409 suggest catastrophic methane outbursts to the atmosphere from from volcanic intrusion (feeder dikes and flood basalts) into massive coal deposits. They mention that both the end-Guadalupian Emeishan Basalt (Zhou et al., 2002) and end-Permian Siberian Traps (Kamo et al., 2003) (see illustration above) erupted through pre-existing coal measures. 

Another (perhaps complementary) cause, suggested by Isozaki 2009 was mantle superplume activity, which also led to the Illawarra Magnetic Reversal 

For much of the Triassic, oxygen levels remained low, and according to Ward 2006, this favoured dinosaurs which - like birds would have had a more efficient aerobic metabolism, over mammals. Early Triassic survivors of the mass extinction like Lystrosaurus and Proterosuchus had stocky bodies and barrel-chests indicating increased lung capacity, while therapsid carnivores like Galesaurus and Thrinaxodon had reduced lumbar ribs which, along with thickened thoracic ribs and higher thoracic vertebral spines may well indicate enlarged lungs and a muscular, mammal-like diaphragm, allowing more efficient respiration. Retallack et al 2003 p.1148


----------



## editec (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't doubt that the pendulum of temperature swings with or without mankind.

The question, the real question is this:

*Is mankind's activity exascerbating that swing?*

It_ might be_ if you believe that the global temperatures that are being reported are honest.

Of course if you think that data is not valid, then of course, you're going to be dubious that global warming is happening.

There isn't a person here, far as I can tell, truly qualified to weight in on whether the reports we're getting are correct.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2011)

If the temps were going down, the glaciers would be increasing, and there would not be the "Decapitated" glaciers. Anyone on the West Coast can see glacial recession on our snow caps.

A42D


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 3, 2011)

UAH-2nd warmest year! In we are seeing the strongest nina since the 70s. This is stronger then 2008 and somewhat stronger then 1999-2000 event. So that is saying something.

1998-.5175c
2010-.4983c

RSS-Im thinking second, but have only worked with 1998, 2010 numbers so far.

2010-.510083c
1998-.5506c


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 3, 2011)

As Anthony Watts states :
"As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant." (UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record | Watts Up With That?)

When you think about it, id go as far as to say that this year within the enso had the effects of a weak to moderate nina...second warmest in such a year.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Here is this years nino compared to 1998 and it shows how strong this nina is..No nina comes near it in 40 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 3, 2011)

Within the UAH data this year was nearly a tie. A tie against the most powerful nino in 150 years,,,A god damn tie at the same time as 7 of the 12 months of this year had the strongest nina since 1976 and nearly 1954. On top of this the deepest sun spot min since 1912. 

Admit that are planet has warmed be it natural or man made. Who the fuck knows, but it is what it is. Yes it is .15c since 1998, but on a planet scale that is what it is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.



hahaha, out of the mouths of babes.

that graph does seem to show why global temps went down '50-'76, up '77-99 and stayed flat '00-'10 doesnt it?


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2011)

an interesting excerpt from a NZ paper-



> The degree of warming directly caused by the extra carbon dioxide is, by itself, relatively small. This is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this initial change will trigger further climate changes that would be large or damaging.
> 
> Debate focuses on climate feedbacks that may or may not suppress, perpetuate or amplify an initial change caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. A doubling of carbon dioxide, by itself, adds only about one degree Celsius to greenhouse warming. Computer climate models project more warming because the modellers build in feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that amplify the initial change. These are the so called positive feedbacks. For example, higher temperature would mean more evaporation globally, which in turn means more heat-trapping water vapour is put into the atmosphere leading to even higher temperatures.
> 
> ...


Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming - National - NZ Herald News

OHHHHHH, the uncertainty of it all.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2011)

who cares about this data gobbly gook.

In Januray of 2010, the US Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado reported that the Arctic ice masses have increased 27%.

All the rest of the data is distraction by the k00ks or those with a vested interest to distract.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2011)

gobbly


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 4, 2011)

ENSO has no effect on the energy budget unless it can change the albedo of our planet...Which data shows it don't or has any effect within the data.. It is just a shift of where that energy is...Ninos cause much more severe rain events within the western Hemisphere and drought in the east, but nina just the opposite. It works within the short term climate system of earth. The warming we are discusing is a long term.

That California event was weird because that is not normal for a nina, but of a nino. 

This nina is far stronger then 2008 and even stronger then 1999-2000.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.
> ...



Ian, are you truly blind? There is no point on that graph that is flat. In fact, the period that you call flat is a decided slope up. Click on the graph for an enlarged version of it. I assume you did not do this, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt, for nobody could honestly state what you did after seeing the graph clearly


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> an interesting excerpt from a NZ paper-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Never heard of this dingbat before, but he or she is an idiot. The evidence has been demonstrated time and again by scientists from around the world. However, I suppose if a lie turns you on and makes you happy, so be it.*

Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming - National - NZ Herald News

Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2011)

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3163015]





IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One should look at the bottom of the La Ninas on the graph. Note how much they have gone up.
> ...



Ian, are you truly blind? There is no point on that graph that is flat. In fact, the period that you call flat is a decided slope up. Click on the graph for an enlarged version of it. I assume you did not do this, and am giving you the benefit of the doubt, for nobody could honestly state what you did after seeing the graph clearly[/QUOTE]

OR- are you blind? do you not see that when La Ninas predominate that global temps go down and when El Ninos predominate the temp goes up? or that temps stay flat when neither predominates? 

little warming since we came out of the Little Ice Age, even less that can be attributed to CO2. what happened to huge steady increase forecast by the models? its not there.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 4, 2011)

I have just got done comparing this 2010 to 1998. What would it be if we had the same nino and sun spot pattern today?

1998 was .4c outside the baseline. So .21c higher, so within rss data of .55+.21=.76c for the year avg, say 2012. WOW. The peak is near .25-.30c higher then the avg in the early parts of 1998, so that would be near 1.01c. Here is a rough idea of it in graph.

Again this is assuming a year within the next 3 turns out much like 1998.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2011)

ENSO effects are time lagged. in much the same way that the longest day of the year is not the hottest. the 2010 la nina is 7.5 months less 6 months lag time. looks like temp anomalies will be going down for a while


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

OK. Then how is 2011 going to rank? I say that it will rank in the top ten. You see, you are looking at two areas and stating that it is much cooler, yet there are also many areas that are much warmer at the same time. Why do you think that December came in positive?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

Look at the graph for the ice covered area in the Arctic Ocean. For the second year in a row, it is below -1.5 in January. Will it rebound, as it did last year? Maybe, but that is very thin ice, formed late in the year. And look at Hudsons Bay. Still not ice covered. It has been much warmer in the Artic this summer than normal. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming summer.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 5, 2011)

IanC said:


> ENSO effects are time lagged. in much the same way that the longest day of the year is not the hottest. the 2010 la nina is 7.5 months less 6 months lag time. looks like temp anomalies will be going down for a while




Nina and ninos have there effect within 3-4 months. Meteorology and research shows this. But this one because of possible other factors(ever warmer earth? was a weird)


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK. Then how is 2011 going to rank? I say that it will rank in the top ten. You see, you are looking at two areas and stating that it is much cooler, yet there are also many areas that are much warmer at the same time. Why do you think that December came in positive?



Obviously you dont understand my position on climate. The globe has warmed up and cooled down many times since coming out of the last major ice age. The earth has been warmer than now, and the rate of change is relatively constant.

If thermometers had been invented in 1200 we wouldnt be having this argument. As luck would have it thermometers arrived at the end of the Little Ice Age, leaving us with a low starting point. If satellites had been put up in 1930 we wouldnt be having this argument. As luck would have it satellites went up in 1979, at the end of the last cooling period, leaving us with a low starting point.

I dont really give a crap whether 2011 is warmer or cooler. I dont care if we are at the top of the latest warming period or we are beggining to drop again. Climate changes. Your myopic fixation with CO2 may give you delicious chills up your spine, or satisfy your need to imagine deadly wrath from God for man's sin, but I am unconvinced. There are many plausible explanations for what is going on right now and I expect there will be new or revamped explanations forthcoming in both the near and far future. The majority of research and funding has been directed at CO2 study. I think this has skewed the focus away from a lot of other areas of investigation, and even kept the interest on CO2 when it has failed to produce the imagined results. A lot of climate scientists seem to think they are lawyers hired to burnish the reputation of CO2 theory rather than scientists charged with the duty of finding the truth.


----------



## IanC (Jan 5, 2011)

Matthew said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ENSO effects are time lagged. in much the same way that the longest day of the year is not the hottest. the 2010 la nina is 7.5 months less 6 months lag time. looks like temp anomalies will be going down for a while
> ...




well Matthew, at least you are acknowledging there is a lag.

as the old joke goes- "now we are just haggling over the price"


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 5, 2011)

IanC said:


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




True, but there was much less lag within the tropics...This nina has covered the area of 1999-2000 and 2008 nina since September and may of had strong effects back to June...I remember looking at charts for Sept-dec 1998 and only can find a weak nina event around nov-dec time frame.* This is the nina that became the nina of 1999-2000. * This event didn't have much effect on 1998 and most importantly 1998 from about Jan-March had the most powerful nino in recorded history going back 150 years. By that I mean area 3.4 was near *2.8c* for a time compared to this event we just saw that was near 1.8c. 

Another factor was the size. The nino of 1998 was a monster that took up a huge area with its effects. 2009-2010 was decent, but that is comparing highs boy scouts the the marines. 

There is three factors that make up the effect of a nina or nina
1# Max anomalies
2# size of the effected area
3# How long did it last?

1# How deep did it get within its max...Most ninas and ninos since 2001 have been between -1.2 and +1.2 for a time within 3.4.

2# What was the size of the anomaly, which is very important as a thin coupe hundred km wide area of warmers water is going to do much less to effect climate then one that can effect 500-1,000 km wide area and goes into the western Pacific.

3# If I remember right 2009-2010 nino was over two years...But only lasted about 5 months. The time to effect weather is between 3-4 months, so it didn't have time to do much. ON the other hand 1999-2000 nina was nearly two years. 2008 nina was a year....Much more capable of effecting temperature around the word. In so 7 and 1/2 event of nina that we are in has about the same effect as our nino on this year. Maybe the nino did have more effects on the arctic, but most it was damn close. 



So at the end of the day you cant compare this to 1998..Not even close.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

Except it was pretty much just as warm as 1998. Hmmm.......


----------



## Chris (Jan 6, 2011)

Record Events for Thu Dec 30, 2010 through Wed Jan 5, 2011 

High Temperatures: 222 
Low Temperatures: 140 

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 6, 2011)

Wow, chris. 

Anyways here is todays map I made of the 30 day avgs...The circle areas are my attempted of estimation.


----------



## editec (Jan 6, 2011)

Remember back when science wasn't subject to a vote?

I miss those days.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2011)

When the reality of science intersects the economical interests that control so much of the world, that science becomes a political football. And the scientists find themselves being vilified by those interests and their blind followers.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 7, 2011)

This is how it would be without enso.

Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 7, 2011)

The only thing heating up is the level of attacks against all that oppose the rule of Environuts.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 7, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> The only thing heating up is the level of attacks against all that oppose the rule of Environuts.



Wow! The 200 years from 1700-2010 has seen nearly 1.5c of warming. Im not environut because I support nuclear power to get the job done. On a home to home scale, sure other options are good, but for our cities gots to be nuclear.


----------



## rdean (Jan 7, 2011)

It?s Official: 2010 Warmest on Record

Five cities in the Northeast set the record for the warmest year in 2010, according to statistics released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) at Cornell University on January 3, 2010. 
The cities &#8212; Hartford, CN, Caribou, ME, Boston, MA, Concord, NH, and Providence, RI &#8212; were among 35 monitored by the NRCC. All but four of the 35 cities experienced above-average temperatures overall. None of the cities had a record-setting low average for the year.

Will the high temperatures continue into 2011?


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2011)

Matthew said:


> This is how it would be without enso.
> 
> Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything



how come no one is interested in this?

the steady increase is remarkable, I would have thought it would be step wise. of course I dont have the statistical skills to look at how the smoothing was done or how the effect was removed. but very interesting if it is not just a smearing effect that seems to come into play when data is analyzed and modified to interact with a different type of data set. hopefully there will be more news on this attempt to break out temps from ocean currents, maybe even a real paper.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2011)

I came across an interesting comparison between the 1930's and the 2000's, using only raw temps from complete records.



> To get the most comparable data, we used only those stations that had full data (i.e. 12 months per year) for all the years in both the 1930s and 2000s.  Only 430 (6%) out of the original 7280 stations fulfil this criterion.
> 
> Because we were using the very same stations in both decades (with no drop-outs or add-ins) there was no need to calculate anomalies; rather we simply compared the average temperature of all stations.
> 
> ...


Which Was The Warmest Decade? | Digging in the Clay

funny how things change when 'corrections' are added. 





of course most of the readings were from the US so maybe we should compare it to this


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2011)

Apples and oranges, Ian. Note that the first graph was global, the second for the USA. The USA comprises less than 2% of the earth's surface.

This is a prime example of not only cherry picking data, but also lying by misdirection. You also impugn the scientific honor of the scientists involved with that sentence about most of the readings of the upper graph being from the US. You know very well that they factor that in.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Apples and oranges, Ian. Note that the first graph was global, the second for the USA. The USA comprises less than 2% of the earth's surface.
> 
> This is a prime example of not only cherry picking data, but also lying by misdirection. You also impugn the scientific honor of the scientists involved with that sentence about most of the readings of the upper graph being from the US. You know very well that they factor that in.



are you having a problem reading for comprehension today? did you not look at the link to find out what was being done? the complete data sites used in the comparison were global but mostly from the US. that is why I put both the global and the US temp graphs up. I thought I was trying to be fair.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 8, 2011)

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2010/december/12_10GTR.pdf

Jan. 6, 2011
Vol. 20, No. 8
For Additional Information:
Dr. John Christy, (256) 961-7763
john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu
Global Temperature Report: December 2010

*2010 finishes in a statistical tie
as the warmest year in the past 32*


Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (about 0.32° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (about 0.38° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.26° Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: -0.22 C (about 0.40° Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.27 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.37 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C above 30-year average
Tropics: -0.12 C below 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 6, 2011:


*2010 finished in a photo finish with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature
record, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 2010 was only 0.013 C
cooler than 1998, an amount that is not statistically significant.*

Both 1998 and 2010 were years in which an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event raised temperatures
around the globe. In recent months a La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event has been
building; *temperatures in the tropics were cooler than seasonal norms for both November and
December.*

Annual Global Average Anomaly
(Warmest to Coolest)*
1. 1998 +0.424 C
#2. 2010 +0.411 C
3. 2005 +0.251 C
4. 2002 +0.220 C
5. 2009 +0.187 C
6. 2003 +0.185 C
7. 2006 +0.175 C
8. 2007 +0.168 C
9. 2001 +0.112 C
10. 2004 +0.104 C
11. 1991 +0.025 C
12. 1987 +0.018 C
12. 1995 +0.018 C
14. 1988 +0.017 C
15. 1980 -0.003 C
16. 1990 -0.017 C


*Compared to 30-year seasonal norms
The globe continues to warm unevenly, with warming increasing as you go north: The Arctic
Ocean has warmed an average of 1.66 C (about 2.99 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past 32 years. By
comparison, the Antarctic continent has cooled about 0.29 C (more than half a degree Fahrenheit)
during the same time.
The continental, contiguous U.S. has warmed by about 0.67 C (about 1.21 degrees Fahrenheit)
since 1979.
17. 1981 -0.040 C
18. 2008 -0.041 C
19. 1997 -0.044 C
20. 1999 -0.051 C
21. 1983 -0.056 C
21. 2000 -0.056 C
23. 1996 -0.071 C
24. 1994 -0.104 C
25. 1979 -0.165 C
26. 1989 -0.202 C
27. 1986 -0.239 C
28. 1993 -0.240 C
29. 1982 -0.245 C
30. 1992 -0.284 C
31. 1985 -0.304 C
32. 1984 -0.348 C


Climate trends since November 1979
(Degrees C per decade)
Globe Land Ocean
+0.14 +0.18 +0.12

NH Land Ocean
+0.21 +0.24 +0.17

SH Land Ocean
+0.08 +0.07 +0.08

Trpcs Land Ocean
+0.08 +0.10 +0.07

(The tropics extend from 20° N to 20° S latitude)

NoExt Land Ocean
+0.27 +0.28 +0.25

(NoExt goes from 20° N to 85° N latitude)
SoExt Land Ocean
+0.07 +0.04 +0.08
(SoExt goes from 20° S to 85° S latitude)
NoPol Land Ocean
+0.47 +0.44 +0.52
(The North Polar region is from 60° N to 85° N latitude)
SoPol Land Ocean
-0.07 -0.09 -0.06
(The South Polar region is from 60° S to 85° S latitude)
USA48
+0.21


Technical Note:
Beginning with this Global Temperature Report, the baseline period used to determine seasonal
norms changes. It has been the 20-year (1979 to 1998) period at the beginning of the satellite
record. Starting this month the report will use a new 30-year (1981 to 2010) reference average to
match the climatological period normally used with climate data by the U.N.&#8217;s World Meteorological
Organization.
&#8220;This will not affect the long term trend, which is the most important of the numbers we produce,
but will &#8216;reshuffle&#8217; anomalies to reflect the new base period,&#8221; said Christy.
Higher resolution color maps of local temperature anomalies may soon be available on-line at:
Global Temperature Report
The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr.
Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, use data gathered by advanced microwave
sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for
almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where
reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up
to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is
collected and processed, it is placed in a &#8220;public&#8221; computer file for immediate access by atmospheric
scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial
companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate
research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.


The tropics where -.12c below the 30 year avg. That means the Nina had a huge fucking amount of effect on earths temperature out come in 2010. 1998 only had a very tiny Nina in the very end.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 8, 2011)

In case anyones is wondering...The peak based on UAH data for the tropics for 1998 was *1.27c* within 4 fucking months above 1c for the tropics from Jan-April...Of course that did go down to .07c in Nov and 0c by Dec...But this year;PEAKED AT *.78c!* Hows that for comparing the nino!!!

*To show effect of the nina this years nov was -.12c and dec -.24c* . So NOT even close with the nino and a strong nina. So this year was warmer without the ENSO effects...Pure and fucking simple!

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Here is what 2010 came in close with.










Few pics of the nino of 1998!











7-8-2010 it was the nina was the same as 12-14-1998. 





The start of the nina of 1999-2000. Mid Dec 1998. TINY. So it takes 2-4 months for the effect of the nina to be had on the earth...1998 didnt see any. Huge nino from heck to boot.






In case you are wondering here is mid dec 2010.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 9, 2011)

> Westwall, It's hard to believe that a lie of this scale could be happening if it was occurring.


it is occurring and its been exposed.  I wouldn't go so far as to say its a "lie" as much as a manipulation though





> If global warming is pr oven to be a fraud then all our temperature data has been screwed with to the point that we may never have had a record that is trustworthy and would need to start over again.


we just need to have scientist with integrity, no agenda, and nothing to gain to look at what data we do have and correct it





> A trillion dollar scam....The skeptics argue a case of fraud and it is all a lie, but can they prove that the arctic has not warmed


you probably need to look at how they figure it has.  griding in warmer temperatures I've water and disregarding the in situ data from the buoys isn't exactly proof of "warming", it is proof of manipulation though.  Do you have any idea how they compute the temperatures?  How they manipulate the data to support their argument? 





> and that the theory that this air could be caused by a shift within the weather pattern as the pro global warmers say? And since the pro global warmers have nearly total control over all temperature data then how would we know one way or the other?


they don't have total control, they just control the programming that produce an output for the gridded averages, and that's where they manipulate the hell out of it. 



> No data shows a cooling trend and being such it is controlled by the scientist that are pro global warming then we wouldn't know if a full fledged ice age was coming either way.


that is 100% absolutely false.  The trend over the last 15 years is cooler.  Not much... but cooler. 



> It is hard for me to wrap my head around such treason and fraud if that was the case.


self interest.  Their is no need for a conspiracy or even a conscious effort.  It is in the interest of the warmist to show warming, over 80 BILLION dollars of research money is tied to it, take away the warming and the research dollars go somewhere else. 





> Most of science would be damaged for a long time.


no it would not.  The same thing essentially happened a few years back in pharmaceuticals, the peer review process was a broken there as it is in warmist propaganda.





> I'm just going to assume for the time being that there is slightly more truthfulness and honor within science then this. To think otherwise would believe that the whole system has swirled down the crapper and outright treason throughout the scientific community and political alike is occurring.


the politics is where the corruption is.  which would include the politics of science.  There are plenty of honest scientist out there and they continue their work outside of the IPCC's circle of friends.



> It is my belief that the forcing of co2 is much less then any of these scientist would like us to believe.


any of them?  Spencer, Christie, Lindzen and Scaffetta have all proposed lower climate sensitivity to CO2 (among hundreds of others)  The mythos of AGW is be driven by politics at the UN and the money that feeds it.  





> We're following A1F1 or worst case for co2 over the last 5 years and no where near even seeing the middle ground warming even based on the data supplied by the giss and noaa. I call into question just how strong of a green house co2 really is...We will see.


their sensitivity variables are built on false assumptions of past CO2 levels and poor modeling of solar variables.  The models they construct all have the faulty data programmed in. 





> Now saying we're seeing now warming at all or even cooling is yet to be proved...I believe some warming is occurring.


you're belief would be wrong 





> Using the noaa and giss data doesn't show a huge increase over 1990-1999, but of a moderation of the temperature being each year hits close to the other, but doesn't beat it by a large amount, which helps up the avg, but is not a sign of a increase of the warming. Our friends badly need 2010 to be number 1 and maybe 2012 beating it by a larger a mount to prove that the warming is occurring faster...


they cannot show that, there has been no warming since 1998 and a cooling trend in the last 15 years.



> Yes the solar output from our star has been decreasing and could be a case for those prediction of such cooling, but how would we know?  Who knows because all temperature data says otherwise...Be it fraud or that the earth maybe warming up...


The temperature data does not say otherwise.  A good start to defeating the myth would be Scafettas booklet he created for the EPA based on his work with West and Wilson.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf

you could then go on to look at some of Spencer or Lindzens work on clouds and Mcintyre and Mckitricks work on NCDC and CRU temperature reconstructions and UHI effects.  There is literally a ton of information out there, in peer reviewed and published journals from scientists who disagree strongly with the IPCC and the warmist cabal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2011)

Ben, you are full of shit. Even Dr. Spencer shows that it has been warming in major way in the last 15 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 11, 2011)

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Page 10 shows when conditons within the Pacific went negative. Around Mid April. Some good news--3.4 has warmed from -1.7 to -1.5c...Good. I hope the son of a bitch turns around and becomes bigger then the nino of 1998. Then we can end the fucking debate. I hope 2012 has our first 3c+ anomaly within 3.4 for a nino in history. I hope the son of a bitch is around in some form the entire year of 2012. Now that would be a fairer way to compare 1998 to this year.

Nina from heck with the most positive soi for any dec and second positive ever. Something around 26.1, which is stratospheric!!! Biggest nina since 1976 is being fueled by it. I think it is possible the mother fucker does a quick reverse too. I think if so we beat 1998 by .25c+!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 12, 2011)

Global Highlights
*
    * For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.*
*
    * The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average.* The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

    * The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

    * The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.

    * In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño&#8211;Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year *transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.*

Global Top 10
Warmest Years (Jan-Dec)* 	Anomaly °C 	Anomaly °F
2010 	0.62 	1.12
2005 	0.62 	1.12
1998 	0.60 	1.08
2003 	0.58 	1.04
2002 	0.58 	1.04
2009 	0.56 	1.01
2006 	0.56 	1.01
2007 	0.55 	0.99
2004 	0.54 	0.97
2001 	0.52 	0.94

The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).







Enso-Pacific from equator to 20 north and south and 90-140 west.

January 15th 2005





April 16th 2005





7-16-2005





10-18-2005





12-17-2005





As you can see there was NO NINA in 2005. In fact the first of the year may of had a weak nino. The decrease of our stars output had yet to be seen that we are seeing today...Pretty impressive when you think about it. Id say more of a moderate year....This year meaning 2010 seen 4 months of nino and 7 and 1/2 of nina. Temperatures within the tropics shown above dropped more this year because of this monster to...Far more.


2005 peaked at .51c within the tropics for one month and went down to around .09c by Dec...With .2-.3c being the norm within the tropics that year based on UAH data. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 12, 2011)

NASA has just released its analysis of the 2010 temperature data here, which finds:

    Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record&#8230;.

    To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s. &#8220;If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long,&#8221; said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

*    The record temperature in 2010 is particularly noteworthy, because the last half of the year was marked by a transition to strong La Niña conditions, which bring cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

These records are also especially impressive because we&#8217;ve been in &#8220;the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.&#8221; .*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 12, 2011)

NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011




Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
GISS temperature data graph

In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record. (Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory/Robert Simmon)
+ View large GIF or download PDF

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.34°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.

"If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

The analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A computer program uses the data to calculate temperature anomalies &#8212; the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same period during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period acts as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record closely matches others independently produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The record temperature in 2010 is particularly noteworthy, because the last half of the year was marked by a transition to strong La Niña conditions, which bring cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

"Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature," Hansen and colleagues reported in the Dec. 14, 2010, issue of Reviews of Geophysics.

A chilly spell also struck this winter across northern Europe. The event may have been influenced by the decline of Arctic sea ice and could be linked to warming temperatures at more northern latitudes.

Arctic sea ice acts like a blanket, insulating the atmosphere from the ocean's heat. Take away that blanket, and the heat can escape into the atmosphere, increasing local surface temperatures. Regions in northeast Canada were more than 18 degrees warmer than normal in December.

The loss of sea ice may also be driving Arctic air into the middle latitudes. Winter weather patterns are notoriously chaotic, and the GISS analysis finds seven of the last 10 European winters warmer than the average from 1951 to 1980. The unusual cold in the past two winters has caused scientists to begin to speculate about a potential connection to sea ice changes.

"One possibility is that the heat source due to open water in Hudson Bay affected Arctic wind patterns, with a seesaw pattern that has Arctic air downstream pouring into Europe," Hansen said.
Related Links

Within the nasa/giss data 
2010 had a *63*
2005 62
So 2010 came up on top...But so tiny of a difference that they just declared tie.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 13, 2011)

The first 12 days over the planet appear to be warmer then Dec...Europe within the next 10-15 days may avg normal. Parts of central Russia appear to be near as below normal as it was. Northern Asia below normal, but Alaska is near normal....

Post your predictions for January. 

My first predictions for anomalies
Uah .14
Noaa .41
Giss .42


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 13, 2011)

Matthew said:


> NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record
> 
> January 12, 2011
> 
> ...


There are problems with Hansens work on the temperature record, for starters 1998 was the warmest year on record not 2005, the only way 2005 comes out on top is if you accept their manipulations of data, for intance the gridding over of SST's in the arctic with land surface tempertures, also the gridding over of in situ data in Bolivia, Canada, Russia, and other places where in situ data was available and they chose to ignore it in favor of their gridded models.  Plus the UHI logorythm they use which has pretty concluseively been proven far from adequate due to the basis of the assumptions in its construction.  I have no doubt that they think they're right and can justify these manipulations, I have lees doubt than that, that they actually are, or that the justifications are anything but.  In short, there is nothing which James Hansen is connected to that I will trust for anythig.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2011)

In spite of the fact that everybody else's data shows basically the same thing as Hansen's. Yes, there are minor desrepancies concerning which was warmest, 1998, 2005, or 2010. As Dr. Christy has repeatedly stated, differances that are not statistacally significant. And 9 of the 10 warmest years have been since 2000. The only year that was not in the last decade was 1998, and that was the strongest El Nino on record. And we have equaled that with a moderate El Nino for 5 months, and a strong La Nina for 7 months. Not only that, the sun is still in a reletively quiet phase. 

No Ben, Dr. Hansen is justly regarded as the leading climatologist in the US, if not the world. All the slander that fools like you can muster will not change that.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 13, 2011)

1998 got the record for having the most powerful mega nino in recorded history going back to the 1880s. beating the 1981-1982 nino that scientist once believed couldn't be done.
2005 got it for being a warmer on avg moderate year.  
2010 Got it for being a moderate nina year. Why?

When you have out the years this is about what you get...2010 had Jan-April being nino, sure. Nina developed and by June was developed into a moderate event.. By Sept was a strong event.

Remember my 3 key factors on how enso events effect the temperature of our planet?
1# max or min anomaly
2# Size and extent of of the area effected. Bigger=bigger anomaly over a bigger area=bigger effect on temperatures of the planet. 
3# Time=how many months?

Truth be had the nina of 2010 was fucking huge in size. Even so there is a period of 3-4 months before the effects can be had---it was in size matching the 1999, 2008 events. That is just a fact of life. truth be had most of the nina started in the summer of 2009...Sure the effects where had in 2010 too, but we are comparing 1998, 2005 to 2010. Truth be had again->The tropics are far below 1998 and even 2005. This means that the areas that are predicted to warm at 2-3 times as fast as the rest of the planet,,,The arctic are taking up more. That fact that a monster nina couldn't take 2010 down below the 5 without breaking a sweat is showing this to be true.

Do I expect 2011 with NO nino and with the most powerful motherfucking nina since 1976 to be within the top 5. FUCK NO! Truth be had the nino over the first 4 months of 2010 forced 2010 to avg out with a weak to moderate nina...I estimate near -.8c over the tropics based on the enso rating scale.  

Why was 1998 higher then 2005 within the fucking UAH? The UAH factors in the ENSO far stronger then the surface data of the NOAA, giss. It is bias in that way. The surface data I watch from not more then 6 stations in canada shows 4-15c higher then avg for the 30 day avg. Who to say that cant change the fucking weather patterns and jet stream.

Funniest thing of it is the UAH, Noaa, Giss for 2010 are within .015c of each other. giss, Noaa comes out on top and UAH just below 1998. Ties!!!

1998 was .4c outside of the baseline, 2010 .21c outside that.  Difference=increase of .19c.

The planet is warming, but where the fuck is the warm water since 2005? That is the next question to ask.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 14, 2011)

It is to fucking bad that 2011 has a monster Nina---biggest since 1976 that may make this year 5-7th rank based on Giss, Nasa data at the end of the day...Because people here are going to scream and whine like fucking babies about a ice age coming.  People need to get it through there mother fucking head that we are not going to have a ice age inti the next major ice age, which may NOT come for another 3-10 thousand years...What we have going on is ass raping the biggest mother fucking sun spot minimum since the Dalton minimum. One that was fairy close to this one dropped the decades of the 1910-1919 .02 to .04c. The Dalton 2-3 times that...In which if we keep seeing this super minimum bottom of the ground sun spot max we could be disusing such. Friends since 2005 our planet and what ever has been going on has been masked by this. This is why we are below the ipcc predictions since the first years of the 2000s.

.03c is two years of baseline raise.  In that sun spot cycle had one, YES one crappy sun spot minimum much to this one. If this keeps going then we discuse Dalton. I go over what kinds of temperature drops occurred with that some other time, but it was a good drop. You need to understand that 1998 happened with a very strong nino and 2005 occurred with a moderate warm enso of .1 to .5 within 3.4,,,,This year based on some* temperature maps of the eastern pacific* , Ive seen from Noaa, Giss shows that the area avged below normal. That is what Im pointing out...There was NO nino effect on the surface of the area between 20 north and south from south America to 180 west.  It was -.5 or below avged out for 2010.

There is NO FUCKING ICE AGE COMING. The reason that it is not or appears not to be going up as fast is because of the sun spot minimum. 1910-1919 went down, Dalton went down, ect and then on. The natural factors must be factored in.

I promise you that if 2012 see just moderate conditions we see a top 2 year if not number one. Promise you...Even with the sun spot cycle acting like 1910-1919 and 1810-1840. 2013, 2014, 2015 just becomes easier...The compounding the sun spot event that we are seeing;;;Saying that we are now .02c below what we should be seeing...So by 2014 should be -.04c or more...Giss for 2010 with the conservative -.02c below what we would of had and more possibly .03 to .04c already. That would of gave 2010, .65 to .67 within nasa and noaa. These are my estimates using past events to measure what today would be...Give us another moderate year and I show you right here and you can go crazy with cartoons and jokes on my fucking ass if I'm wrong in 2012 or 2013. What ever that is a moderate or nino year without a nina.

I'm taking a chance saying 2012 or 2013 because my data Ive put together says 2014-2015, but this year shows that we could of seen a speed up???? If not then I'm laughed at and made a idiot.  I have reason to believe that the warming of the 1980s and 1990s is going on and is just being masked.

Trust me there is NO ice age coming. Period. I was once a believer of that trash and believed our planets temperature was decreasing. It turned out a crock! At age 14 I got not by fire but by ice and believed every fucking word. Yes some of it is true, but the factors that make up those cycles cant and wont out power the warming. Trust me.

Noaa map of 2010 showing the nina when avged out over most of the biggest fucking ocean on earth. This is within the attchment. 2005 is posted above showing no nina and far warmer.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> It is to fucking bad that 2011 has a monster Nina---biggest since 1976 that may make this year 5-7th rank based on Giss, Nasa data at the end of the day...Because people here are going to scream and whine like fucking babies about a ice age coming.  People need to get it through there mother fucking head that we are not going to have a ice age inti the next major ice age, which may NOT come for another 3-10 thousand years...What we have going on is ass raping the biggest mother fucking sun spot minimum since the Dalton minimum. One that was fairy close to this one dropped the decades of the 1910-1919 .02 to .04c. The Dalton 2-3 times that...In which if we keep seeing this super minimum bottom of the ground sun spot max we could be disusing such. Friends since 2005 our planet and what ever has been going on has been masked by this. This is why we are below the ipcc predictions since the first years of the 2000s.
> 
> .03c is two years of baseline raise.  In that sun spot cycle had one, YES one crappy sun spot minimum much to this one. If this keeps going then we discuse Dalton. I go over what kinds of temperature drops occurred with that some other time, but it was a good drop. You need to understand that 1998 happened with a very strong nino and 2005 occurred with a moderate warm enso of .1 to .5 within 3.4,,,,This year based on some* temperature maps of the eastern pacific* , Ive seen from Noaa, Giss shows that the area avged below normal. That is what Im pointing out...There was NO nino effect on the surface of the area between 20 north and south from south America to 180 west.  It was -.5 or below avged out for 2010.
> 
> ...


Trusting james hanson and his interpretation of data is takling a big chance.  I agree that AGW is a bunch of hyper overblown bunk.  But believing 2010 was the "warmest" year on record, or that 2005 was based on Hansen... well, I just won't do it.  Hansen is an AGW alarmist pushing an agenda and justifying funding for himself, nothing more.  The guy has been caught more thn once massaging the data.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 14, 2011)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-nasa-s...tronger-la.html

NASA satellites capture a stronger La Nina

The La Niña is evident by the large pool cooler than normal (blue and purple) water stretching from the eastern to the central Pacific Ocean, reflecting lower than normal sea surface heights. "This La Niña has strengthened for the past seven months, and is one of the most intense events of the past half century," said Climatologist Bill Patzert 






*New NASA satellite data indicate the current La Niña event in the eastern Pacific has remained strong during November and December 2010.*

A new Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean that averaged 10 days of data was just released from NASA. The image, centered on Dec. 26, 2010, was created at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.

"The solid record of La Niña strength only goes back about 50 years and this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this time period," said Climatologist Bill Patzert of JPL. "It is already impacting weather and climate all around the planet."

"Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century," said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña's effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year."

The new image depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is near-normal, higher (warmer) than normal and lower (cooler) than normal. The cooler-than normal pool of water that stretches from the eastern to the central Pacific Ocean is a hallmark of a La Niña event.





This Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean is based on the average of 10 days of data centered on Dec. 26, 2010. The new image depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is higher (warmer) than normal as yellow and red, with places where the sea surface height is lower (cooler) than normal as blue and purple. Green indicates near-normal conditions. Sea surface height is an indicator of how much of the sun's heat is stored in the upper ocean. Credit: NASA JPL/Bill Patzert

Earth's ocean is the greatest influence on global climate. Only from space can we observe our vast ocean on a global scale and monitor critical changes in ocean currents and heat storage. Continuous data from satellites like OSTM/Jason-2 help us understand and foresee the effects of ocean changes on our climate and on climate events such as La Niña and El Niño.

The latest report from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) noted that "A moderate-to-strong La Niña continued during December 2010 as reflected by well below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean." The CPC report said that La Niña is expected to continue well into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2011.


...

Ben you may have a point, but UAH, Noaa back giss this year.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-nasa-s...tronger-la.html
> 
> NASA satellites capture a stronger La Nina
> 
> ...


Cooler SST's have been being reported for a few years, I have no issue with them though there have been a couple times they haven't done due dilligence in callibrating the satalites for drift and what-not.  To their credit they did fix the problem and produce new SST records to adjust.  Other than that GISS and NOAA work from the same data and use the same adjusting techniques, if their data didn't all but match its because they did something wrong.  Incidently the NCDC also use the same data, they are all linked.  I will say however that NOAA IMO has more integrity than GISS most of the time.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 15, 2011)

temperature data throughout canada...




























http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature
/tn71095_30.gif


































Another thing Ive notice is europe is now avg for January...Yes very extreme Dec, but avg Jan. North Asia appears to be the area of interest right now...But it appears the planet is recovering.

Mid Month predictions
Rss .18
Uah .20
Giss .44


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2011)

Very warm artic, cool europe and eastern north america. Preview of a new climatic regime?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 15, 2011)

Europe is back to normal...

Anyways just did eureka Canada and found .9c of warming since 2000 and 2.2c since 1980. In case your wondering that is 2.2/30 years to find from 1980-2010, which is .0733 per year or .733c per decade...

Since 2000 to 2010 it has warmed .9c, which is .09c per year or .9c per decade.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In spite of the fact that everybody else's data shows basically the same thing as Hansen's. Yes, there are minor desrepancies concerning which was warmest, 1998, 2005, or 2010. As Dr. Christy has repeatedly stated, differances that are not statistacally significant. And 9 of the 10 warmest years have been since 2000. The only year that was not in the last decade was 1998, and that was the strongest El Nino on record. And we have equaled that with a moderate El Nino for 5 months, and a strong La Nina for 7 months. Not only that, the sun is still in a reletively quiet phase.
> 
> No Ben, Dr. Hansen is justly regarded as the leading climatologist in the US, if not the world. All the slander that fools like you can muster will not change that.


James Hansen is the most discreditted idiot that calls himself a climatologist there is.  his work is sloppy, at times fraudulent and he is nothing more than an activist with a seat at the table.  Anyone who trusts anything he says is a fool.  And, as i sated, yes, they are in agreement, that would be because they all work of the same fucked up data and all use the same fucked up techniques to "adjust" it.  It is not "everybody elses data" that shows the same thing, its other agencies using the same exact data that shows similar things... how could that possibly be surprizing?


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Very warm artic, cool europe and eastern north america. Preview of a new climatic regime?


Did they grid in land surface temperatures over water this time to hide the lower SST's?  just wondering.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 16, 2011)

Here is some idea of the warming...

1998 had .6c anomaly, but the baseline was near .375 +- .05. What this means because of that super nino we where a amazing .225c outside the baseline. By 2005 the baseline/running avg raised to .475 or near .1c higher then 1998 and .075 higher then 2000. So 2005 had .62 based on noaa data, which .62-.475=.145c outside the baseline. 2010 baseline raised to .545, so .62-.545 is .085 outside the baseline. 

We did this in a year that the tropics between 20 north/south from south America to 180 west avged nina conditions. Within the deepest sun spot min in 100 years...

So between 1998-2010 the baseline raised .17c based on this data. Of course there is a error of .05, so .12 to .22. 

2008 had .48c and so far we are some what above it...With moderate conditions by mid year forecasted...How far outside the baseline of 2011, which is now .56c? If we where as beneath our line as 2008 this year that would be .08c or 35.5555% of the difference between the baseline and the nino of 1998. This is with a nina that has not been seen since 1976. 

My thinking for 2011 may be near .51-.53 at the end of the day. To account for the raise in the avg.  One more thing---How much warming would occur with .12-1.7c warming per decade by 2100? .12c per decade=1.08c, .15c 1.35c and .17c brings us 1.53c of warming. So between 1 to 1.5c of warming we are trending towards. Of course if we where constant to 2100 at todays rate.

I hope you enjoyed the data

Based on sat data we are .5 to .7c in ch5 then 2008 right now. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 17, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Here is some idea of the warming...
> 
> 1998 had .6c anomaly, but the baseline was near .375 +- .05. What this means because of that super nino we where a amazing .225c outside the baseline. By 2005 the baseline/running avg raised to .475 or near .1c higher then 1998 and .075 higher then 2000. So 2005 had .62 based on noaa data, which .62-.475=.145c outside the baseline. 2010 baseline raised to .545, so .62-.545 is .085 outside the baseline.
> 
> ...




..........................................






Temperature Trends

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.07°C/decade (0.13°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately 0.17°C/decade (0.31°F/decade) during the past 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Temperature measurements have also been made above the Earth's surface over the past 53 years using balloon-borne instruments (radiosondes) and for the past 32 years using satellites. These measurements support the analyses of trends and variability in the troposphere (surface to 10-16 km) and stratosphere (10-50 km above the earth's surface).
RATPAC and Surface plot
RATPAC and Surface plot

The best source of upper air in-situ measurements for studying global temperature trends above the surface is the Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) dataset.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 18, 2011)

Hadley center---Even so it is not earth wide because it excludes a shit load of the planet. Here is the numbers.

1995  0.275  0.286  0.264  0.367  0.183  0.275  0.271  0.368  0.182  0.368  0.182
1996  0.124  0.134  0.113  0.220  0.027  0.124  0.119  0.221  0.026  0.221  0.026
1997  0.356  0.367  0.346  0.449  0.264  0.356  0.352  0.449  0.264  0.449  0.263
1998  0.517 * 0.528 * 0.506  0.609  0.424  0.517  0.512  0.610  0.423  0.610  0.423
1999  0.263  0.275  0.252  0.356  0.170  0.263  0.258  0.357  0.170  0.357  0.169
2000  0.239  0.250  0.228  0.334  0.144  0.239  0.234  0.334  0.144  0.334  0.143
2001  0.399  0.411  0.388  0.495  0.304  0.399  0.394  0.496  0.303  0.496  0.303
2002  0.456  0.467  0.445  0.554  0.358  0.456  0.450  0.554  0.358  0.554  0.357
2003  0.459  0.470  0.449  0.558  0.361  0.459  0.453  0.558  0.360  0.558  0.360
2004  0.431  0.443  0.420  0.529  0.334  0.431  0.425  0.530  0.333  0.530  0.333
2005  0.474  0.485  0.464  0.577  0.372  0.474  0.468  0.578  0.371  0.578  0.371
2006  0.427  0.437  0.417  0.527  0.328  0.427  0.421  0.527  0.327  0.527  0.327
2007  0.402  0.412  0.392  0.502  0.301  0.402  0.396  0.503  0.301  0.503  0.301
2008  0.312  0.322  0.302  0.410  0.214  0.312  0.306  0.411  0.214  0.411  0.214
2009  0.439  0.449  0.429  0.534  0.344  0.439  0.433  0.535  0.344  0.535  0.343
2010  0.518  *0.528*  0.509  0.623  0.414  0.518  0.512  0.623  0.413  0.623  0.413

Without the arctic this is what it gets...Anyways its upper estimate, which would most like be a estimate to include the arctic is near .6223, which is higher then 1998 .60. this would be in  line with the giss, noaa to a t.


...
To try and make these different effects clear we show the effects of these three components separately in the plots and data files for each time-series. The station and grid-box sampling uncertainties are shown in red, the coverage uncertainties in green, and the bias uncertainties in blue. The data files contain 12 columns:

    * Column 1 is the date.
    * Column 2 is the best estimate anomaly. (For the current year this will be the average for the year so far. The latest month that has been processed will appear in the monthly files).
* * Columns 3 and 4 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the station and grid-box sampling uncertainties.*
    * Columns 5 and 6 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the coverage uncertainties.
    * Columns 7 and 8 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the bias uncertainties.
    * Columns 9 and 10 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the combined station and grid-box sampling, and coverage uncertainties.
    * Columns 11 and 12 are the upper and lower 95% uncertainty ranges from the combined effects of all the uncertainties.

More details are given in the paper introducing the dataset.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/time-series.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 18, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Hadley center---Even so it is not earth wide because it excludes a shit load of the planet. Here is the numbers.
> 
> 1995  0.275  0.286  0.264  0.367  0.183  0.275  0.271  0.368  0.182  0.368  0.182
> 1996  0.124  0.134  0.113  0.220  0.027  0.124  0.119  0.221  0.026  0.221  0.026
> ...


1.  My understanding is the "latest month on record" is Nov.  Which I have little doubt of, it's hadley/CRU and its what they do... massage, manipulate and ignore what doesn't support their claims.  It's a problem, but I do not believe there is a current temperature record that can be comletely trusted.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 18, 2011)

Nore on james hansen...



> The nation's most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the "best hope" to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China's will.


Nice to see public sector employyes supporting THIS nation.  The friggin' idiot is an ideologue with an agenda and nothing more.

MICHAELS: China-style dictatorship of climatologists - Washington Times


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 18, 2011)

Climate Prediction Center Weekly Update at 1/18/11

More cooler the Nino 3.4 area than two weeks ago,meaning that La Nina is here to stay thru the Spring months and maybe thru the Summer as CFS model shows.

Three Weeks Ago Update

Niño 4= -1.3ºC
Niño= 3.4 -1.5ºC
Niño 3= -1.7ºC
Niño1+2= -1.7ºC



This Week Update

Niño 4= -1.6ºC
Niño 3.4= -1.8ºC
Niño 3= -1.5ºC
Niño1+2= -0.7ºC

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/a ... ts-web.pdf

Back up to -1.8c within 3.4...Impressive. 


This event goes to 150 east with -2c waters at 160-180 west. 2008 does not come close to this. But it does seem to be focusing more westward as area 1+2 off south America and area 3 have warmed and area 3.4 and 4 have went down. 

With this information in mind---This year may not be within the top 10. 2008 went to moderate by the summer time. I think we if this does go the way it may then we might be tied with 1999-2000, 1996 maybe a possibility.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 22, 2011)

http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/cu ... table.html

Quote:
Current Conditions
As of mid-January 2011, SSTs continue to indicate moderate to strong La Niña conditions in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. For December the SST anomaly in the NINO3.4 region was -1.53 C, indicative of moderate to strong La Niña conditions, and for the October-December season the anomaly was -1.52 C. Currently the IRI's definition of El Niño conditions rests on an index of SST anomalies, averaged over the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N; 170W-120W), exceeding the warmest 25%-ile of the historical distribution, and similarly for La Niña relative to the 25%-ile coldest conditions in the historical distribution. The NINO3.4 anomaly necessary to qualify as La Niña or El Niño conditions for the Jan-Feb-Mar and the Feb-Mar-Apr seasons are approximately (-0.55C, 0.50) and (-0.45, 0.40), respectively.


Expected Conditions
The most recent weekly SST anomaly in the NINO3.4 region is -1.7 C, indicating moderate to strong La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific; this is just slightly cooler than the -1.53 C level observed in December. What is the outlook for the ENSO status going forward? January is a time of the year during which the observed ENSO state is often beginning to move toward weaker anomaly values, particularly if an ENSO episode has been occurring. One might ask whether the current La Niña condition should therefore be expected to weaken, and if so, at what rate. In the current case, negative subsurface sea temperature anomalies have continued to occupy the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, and have shown little tendency to weaken even in the last one to two months as the event has been in the process of discharging at the surface. Sea temperature anomalies below the surface often portend SST anomalies to be expected in the following few months, as they are subject to the climatological upwelling in the eastern part of the basin. Current low-level wind anomalies indicate much enhanced trades, especially in the western and west-central portion of the tropical Pacific, and very strongly positive traditional and equatorial SOI indices. These atmospheric features imply above-average upwelling activity in the eastern tropical Pacific, at least for the near term, and suggest that the negative subsurface sea temperature anomalies will likely continue to find their way to the surface during the coming two or more months. The continued surfacing of below-average subsurface waters implies a likelihood for short-term (at least one month) continuation of the strength of the currently moderate to strong La Niña conditions, despite that the seasonal cycle of ENSO suggests a typical decline in strength at this time of year. Above-average subsurface waters exist in the western tropical Pacific, and although they have been edging eastward during the last few months they do not appear poised to displace the large volume of below-average water to their east for at least two or more months, and possibly longer.

Presently, the models and observations taken together indicate probabilities of approximately 98% for maintaining La Niña conditions, near 2% for returning to ENSO-neutral conditions, and nearly 0% for developing El Niño conditions during the Jan-Mar 2011 season in progress. Probabilities for La Niña decrease slightly to 88% for Feb-Apr, and to 67% for Mar-May. In late northern spring the probabilities for La Niña weaken at a faster rate, declining to 46% for Apr-Jun and to 27% for Jun-Aug and for the following several seasons.


The above assessment was made in part on the basis of an examination of the current predictions of ENSO prediction models as well as the observed conditions. For purposes of this discussion, El Niño SST conditions are defined as SSTs in the NINO3.4 region being in the warmest 25% of their climatological distribution for the 3-month period in question over the 1950-present timeframe. The corresponding cutoff in terms of degrees C of SST anomaly varies seasonally, being close to 0.40 degrees C in boreal late-spring to early-summer season and as high as 0.75 degrees C in late boreal autumn. La Niña conditions are defined as NINO3.4 region SSTs being in the coolest 25% of the climatological distribution. Neutral conditions occupy the remaining 50% of the distribution. These definitions were developed such that the most commonly accepted El Niño and La Niña episodes are reproduced.

The models show unanimous agreement regarding the continuation of La Niña conditions into part of the second quarter of 2011, but vary somewhat in their predictions of the rate of decreasing strength starting from the Jan-Mar season. Most statistical and dynamical models call for at least moderate La Niña strength (stronger than -1C) through the Feb-Apr season. For the Jan-Mar, Feb-Apr and Mar-May seasons, 100% of the models are predicting La Niña conditions, while none predicts ENSO-neutral conditions. Following Mar-May, some models begin indicating a return to neutral ENSO conditions, but not to the point of being a majority until the May-Jul season. By Jul-Sep, two of the 23 models call for weak El Niño conditions. At lead times of 4 or more months into the future, statistical and dynamical models that incorporate information about the ocean's observed subsurface thermal structure generally exhibit higher predictive skill than those that do not. Among models that do use subsurface temperature information, 6 of 13 (46%) predict ENSO-neutral SSTs for the Jun-Aug seasons, 6 of 13 (46%) predict La Niña conditions, and 1 of 13 (8%) predict El Niño conditions. (Note 1). (Note that La Niña conditions for Jun-Aug require a NINO3.4 SST anomaly of -0.50 or stronger, and El Niño conditions require 0.45 or stronger.) Caution is advised in interpreting the distribution of model predictions as the actual probabilities. At longer leads, the skill of the models degrades, and skill uncertainty must be convolved with the uncertainties from initial conditions and differing model physics, leading to more climatological probabilities in the long-lead ENSO Outlook than might be suggested by the suite of models. Furthermore, the expected skill of one model versus another has not been established using uniform validation procedures, which may cause a difference in the true probability distribution from that taken verbatim from the raw model predictions.


An alternative way to assess the probabilities of the three possible ENSO conditions is to use the mean of the predictions of all models, and to construct a standard error function centered on that mean. The standard error would be Gaussian in shape, and would have its width determined by an estimate of overall expected model skill for the season of the year and the lead time. Higher skill would result in a relatively narrower error distribution, while low skill would result in an error distribution with width approaching that of the historical observed distribution. This method shows probabilities for La Niña at near 100% for Jan-Mar and Feb-Apr, declining to 95% for Mar-May and 69% for Apr-Jun. (Note that the threshold for La Niña weakens from approximately -0.55C to -0.45C between Jan-Mar and Apr-Jun, due to the seasonality of the interannual variance). The forecasters believe, however, that the northern spring model-based probabilities for La Niña may be higher than it should be, due to a common model bias of persisting ENSO episodes for too long a duration at the end of their typical seasonal cycle. Model probabilities for La Niña are 46% for May-Jul, and decrease to less than 40% for Jul-Sep and beyond. The same cautions mentioned above for the distribution of model predictions apply to this alternative method of inferring probabilities, due to differing model biases and skills. In particular, this approach considers only the mean of the predictions, and not the range across the models, nor the ensemble range within individual models.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 22, 2011)

2001    95.6  80.6 113.5 107.7  96.6 134.0  81.8 106.4 150.7 125.5 106.5 132.2
2002   114.1 107.4  98.4 120.7 120.8  88.3  99.6 116.4 109.6  97.5  95.5  80.8
2003    79.7  46.0  61.1  60.0  54.6  77.4  83.3  72.7  48.7  65.5  67.3  46.5
2004    37.3  45.8  49.1  39.3  41.5  43.2  51.1 * 40.9  27.7  48.0  43.5  17.9
2005    31.3  29.2  24.5  24.2  42.7  39.3  40.1  36.4  21.9   8.7  18.0  41.1

2006    15.3   4.9  10.6  30.2  22.3  13.9  12.2  12.9  14.4  10.5  21.4  13.6
2007    16.8  10.7   4.5   3.4  11.7  12.1   9.7   6.0   2.4   0.9   1.7  10.1
2008     3.3   2.1   9.3   2.9   3.2   3.4   0.8   0.5   1.1   2.9   4.1   0.8
2009     1.3   1.4   0.7   0.8   2.9   2.9   3.2   0.0   4.3   4.8   4.1  10.8
2010    13.2  18.8  15.4   8.0   8.7  13.6  16.1  19.6  25.2  23.5  21.6  14.5*


The shaded area is the grand minimum...

Sun spot number per month. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/monthly/MONTHLY


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 23, 2011)

Just to correct a mistaken claim from earlier in the thread about CRU and UAH being in agreement with Hansen and his GIGO temperature reconstructions.

Apparently even these AGW activist agencies make NO such claim as 1998 is still the warmest year in the instumental period



data sets here

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Hansen... lying again


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 23, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Just to correct a mistaken claim from earlier in the thread about CRU and UAH being in agreement with Hansen and his GIGO temperature reconstructions.
> 
> Apparently even these AGW activist agencies make NO such claim as 1998 is still the warmest year in the instumental period
> 
> ...



1# CRU dont include 75% of the arctic that is warming at 3 times as fast the rest of the Planet...Most of Africa, Antarctica. Ecwmf did a study on it and found that if this data was included they would be very close to giss.

2# Uah factors in the enso nearly twice as much as surface stations because the troposphere is more effected by it then the surface. 

But most importantly 1998 was a super nino that never went nina until Nov of 1998 and was tiny compared to the one that started in May this year. I doubt any effects of it occurred before Feb, March 1999. You have to use the same standards for 1998 as you use in 2010 and the nino was twice as strong in 1998 with a tinie nina comparably to this years.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 23, 2011)

Matthew said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Just to correct a mistaken claim from earlier in the thread about CRU and UAH being in agreement with Hansen and his GIGO temperature reconstructions.
> ...


If you choose to believe hansen and his ignoring in situ SST data in favor of gridding of land surface temperatures over water... yeah, that could be waht the data says.



> 2# Uah factors in the enso nearly twice as much as surface stations because the troposphere is more effected by it then the surface.


lower trop.  Uah measures lower trop 



> But most importantly 1998 was a super nino that never went nina until Nov of 1998 and was tiny compared to the one that started in May this year. I doubt any effects of it occurred before Feb, March 1999. You have to use the same standards for 1998 as you use in 2010 and the nino was twice as strong in 1998 with a tinie nina comparably to this years.


niether of which change the actual tempertures recorded.  There are a lot of reasons for climate fluctuations and 99% of them are natural.  ENSO, PDO, AO, DWOC, (GCR's, SCR's, and SO2's role in cloud formation), clouds, solar variables (other than irradiation), galactic clouds, magnetic fluctuations and storms, Albedo, black carbon, vulcanism, particulate matter, Ozone.  Lots and lots of things.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 23, 2011)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think all the temperature monitors are suspect.  GISS is a joke.  NOAA is not much better, UAH at least makes an attempt but Spencer admitted that the satellite data is suspect.
> ...



Science will not be damaged, because the people who commit this fraud are not scientists.
The only science involved here is political science and it`s quite easy to show this.

I don`t want to repeat what I posted concerning the science of how much infrared CO2 can absorb, or what really melts the Greenland glaciers You can if You want to just look it up what I posted, and I have been in Greenland many times, and have also been inside the Arctic Climate Research Lab, and know exactly what is going on at ground Zero!
However it`s up to You what you rather read,...the bull that the media feeds the public or a shitload of revealing pictures I brought with me form the North Pole, Ellesmere Island and Greenland, feel free to check out my uploaded Album, but I am running out of space there:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...on-stretched-up-to-50-days-2.html#post3240137

I did say, that the only science at play here is "wag the dog" political science, because the "scientific data" is crap and even if You do take the raw data it does not amount to anything...unless You plug that into "Computer Models" and make 100 year projections,...
like form "European Scientists have determined Ocean levels are rising 5/ one hundreds of an inch per year" and then start a media blitz with Pictures like that:





And Al Gores "drowning Polar Bear":





To see how this "science works" just set Your search engine to "images" and You will see that these images come up on top.
Now get Yourself the 'TinEye" reverse Image search plug for the type of browser You are using and trace who is using these images and how much.
Anyway You will be able to track it right down to do a *VERY reliable correlation
* 
Next go on "Google insights"...
Google Tendances des recherches

*And You will get some REAL insights*, after all Google is by far the largest data base and collects all the time who is looking at what with "LSO super cookies" that Your browser DOES NOT get rid off unless You do it manually Yourself!!!
Try "global warming"....and look at the world wide interest trends!
Try "Carbon dioxie" or try CO2...
Try "Global warming"
And this is what You will see:
Google Tendances des recherches

See how Google tracked it world wide...?
*#1 is Fiji, #10= Botswana and the U.S. does not even make the list!*

*Don`t fool Yourself, the Global Warming "Experts" are indeed Experts, not in Science, but certainly in the political Science how to wag the dog...and they are masters in that department!*
*They do watch these trends more carefully than anything else!*
So when they get a spike with their doomsday news press releases and the spike is caused by something like that, which it had...look it up at point marked "F"!..
Slideshow: Fidel Castro says Obama brave on global warming | Reuters.com


> Fidel Castro praising Obama , brave on global warming
> (Reuters) - Former Cuban President Fidel Castro praised President Barack Obama on Wednesday for making a "brave gesture" by speaking out against global warming and saying developed nations had caused much of the damage.



They are not that stupid not to realize *why Americans paid attention to Reuters!!*!...and that something backfired here!
But nothing halted the downward trend so it is no surprise at all why You don`t see any more high profile press releases about "average temperature" trends.

They don`t want to Target Botswana, they want to target the U.S.!!
Europe has been sacked already!
So they after Al Gore made his movie Google tracked that, here is the "drowning Polar bear"...:
Google Tendances des recherches
There are as You would be able to track with "TinEye" 3 Images associated, that after that wen world wide, #1 Germany, where the "Climate Chancellor" seen to it that every School in Germany has this book...like I say, You can find out with TinEye:


> Amazon.de: Günstige Preise bei Elektronik & Foto, DVD, Musik, Bücher, Games, Spielzeug & mehr
> Amazon.fr Meilleures ventes Livres: Les meilleures ventes Amazon.fr (Mise à jour toutes les heures)
> Amazon.co.uk:...
> http://www.billiger.de/show/testberichte/149169...
> http://www.amazon.de/JVC-AV-14-14-Zoll-Fernsehe&tag=...


They also have this "drowning Polar Bear"..:





But nobody has the Polar Bear I watched all summer *and he did not drown!*





*But this time they did notice, that they scored a huge hit and exactly on target.*

Google Tendances des recherches
*The U.S. came out at #1...!
See for Yourself!*
Soon after that all the CO2, and "average temps" press releases were almost muted and the entire campaign shifted to "thin ice" and the Greenland glacier melts.

Google Tendances des recherches

*#1= U.S.,#2=Canada, #3= U.K....!*
The biggest peak was a press release, as You can see on that Google graph:


> Chunk of greenland glaciers break up overnight



But then that backfired, because other "dissenting" Experts drove that graph down to lower what it was before:
The Hindu : Sci-Tech / Energy & Environment : Chunk of Greenland glacier breaks up overnight
*and that was noticed!...again You can track that with Google!*


> *While this weeks breakup itself is not unusual, Howat noted*, detecting it within hours and at such fine detail is a new phenomenon for scientists.


So what now...?
Well now we have a press release from Barry Smit to CNN:
"Inuit lives and diets change as ice shifts - CNN
      30 Dec 2010 ... Barry Smit, a professor at the University of Guelph, Canada, has spent five years leading research projects into how melting ice and changes ...
      articles.cnn.com/.../inuit.impact.climate.change_1_ice-inuit-junk-food?_... - Cached"


> Inuit lives and diets change as ice shifts
> December 30, 2010|By Catriona Davies for CNN
> 
> Climate change is altering diets and lifestyles among Inuit people, according to a scientist who has studied the human face of global warming in the Arctic.
> ...



*And a whole lot more  of that, that`s been going on for a while:*
News


> *Departing on July 31, from Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec aboard the vessel Polar Ambassador, the 2009* team will explore the northern reaches of Nunavik and southern Baffin Island, Nunavut for close to two weeks. They will return to Ottawa on August 12.



Notice they take the press and these students there at the height of Summer, that is the only time a ship can make it to Baffin Island because the rest of the year you need an icebreaker!





*And the rest of the "Information Tour" is conducted the same way Communist China or Iran would give You an "Information Tour"...carefully guided:
*



> *Life-changing trip opens teens eyes to climate change*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yes they all reported what Barry Smit had reported to CNN, how man made GW is "forcing" Inuit to eat Grease burgers.

*And now I will show You a few things which were not included in the tour!
and after that You decide what You want to believe!
*

CBC News In Depth: Aboriginal Canadians


> "I can't stop sniffing because I'm very lonely especially when I'm alone... I want to see things I see when I am sniffing," Angela says.
> Carl's best friend and brother lies beneath the freshly fallen snow. A little boy named Charles, a little boy lost to the deadly mix of gas and child's play.















NunatsiaqOnline 2009-12-31: NEWS: Iqaluit: A year in the life of the capital


>  RCMP present their final tally for 2008 crime levels to Iqaluit city council, and the picture isnt pretty. Crime numbers are up across the board, including a 32 per cent jump in theft and property crimes, drug offences rose 86 per cent and traffic offences 72 per cent. Arrests totalled 3,400. Police attribute the spike to increased levels of substance abuse in the capital.
> An unsolved homicide: Police have yet to lay in charge in connection with the death of Daisy Curley, 33, whose body was found this past May inside an Iqaluit house.
> Drug-related violence also keeps capital RCMP busy. In one incident, a man in his early 30s is brutally beaten by four or five assailants and has to be flown to Ottawa for medical treatment. In another, police seize $1,600 in marijuana and $600 in cash after they break up a brawl in front of Arctic Ventures. One man is pepper sprayed by police, and charged with trafficking, resisting arrest and possession of the proceeds of crime.



Well I could go on and on, because I know Inuvik, I know Iqaluit and I know what goes on in the arctic! "Climatologists" do say the arctic is the best "early warning alarm system"..
And yes if You want to get a scale on this massive fraud, the arctic is indeed the best early warning system what is wrong with modern society!
You want more?
I can get technical too, but have done that already in the other threads here.


----------



## Annie (Jan 23, 2011)

Hey Polar Bear, you may go on a tad too long, but you're right in that those arguing in favor of special rules are PC rather than science. When too long though, the argument is lost in the details, no matter how right you may be.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 23, 2011)

*Thanks for the advice Annie, I took it, so is that short enough?
*
Of course man made GW, "arctic experts" argue already that our SUV exhaust has ruined the traditional lifestyle of the Inuit peoples.
And if anyone points out that I do not have a degree in Social Science, they are right.
But I have been there and I do not get my info from carefully orchestrated "scientific tours".
If You want to find out what was the cause, all You have to do is look at what the Inuit people say:
Inuit Broadcasting Corporation 


> It is difficult to describe how shocking the invasion of television to an Arctic community could be. An Inuit woman once described her feelings upon watching &#8220;All in the Family&#8221; for the first time.
> 
> &#8220;&#8230;There was the father, obviously a stupid man, screaming at his children and his wife. He seemed to hate them. They were lying to him, they were treating with contempt, they were screaming back at him&#8230;and then in the last five minutes everyone kissed and made up&#8230;We were always taught to treat our elders with respect. I was embarrassed for those people on TV. I thought, I always knew white people were weird. I wondered if that was really what people were like in the South&#8230;&#8221;
> 
> Programming depicting southern attitudes, values and behaviors proliferated in the North throughout the mid-seventies. Inuit and community leaders were quick to realize that this electronic tidal wave of alien images and information would lead to the deterioration of Inuit language and culture, and could disrupt the fragile structures of traditional community life.



And I can tell You, that this is true. You should see how the young punks who are being "educated" with Hollywood and CNN laugh at an elder when he comes by with a dog sled instead of a pick up truck!
Or how they throw anything that`s not at least a Pizza or something from the Iqaluit Burger king in his face...as if You could convince them to eat raw seal meat, like the Professor told CNN, they can`t get "because of man made GWthe ice is too thin"...!

*If the American public in the lower 49 only had a more honest media, all this crap would stop OVERNIGHT!*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 23, 2011)

I will post the data as it comes in and you can debate it. I don't care if it is right or wrong...I enjoy doing it just like most people enjoy watching fat men throwing a ball around. Different yes, but that is a good thing to have differences in people...If not we would have a very boring word.

Nina and nino decrease and increase the anomalies within their years. The enso is the most powerful short term natural factor in the yearly temperature difference....Outside of a huge volcano of course. So having a much weaker nino and powerful nina is a different set up that favors it to be much below 1998s natural factors anyway.


Yes the UAH measures the lower troposphere...Not saying it is not a good tool to have, but against the surface data? 

I thought giss went off of Satellite, buoy, and ship data for their ocean data.

Hadl/Reyn_v2:SST 1880-present
1880-11/1981: Hadley HadISST1, ship and buoy data (Rayner 2000),
12/1981-present: oisst v2, satellite data (Reynolds-Rayner-Smith 2001)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/


----------



## Brye (Jan 23, 2011)

Man made global warming is a hoax, in respects to modern day fear tactics, that is all it's good for. If anyone really cared to sit down and the science and math they would understand that the world gradually goes through these cycles and there is nothing we can do about it. The myth is further exposed by the fact that the one hacker exposed all those emails of scientists asking other scientists to fudge the date or to get rid of it completely. What some people don't seem to under stand is that "Solar Activity" or a "Volcano" exploding will have much more of a effect on the global climate then we ever will. If you ask any real scientist who isn't interested in political agendas they will tell you that GW is the biggest man made conspiracy to ever brace planet earth next to the Illuminati.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 23, 2011)

Brye said:


> Man made global warming is a hoax, in respects to modern day fear tactics, that is all it's good for. If anyone really cared to sit down and the science and math they would understand that the world gradually goes through these cycles and there is nothing we can do about it. The myth is further exposed by the fact that the one hacker exposed all those emails of scientists asking other scientists to fudge the date or to get rid of it completely. What some people don't seem to under stand is that "Solar Activity" or a "Volcano" exploding will have much more of a effect on the global climate then we ever will. If you ask any real scientist who isn't interested in political agendas they will tell you that GW is the biggest man made conspiracy to ever brace planet earth next to the Illuminati.



Sounds just like me a few years ago, but what turned me is the fact that the temperatures haven't went down within the biggest solar minimum in 100 years.  Sure the earth goes through cycles that have to do with the sun...That is a fact, but we are within one of those right now and it is going against it. Why, that is what we are discusing and debating about. 

Think about the energy from our star as most of the pie, but then add in the green house gases that holds in the heat...This helps to keep our planet warm and livable, but lets say that you have a increase in the green house gases that causes more of our stars energy to stay within the climate system? So that is going to cause more and more heat stays within our Atmosphere, Oceans(Debateable of course) and ice sheets and causes a imbalance. 93% within oceans....

*-*Now we have a decrease of solar energy from the norm of the 20th century within solar output reaching our planet. But no decrease in temperature?

*-*What must of happen you ask? What some believe that has happen is that the energy being holded within the climate system is increasing as the level of forcing per m^2 is increasing with the increase of green house gases...Be it Co2, Ch4, ect. We know that these solar mins have a effect--being that the coldest avg decade since 1880 was 1910s, which had the solar minimum that compares to this one. The thing is this solar max has been weak to, which is compounding the effects and heading us towards a Dalton event, which occurred 1810-1840. It was the last of the grand minimums that made up the Little ice age period. Yes I still believe in the natural stuff _I_ believed as a skeptic. It is very important and the believers are wrong to exclude it. It is part of the forcing that is going to have a huge impact on the rate of the increase within the short and mid term.

*-*So that(less solar energy) works as a negative forcing against the increasing positive forcing of the co2 and green house gases. Don't believe it then don't;;;Just trying to understand it my self and trying to help others find their way to understanding it better. But anyways they are countering each other right now...Funny thing is when you think about it both have to be compounding and increasing to keep the energy within the climate system to remain stable as it is now. If anything the positive is increasing slightly more then the negative forcing...Which shows that the increase of co2 and green house gases is out powering nature.

Me I don't went a cent gong to anything. Just a interest in knowledge is what I care about. Fuck I'm rooting for both sides. I went to see what happens.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2011)

One of the sad things about this board is how much of the posting has to do with the posters disdain for some political figure. Politics does not change the melting of the glaciers by 1 mm. In fact, each and every time I see a poster yapping about his dislike of one politician or the other on the global warming board, I know that he is not serious about the science at all. In fact, all too often, the poster is willfully ignorant of what the scientists state, and quick to espress his disdain for all scientists.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 23, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Sounds just like me a few years ago, but what turned me is the fact that the temperatures haven't went down within the biggest solar minimum in 100 years.
> *-*Now we have a decrease of solar energy from the norm of the 20th century within solar output reaching our planet. But no decrease in temperature?
> 
> If anything the positive is increasing slightly more then the negative forcing...Which shows that the increase of co2 and green house gases is out powering nature.
> ...



No decrease in temperature? What the hell are You talking about? There was and "climatologists" have officially acknowledged that....
What kind of garbage source do You get Your information from?
But "climatologists" have sited everything from 'La Nina" to "reflective dust" in the atmosphere....ANYTHING as long it can evade the subject of solar cycles.
They can`t even agree with their "average temperature highs":
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said


> La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China
> The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
> While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
> 
> ...



Excuse me?..*.the uncertainty value in the data they use is LARGER *than these "small" temperature differences!

Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate | McClatchy



> *So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.
> *
> However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.
> 
> ...



It does not matter where You look this has been published EVERYWHERE and You have the nerve to say here there was no decrease in temperature!

It does not dawn on You either what they have just admitted about the "accuracy" of their data either has it?

I guess if I put all the dots here, to give You the complete picture of this bullshit dodge maneuver, that will be too many dots for You to connect...so I`ll keep the number of dots to a bare minimum!

*"Climatologists" posted* that in Wikipedia...NOT me or anybody else:
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *since the mid-20th century* and its *projected *continuation. According to the 2007* Fourth Assessment Report *by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74* ± 0.18 °C (*1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity



See how lies come back and haunt You...now they are stuck to explain it the same way as they had when they started out!...with "greenhouse gases"!




> Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2]* The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.*








Also this "science" allows "scientists" to do things with data presentation  that no other  science would allow. Trends are of vital importance in a Microprocessor controlled environment. You can`t just draw a straight line through the "averages"...where by the way the noise level is* almost twice as high as the magnitude  * from where You started to record and *CONTINUE trying to find a STRAIGHT LINE through your "averages" of the present time!*
*HOLY SHIT...any control system for a large reaction system would totally overreact and refineries and nuclear power plants would be blowing up all around you!....or stall as it were in this case!*
Imagine a large reactor and the cooling system has to take it`s clues from the trend...as they must in a large one..else it falls way behind with catastrophic consequences....*also if it OVER MODULATES!*
And this is how a REAL trend is established.
I am sure it is necessary to explain to You, that a controller for a large system is not as simple as a controller for a small one, like in a Lab, where instant sensing and response still work, because a small system reacts quicker, there is no lag..*.but when the system get big, there is a huge lag*, so the software *has to look at trends..*
The software I work with would have *spotted a flat trend in the averages from 1980 to 1994.* and would have not modulated the cooling system up or down!
Then @ ~ 1994 to about 1998 it would have spotted an ever so slight increase in "heat" and issued a +modulation command to the cooling system.
At 2000 it would sample for the next trend before the software would decide if up or down modulation is required..a REAL Microprocessor trend sensing  program would have realized, that there is a flat line in the "de-spiked" data and would neither modulate up or down, because the large system has now stabilized.
I really don`t know what kind of fuck head school these climate computer trend modeling "experts"  have attended to put something this stupid into Wikipedia for the entire world to look and laugh at. They should have realized that there are more than a few people out there that can spot this bullshit with the first glance.
I`m  just glad the industry does not let them near power plants, large autoclaves, auto pilot software in aviation and so on...else there would be a daily mass carnage.
Even the earliest  Westinghouse Microprocessor controls would have spotted these 3 trend zones...I can spot these just by eyeballing, because it is my job to set up control systems for REALLY BIG stuff!
You have no idea how a control system would TOTALLY OVERREACT if You were to feed it this idiotic  trend line these "climatologists" have drawn through this graph...
*But hey, that`s the whole idea!....that`s the way You were supposed to perceive  it like that and it worked!...
* Inkblot tests work the same way, if the guy next to You outlines an elephant, then You see an elephant in what was just a simple inkblot.
If it`s too hard for You to look at that graph and ignore this idiotic line just turn on Your printer, issue a screen dump, and trace the same Graph onto a blank sheet of paper and look at it then!
And I`ll connect the other dots for You as well, else Your CPU is a little over burdened.
*See they can`t squirm out of that flat Zone from 1998 to 2010 that everybody other than You did spot!*

And have to stammer that the *"uncertainty"* is higher than the fucking B]"increases" [/B]they have presented to the entire world press as accurate data.
And conclude "what is important are the long range trends"  and have the audacity to tell You that this long range trend is (still)* upwards!*...!

You still argue here about temperature trends from which  these fraud artists try to quietly distance themselves, since they have been cornered like that *IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD PRESS..*.but You have not noticed that for some strange reason and still continue to make a fool of yourself with what they like to call now "uncertainty"...
"climatologists" have walked away from these silly graphs a long time ago!!...now they are trying to prove that the globe is warming with* glacier melt * ...
*You are discussing a dead topic here.*..the horse and the horse shit left this barn years ago!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 23, 2011)

*Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :*
People like You get impressed if You see a simple graph which has anywhere in the
picture description the word "NASA" on it, or read an article with something like
"scientists at NASA"...that`s understandable...because You think holy shit, NASA!
They are all "rocket scientists" ,they make satellites, they  can land on the moon etc etc...
so this must be right.
Only people that never have worked with  or for NASA would be deceived by this!
Do you really think, that a guy who actually works with or designs hi-tech equipment
gives a rat`s ass what some "climatologist" who has permission to access NASA`s vast
resources is doing(as long as he does n`t "shoplift")  or saying???...as long
as he is not trying to tell them how to do* their job!*


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2011)

polarbear said:


> *Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :*
> People like You get impressed if You see a simple graph which has anywhere in the
> picture description the word "NASA" on it, or read an article with something like
> "scientists at NASA"...that`s understandable...because You think holy shit, NASA!
> ...



haha, I think it has been said actually. NASA's direction has dramatically turned to political correctness in the last few decades and it shows in their output. mind you they still let some unexplainabe work see the daylight, like the study from a few months ago that showed the Urban Heat Island effect was orders of magnitude larger than Jones' claim.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 24, 2011)

While i`m here why not mention this..
Has anyone EVER come across any publication which has a line like "*Russian climatologists*" in it or anything at all about "man made GW" studies by "*RUSSIAN scientists show...*".
I bet You have not! and I bet there never will!
If You do Google using a whole variety of combinations  all You come up with are western newspaper articles that have on the front page an article about GW and further down a totally unrelated article about Russia or some Russian scientist.
Or Items like this which comes up as # 2 with Google:
Growing Glaciers


> The truth about the great overhyped glacier melt ... For the first time ever, Russia is forced to abandon its base at Vostok. Due to heavier than usual pack ...
> 20 Jan 2010 ... Climate panel?s glacier claims melting away, More holes surface in IPCC?s ... by Russian scientist V. M. Kotlyakov says: &#8220;The extrapolar ..



*Asia accounts for almost 30% of the total landmass of this planet and yet the "climatologists" don`t even want to mention it! *

They have once and probably never will again:
With Google as the #3 hit shows this:


> *India criticises UN warning on Himalayan glacier melt*
> *India has criticised the UN panel on climate change saying its grim warning about melting Himalayan glaciers was not based on "scientific evidence".*
> 19 Jan 2010 ... India criticises UN warning on Himalayan glacier melt ... Injuries in Easter Island clashes · Russian denies world spam scheme ...



And this too:


> Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate ...
> 16 Dec 2009 ... The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. ...



and that`s how it goes on and on down the list of all Google hits using these search criteria, same pattern.

And while I`m here why not mention these too:
With the TinEye reverse image search You would spot who is a "frequent flyer" using this picture:




*www.solarpowerwindenergy.org*
they also like the "drowning Polar Bear" ....a lot!
You can find "Wordpress" and this bitch almost everywhere when You reverse search these images...and the books she writes and with which Organizations she is:
*Heide Cullen*



> Heide Cullen has written a new book expressing her views about the world&#8217;s climate 40 years from now.   You may recall that Cullen is the Weather Channel climatologist who suggested *that other meteorologists and climatologists who express doubts about anthropogenic global warming be decertified by the American Meteorological Society.*


Here is how she answers FAQ`s:


> *What has the &#8220;warmers&#8221; so upset? *
> 
> They get the vast majority of the press and the accolades.  They have more money and are highly organized.  The &#8220;deniers&#8221; are mostly a ragtag group of lone individuals motivated by personal interest and receiving zero compensation.  They are usually denigrated as kooks or quacks.
> 
> ...



Some science eeh?

Oh yeah, Sarah Palin who has almost already been convicted by liberals as the telekinetic thought impulse source  that twitched a trigger finger does not go unscathed either, she is being held responsible for a massive cover up of dieing Polar Bears as well:



> A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 900 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the United States.
> Sarah Palin and Global Warming: Alaska Prof. Says Palin Misrepresented State Findings on Endangered Polar Bears...*and Tried to Cover It Up*



They are even attacking the Canadian Armed Forces:


> New info on Operation Nanook, the Canadian military exercise taking place this month in Nunavut?
> &#8220;Brig. Gen. David Millar, commander of Joint Task Force North, confirmed July 31 that one of the Operation Nanook exercises will simulate the destruction of Iqaluit&#8217;s tank farm and fuel boom by environmental activists.&#8221;



So, "OldRocks" who are the "kooky" ones?

P.S. You can run TinEye searches here or download the plugin:
http://www.tineye.com/


----------



## polarbear (Jan 24, 2011)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :*
> ...



Well excuuuuuse me! But that`s not what I was talking about. Because I do  know  how it  works there. The company policy is as You say, but that`s not new and that has been like that almost everywhere else too.
Members of visible minorities  actually have the advantage being just that and You tread on very thin ice indeed if You point out any lack in qualifications...
Fags and climatologists are no exception, I knew that and I`m glad You knew too!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2011)

smoke on this

1998 was in a solar max and within the strongest nino in record history. 1991-1994 was a period that had the effects of a massive volcano. So that explain why the warming was so neat and visible. Not so in 2000-2010. 2005 did catch the tail of the solar max and had a constant positive enso pattern. 2007-2009 turned to cool with very low solar flex.

That is the way it is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

Global Fiducials Library

Bering Glacier is the largest and longest glacier in continental North America. In 1996, its size reached a late twentieth-century maximum. Since then, parts of Bering Glacier's terminus have retreated more than three miles and have thinned by more than 200 feet. These images below document the 1996-2005 retreat of Bering Glacier and show an example of the long-term monitoring required to accurately assess the state of the glacier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

ESS 203 home page

In the polar regions, many glaciers end in the ocean. This is Barne Glacier, on Ross Island in Antarctica. Could these glaciers be threatened by rising ocean temperatures? By rising sea level?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

*From Russia with concern.*

http://www.lgt.lt/geoin/files/geology_and_ecosystems.doc

Part V: Prediction of the Geoenvironmental Evolution of Ecosystems

PREDICTION OF EXOGENIC GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES 
A. KRUPODEROV & A. SHEKO                                                                                                                         229

PREDICTION OF ENDOGENIC GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES 
G. VARTANYAN                                                                                                                                                      247

MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE GEOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 
Q. HE                                                                                                                                                                       251

THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON GEOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM INTERACTION J. SATKUNAS ,J. TAMINSKAS,  N. OBERMAN


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 24, 2011)

Won't this eventually boil down to population control?

If humans emit CO2, and CO2 is the culprit, controlling carbon emissions and such merely prolongs the inevitable.

Until we start killing people simply for emitting CO2, we're not serious about "saving" this planet.

Posting walls of text and numbers doesn't do shit to address the real effects of an imaginary problem.

Rocks, Matthew.....

you're both going to die, and the planet isn't.

Both of you need to get laid, or play a game of baseball, or take a ride on a roller coaster.

You both need lives, outside of the Internet, and beyond the propaganda.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

Yes, it will boil down to population control. Population control by agriculteral failure. Natures hard ball game. 

As for your flap yap about killing people for emitting CO2, ain't gonna happen. The people that will die, at least initially, will be those in the third world countries that have little to do with the emissions that will drive the climatic change. 

Now as far as posting walls of text and nonsense, neither Mathew or I can hold a candle to biPolar.


----------



## konradv (Jan 24, 2011)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > *Also its about time that SOMEBODY finally says this :*
> ...



*Orders* of magnitude greater?!?!  I'd like to see a cite for that!  Why do you have to shit on your own claims by over-stating them?  An order of magnitude is 10-times. *Orders* of magnitude would be at least 100-times.  You sure you want to stick with that?  

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states the following.

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is *an order of magnitude *smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[50]

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Matthew said:


> I will post the data as it comes in and you can debate it. I don't care if it is right or wrong...I enjoy doing it just like most people enjoy watching fat men throwing a ball around. Different yes, but that is a good thing to have differences in people...If not we would have a very boring word.
> 
> Nina and nino decrease and increase the anomalies within their years. The enso is the most powerful short term natural factor in the yearly temperature difference....Outside of a huge volcano of course. So having a much weaker nino and powerful nina is a different set up that favors it to be much below 1998s natural factors anyway.
> 
> ...


all satelite "surface data" is lower trop.  Do you expect them to measure the temperature of the dirt?  You are breathing in the lower troposphere right now.



> I thought giss went off of Satellite, buoy, and ship data for their ocean data.


What good is the data off a bouy when you ognore it and grid in land surface temperatures instead?  Yes, thats exactly what they did.  You do know how they "grid" temperatures don't you?  Just in vase you don't, they seperate the earth into "grids" and get an "average" for each grid.  Where they don't have in situ data they take the 5 HIGHEST surronding grids and use that average.  In doing this they've been caught more than once ignoring weather stations where they do have in situ data and "gridding in" higher averages.  They've been caught doing it in canada, Russia, Bolivia, and the arctic.

BTW, I believe they do so more recently but GISS used to be all in situ data from weather stations, no satelites.  And Hansen has been caught more than once fudging the data.  Why they still employ the charletan is beyond me, except that AGW is a cash cow for the agency.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> One of the sad things about this board is how much of the posting has to do with the posters disdain for some political figure. Politics does not change the melting of the glaciers by 1 mm. In fact, each and every time I see a poster yapping about his dislike of one politician or the other on the global warming board, I know that he is not serious about the science at all. In fact, all too often, the poster is willfully ignorant of what the scientists state, and quick to espress his disdain for all scientists.


You're a riot buddy.  Gacial retraction is the product of lower snowfall not rising temps.  My disdain is for people who have no clue and misuse data to make a claim that it doesn't support.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







> The Letter was still quoted by the IPCC in its 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) as one of the two pillars of the claim by Jones, his supporters and the IPCC itself that any remaining UHI contamination in long-term temperature series is mimimal:
> 
> These results confirm the conclusions of Jones et al. (1990) and Easterling et al. (1997) that urban effects on 20th century globally and hemispherically averaged land air temperature time-series do not exceed about 0.05°C over the period 1900 to 1990 (assumed here to represent one standard error in the assessed non-urban trends).  Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis





> Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.
> NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast



I dunno, looks like orders of magnitude to me (which would mean anything over 10 times, but implying about 100 times)

care to explain the UHI adjustments for GISS over the last decade? hahaha


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Global Fiducials Library
> 
> Bering Glacier is the largest and longest glacier in continental North America. In 1996, its size reached a late twentieth-century maximum. Since then, parts of Bering Glacier's terminus have retreated more than three miles and have thinned by more than 200 feet. These images below document the 1996-2005 retreat of Bering Glacier and show an example of the long-term monitoring required to accurately assess the state of the glacier.


Maybe you should try something else?  You realy aren't to good at making assertions



> The most fascinating accounts are of the growth and retreat of the different glaciers. Here is a sample:
> 
> Gangotri was retreating at 20 m per year up to 2000, but then slowed, and since September 2007 has been at a standstill.
> 
> ...


^^^^WOW!  Imagine that, real data showing that glaciers recede and contract almost irregardless of temperture!  And they they do both at the same time... what oh what could explain this????



> Ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.
> 
> *Snow precipitation is the dominant factor in glacier advance or retreat.*A glacier does not respond to the immediate climatic changes, for if it be so then all glaciers within the same climatic zone should have been advancing or retreating at the same time.


gee, an actual conclusion drawn on evedence instead of an assertion of belief in causality based on a nonexistant correlation.  Now, unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not) AGW says warmer temperatures produce more snow (go figure), so if there's less snow.... hmmmmmmm, thats a toughie.

Himalayan Glaciers ? A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change. by V.K. Raina | Climate Realists


----------



## konradv (Jan 24, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> Won't this eventually boil down to population control?
> 
> If humans emit CO2, and CO2 is the culprit, controlling carbon emissions and such merely prolongs the inevitable.
> 
> ...



You'd only be correct if the number of humans exhaling CO2 exceded the ability of the earth to deal with it.  At the present time we're about 30-40% over historical averages since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  So obviously we're overdoing it there.  Of course, that represents billions of tons og CO2 emitted DAILY.  If we cut substantially into that, the earth should be able to keep up with our exhalations, making your point moot.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Won't this eventually boil down to population control?
> ...


The assetion that CO2 is 30to 40% over preindustrial averages is unproven and according to some data untrue.  The idea that all of the increase there is, is not natural is also unproven and more than likey bogus.

Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

more on Hansen and GISS and how they fudge the GISS temperature record

Climate Observations: GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data

I guess I should have said moron hansen and how he perpetrates a fraud.

hottest year my ass


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

Ben, you are truly full of shit.  We have direct measurements of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to 800,000 years ago in the ice cores. 

And no matter what asses like you spout, Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2011)

The point of this thread is to post temperature data and to discuse temperature data and the differences within the natural and human forcings on it between other years and in context within them.

This thread is not to Bash James Hansen or to discuse co2 or its effect on the temperatures or *historic co2.* It is a thread to discuse enso or any other factors that is a natural forcing that effects the temperature.


I don't give a fuck about the fraud within this thread. Please start another thread to discuse the fucking possible fraud or lie that you believe to be so.
*If you believe it to be a crock of shit then make a new thread.*


I wish to get back to comparing 2010 to 2005, 1998 through looking at the forcing and how the set up effected them differently. In hopefully we can do it for 2011 soon.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ben, you are truly full of shit.  We have direct measurements of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to 800,000 years ago in the ice cores.
> 
> And no matter what asses like you spout, Dr. Hansen is and will continue to be one of the most respected scientists in the world.


I take it you've not heard of mixing?  pressure?  diffusion?  all that shit that effects the gas in the ice cores.  They are good for millennial averaging only and then its not certain they are entirely accurate.  we do not have "direct measurements", we have meaasurements of minute air bubbles that have been mixed, squoze, released recaptured and compressed.  

Dr hansen is a fraud, a quack, a liar, a charlatan, and nothing more than an activist with a title.  His work is sloppy and has been critiqued so harshly he's had to retract it in the past.  He uses deceptive techniques to create warming where none exists and to erase coooling where it does exist.  the guy is a fucking fraud.  Unlike you I have posted the SCIENCE to back up my assertions while you have done nothing but come in here and grovel at the feet of a fraud.



> Jaworowski and his followers insist that ice cores are invalid media for determining CO2 concentrations in Earth&#8217;s prehistoric atmospheres, because:
> 
> 1.Ice sheets are NOT closed systems that trap gases mechanically and preserve them indefinitely. Instead, liquid saline water can exist in ice at temperatures below &#8211;70° C, within a permeable ice sheet where a capillary liquid network acts as a sieve to redistribute elements, isotopes and micro-particles.
> 2.Air recovered from old ice is contaminated during field and laboratory operations.
> ...


Admittedly Jaworski was partially rebutted on some of his issues, but it matters not at all as all of the concerns he had about using ice core air bubbles as a proxy are known to be real issues and even the accolites of AGW mythos admit it.  Rather than use a resource that we know is not accurate, and even when it could be is only accurate enough to give near approximations of millennial averages, why not use the better resources?  Stomatal research, sediments, pollen and geologic proxies.  All are more accurate than ice cores and all show CO2 both more variable and higher than your hero's can admit and still have their model toys work.  That would be why they don't use them... if people find out the science is deeply flawed the cash cow will dry up and the grant stooges will have to find a new schtick.

http://hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2011)

Temperature in Maine tonight................



*minus 50*

http://new.bangordailynews.com/?id=164627



tell those folks about CO2 levels!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2011)

I love this forum!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2011)

This thread is NOT about co2 or fraud. It is about global temperature and comparing the years with others. That is what it is. Make a new thread to discuse the fraud.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Matthew said:


> The point of this thread is to post temperature data and to discuse temperature data and the differences within the natural and human forcings on it between other years and in context within them.


I have posted temperature data and I have posted links which show the methodology of the data your posting is flawed... deeply flawed.  As far as discussing "human forcings" goes, why the fuck would i want to discuss the workings of a myth?



> This thread is not to Bash James Hansen or to discuse co2 or its effect on the temperatures or *historic co2.* It is a thread to discuse enso or any other factors that is a natural forcing that effects the temperature.


and I've done that, but if you don't want to discuss the fraud who publishes the crap weather data, use another source.  And how the fuck could you possibly discuss the "human forcing" myth without talking about CO2?




> I don't give a fuck about the fraud within this thread. Please start another thread to discuse the fucking possible fraud or lie that you believe to be so.
> *If you believe it to be a crock of shit then make a new thread.*


Why would you not want to discuss the veracity of the data you post if you want to talk about it comparatively?  How the fuck can you make a comparison between an apple and an anvil if you don't know ones an apple and ones an anvil?




> I wish to get back to comparing 2010 to 2005, 1998 through looking at the forcing and how the set up effected them differently. In hopefully we can do it for 2011 soon.


I don't care what you don't care about.  So long as you post fraudulent weather data from GISS I will post the data from other sources that refute their silly claims.  You want to discuss 2010, 2005 and 1998, but you don't want to know that the data showing 2005 and 2010 to be warmer than 1998 has been manipulated to show it... why would you want to compare inaccurate and incompatible data sets?  You want to dicuss them?  fine

1998 was likely the hottest year in the instrumental period since the 1940's, proboboly largely due to a huge el nino.
2005 was likely the hottest year since 1998, though at least one year in the late 30's and early 40's may have been warmer, its hard to tell because this is about the time when the real manipulation started.
2010 wasn't, Evedence shows the record for 2010 was manipulated and fabricated even more than 2005, the temperature record cannot be trusted.

actually evedence shows all records since some time in the 80's has a pronounced warm bias in it.  but you don't want to tak about that.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Matthew said:


> This thread is NOT about co2 or fraud. It is about global temperature and comparing the years with others. That is what it is. Make a new thread to discuse the fraud.



How can a thread posting tempertaure data from james hansen not be about fraud?  Thats just not possible.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 24, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is NOT about co2 or fraud. It is about global temperature and comparing the years with others. That is what it is. Make a new thread to discuse the fraud.
> ...





Why on earth would Hansen do something that could get him thrown in prison for the rest of his fucking life and never get to be with his grand kids...He appears to be a good person to me. This is something that I couldn't and wouldn't do.

The giss is the most complete of the surface data we have if his method works. it is far better then Hadcrat, Noaa, ect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2011)

The wingnuts hate of Dr. Hansen is because he was one of the first to point out the dangers that we face because of a changing climate. And when the Bush Whitehouse tried to censure him, he went head to head with them and won. He is considered to be the leading climatologist in the US, by many, in the world. 

So the baseless accusations of fraud are a constant drumbeat from the clueless wingnuts of the right. Accusations without a shred of proof, based on lies. And in the meantime, Dr. Hansen continues to research the issue, and aid others who are doing the same. He has aided much our understanding of climate, both on this planet and others.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Matthew said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Thats just false and I've already posted the links which discuss the flawed methodologies.  gridding in land temps over water, gridding in low altitude temps over high altitude temps, the gridding process in gheneral, ignoring and tossing out data that doesn't support his claims, inserting algorythm that increase temperatures, failing to adjust satalite data for drift and obliquity, using a UHI adjustment that adjust cooler temps up instead of warmer ones down, and the general unreliability of the raw data due to station locations to begin with.  he's done all of that and more, and been caught more than once.  personally the NCDC, NOAA and Uah are all slightly more reliable, but they use the same flawed sources and many of the same flawed methodolgies.  To be honest, there is no record that can be trusted now, they've all been compromised.


----------



## BenNatuf (Jan 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The wingnuts hate of Dr. Hansen is because he was one of the first to point out the dangers that we face because of a changing climate. And when the Bush Whitehouse tried to censure him, he went head to head with them and won. He is considered to be the leading climatologist in the US, by many, in the world.
> 
> So the baseless accusations of fraud are a constant drumbeat from the clueless wingnuts of the right. Accusations without a shred of proof, based on lies. And in the meantime, Dr. Hansen continues to research the issue, and aid others who are doing the same. He has aided much our understanding of climate, both on this planet and others.


and yet you can't comment at all on the science that shows he's not.  Sorry dude, hansen is a fraud and he's been taken to school by spencer more than once for his errors.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 24, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Temperature in Maine tonight................
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Weather Forecast: Iqaluit, Nunavut - The Weather Network


> Current Weather Updated: Tues, Jan. 25, 2011, 0:00 EST - Iqaluit Airport
> *-30°C*
> *  Feels Like: -49
> * Wind: NW 48km/h
> ...


Your Weather: 80 kph - The Weather Network

Icebreaker prepares to evacuate last ship from ice trap in Sea of Okhotsk | Russia | RIA Novosti


> *Icebreaker prepares to evacuate last ship from ice trap in Sea of Okhotsk*
> Topic: Rescue operation in Okhotsk Sea
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/camb0244


> current Weather Updated: Mon, Jan. 24, 2011, 23:00 CST - Winnipeg Airport
> Winnipeg, MB Partly cloudy
> 
> -17°C
> ...



http://text.meteo.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?nu-21&unit=m


> Issued: 8:39 PM EST Monday 24 January 2011
> Blizzard warning in effect.
> 
> Tonight:
> ...



Historical  low =-32 Celsius, Today`s Temp. in Iqaluit = minus 30 C So I guess it has "warmed up" in Iqaluit.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Scientific_reason_why_igloos_don%27t_melt


> What is the Scientific reason why igloos don't melt?
> In the middle of an igloo, a shallow saucer burns seal blubber for heat and light. A high wood fire might melt the structure. But this wide, low blaze and the inhabitants' body heat keep the igloo relatively warm - between 45 and 60 degrees, experts say. That's not bad, considering it can be 40 degrees below zero outside.



Or maybe it`s because the CO2 from burning blubber is not the same as from my SUV...???


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

*So is the current weather in Canada just a glitch ?...or was it any better before:*

CBC News - Manitoba - Winter takes another swing: record lows set in province


> *Winter takes another swing: record lows set in province*
> Last Updated: Thursday, February 26, 2009 | 3:23 PM CT
> CBC News
> A cold snap that gripped Manitoba this week has pushed temperatures in some parts of the province into record-low territory.
> ...



Record low temperatures for October 12 set across Southwest Saskatchewan - Local - News - The Southwest Booster


> Record low temperatures for* October* 12 set across Southwest Saskatchewan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So were 2006,2008, and 2009 a freak Years?...
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/your_weather/details/620/3850483/3/camb0227/plpcities/?ref=ugc_city_thumbs



> *Thompson Manitoba
> Your Weather: BITTER COLD*
> *Thompson, Manitoba // Shot: January 17, 2011 *



*That looks a lot  more like a trend, than these stupid graphs "environmental Scientists" publish in the press*


*As if anybody here would believe this "increasing average temperature" CRAP!*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

yay we are  heading towards a ice age. wahoo!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

Matthew said:


> yay we are  heading towards a ice age. wahoo!!!



Wahoo...
what the fuck is that  supposed to represent:
2011 .56
2012 .575
2013 .590
2014 .595
2015 .62............?




*If You assholes would really have serious data to represent* it would be where the isothermal lines for the yearly average temperatures were and it would look like this:





and not like this  pitiful "deck of cards" You keep showing here,
You jerks can`t even produce one *single area assigned* to Your idiotic numbers with 1 single isotherm line!...and for your simpleton trend analysis to be valid there should be* isotherm increments with no more than the lowest stupid number in your stupid little list*, else you have NO BUSINESS posting fractional numbers of degrees here! 
*But none of you morons have ever produced such data with even 10 deg C steps!*



> I'm putting the cards on the table:
> 2011 .56
> 2012 .575
> 2013 .590
> ...



*You are 47 cards short of a full deck!*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > yay we are  heading towards a ice age. wahoo!!!
> ...



 hehehe


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

Idiot, that graph shows the super nino in 1998 with the rising  solar max from 1997-2005...

2002-2006 was nearly positive enso from .1c to 1.2c within 3.4...So no nina to drop the temperature...deepest solar minimum since 1909-1912 from 2006-2010. This only flattens it. Enjoy your night asshole!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

Matthew said:


> hehehe



Okay...I had no idea I was talking to an expert here:







Now that I know, there should not be any trouble to be a little more specific what the least thing I`ld expect to see than 5 little retard numbers.
This is what I`m after:
*Normal distribution, which is a Gaussian function
*

*Because when Bill Gates walks into a bar, by no means did that raise the AVERAGE INCOME OF THE PATRONS
*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > hehehe
> ...



Nice pic of your self, dude.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Idiot, that graph shows the super nino in 1998 with the rising  solar max from 1997-2005...
> 
> 2002-2006 was nearly positive enso from .1c to 1.2c within 3.4...So no nina to drop the temperature...deepest solar minimum since 1909-1912 :



Holy fuck, this idiot actually thought I was talking about a specific date and temperature, because I randomly picked a Google picture for him what an isotherm looks like and somewhere his squinty eyes seen a date on it!

Do You like this one better it has pretty colors instead of numbers:





Maybe Your mommy knows a good Therapist fro you, but I`m sure You`ld refuse a date The Rapist or perhaps it was the other way around which would explain a lot what you are writing here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2011)

*Hmm.......   So we are in a major cold spell. But the arctic ice is still well below normal.*
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

*And we have a negative anamoly for the Arctic Ice Pack*.

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

*Of course the Antarctic is positive, correct? Oops.*
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

*Last year, you folks were blabering about the record winter, and 2010 ended up on every one's charts as either equal to or warmer than 1998. And the ice in the Arctic was at the third lowest extent.*

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

*Of course we know that all them thar pointy headed librul scientists couldn't find their asses with both hands. Ananamous posters on an internet message board are so much more intelligent.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hmm.......   So we are in a major cold spell. But the arctic ice is still well below normal.*
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
> 
> *And we have a negative anamoly for the Arctic Ice Pack*.
> ...



They believe this to be a fraud and wouldn't except any of it as true. A faggot like Polar bear at  least wont and will keep pointing at north America, which is below normal, but is being caused by a weather pattern. The arctic has warmed 1c in areas in the last decade. But some people just wish to shit on science because they believe that everyone that is on the other side is some kind of  lier and idiot. 

I'm fucking sick of hearing the trash that comes out of your mouth to then find out it was a  lie and these scientist didn't do anything wrong .. If it is a fraud then prove it already and if not Shut the fuck up. Just like the ice age crap. I think this polar bear cock sucker is one sad  little piece of dog shit. He thought he could just attack and throw crap at me and not get it back. Grow a pair mother fucker or get out of the kitchen.

FUCK WEATHER, Climate don't=it.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hmm.......   So we are in a major cold spell. But the arctic ice is still well below normal.*
> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
> 
> *And we have a negative anamoly for the Arctic Ice Pack*.
> ...



Good effort! At least that was way better than anything else which came so far from "Mathew".
But You left a "minor detail" unmentioned, either in purpose or You did not do Your homework. It`s not that hard to find the source of Your information. All it takes is to saw off the tail end of Your picture links and then it`s possible to track it back right to the original publication:
Advanced Data Search

And that has long since been discussed. And again it turned out to be a dud:

Arctic Sea Ice 2007


> t is important to keep in mind the fact that consistent observations of the Arctic sea ice and related conditions have only been made since 1979 when satellite observations began.
> [B]NASA reported (Oct 2007) [/B][http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html]: &#8220;the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. *"Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.&#8221;*
> 
> NASA Earth Observatory (Dec 2007) reported [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007121225985.html]: &#8220;Using data from CloudSat and NASA&#8217;s Cloud-Aerosol* Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation satellite,* they found the total cloud cover over the western Arctic, where most of the ice loss occurred, was 16 percent less over the 2007 melt season than in 2006. *The resulting clearer skies in 2007 heated the Arctic surface enough to warm ocean waters by 2.4 degrees Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) or enough to melt 0.3 meters (one foot) of sea ice.&#8221;*



And this is what You left out...had skeptics done it, You`ld call it "cherry picking"
So go on and claim all this can happen  with an "increase" from   0.035%     to 0.0389 % "moisture corrected molar concentration" Carbondioxide...which would by the way be 10% lower if they would publish "ACTUAL" concentration!

And at the same time when the temp trend in the arctic goes down for several years you guys start screaming foul and* CHERRY pick *out data like that:
Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion


> A moderate-to-strong La Niña continued during December 2010 as reflected by well below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs)



Have* YOU* ever taken the trouble to see for yourself how little Infrared .0389 % Carbondioxide absorbs...*IT IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE TO MEASURE THAT WITH THE BEST IR SPECTROPHOTOMETER THERE IS!
*  and you run around repeating what idiots who can`t even measure that tell You the difference of 0.*00*4 % absorbs enough energy to heat the planet!

I have done a lot of IR Spectroscopy sport, and I do know what crock of shit all this is:





And assholes like the "scientists" You quote take the *difference between 0.035% and 0.039% moisture "corrected molar CO2 concentration"* and say that`s an:
*INCREASE OF: * 





Maybe this will make You happy, but "Global warming scientists" had nothing to do with it:
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,741509,00.html



> VW-Aufsichtsratschef Ferdinand Piëch ist ein Mann von eisernem Willen. Was sich der 73-Jährige in den Kopf setzt, .....
> Durchschnittsverbrauch von 1,49 Liter je 100 Kilometer auf. Doch jetzt folgt auf der Automesse im Emirat Katar die Enthüllung eines weiterentwickelten Fahrzeugs: des XL 1. Mit einem Verbrauch von 0,9 Litern feiern die Wolfsburger den neuen Spartyp als "effizientestes Auto der Welt".



It`s a new VW that uses 0.9 liters of gas per 100 kilometers


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

I`ll try and explain it to you one more time as I already have explained it to you in all the other GW realted threads in this forum to no avail!
This is how IR spectroscopy works:





If you want to show how much infrared CO2 absorbs you have to run 1 beam from the radiation source through the sample and another one from the source *which does not*
run through the sample and then compare them.
And all You know then is how much, actually  or how little IR CO2 absorbs and that is only one narrow line in the entire infrared region...!
*I explained all that to you already!
All the other infrared goes right by CO2..*.and it`s like saying* if you stand under a hydro line it won`t rain on *you if you forget, that CO2 absorbs only this line.
I also showed you already an infrared scan of air that contains moisture and if you had a few blinking brain cells you should have noticed that* H2O grabs almost all the Infrared over the ENTIRE spectrum.
*
So even if NASA had a IR spectrophotometer that could run one infrared beam from 1 Satellite to the earths surface ~ 1200 kilometers and a second IR beam to a second satellite at a distance *of exactly the same 1200 km* where would they* find a path through the atmosphere to the surface where the humidity is 0% for the entire path length?*...
*To measure how much the earth is being heated by what + 0.004 % CO2 can absorb and then only at the spectral lines where it does absorb*

*Fuck, even he would have comprehended that by now:*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 25, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Idiot, that graph shows the super nino in 1998 with the rising  solar max from 1997-2005...
> 
> 2002-2006 was nearly positive enso from .1c to 1.2c within 3.4...So no nina to drop the temperature...deepest solar minimum since 1909-1912 from 2006-2010. This only flattens it. Enjoy your night asshole!




Real science  experiments with artificial Intelligence, but I begin to wonder if perhaps they also  experiment with artificial stupidity and people like you are the lab rabbits.

Although I am now fully aware just how stupid you are I shall make a sincere effort to remedy your handicap:






by the way that is ABSORBANCE, not absorption!
because with absorption (=%!) measurements of this "catastrophic greenhouse gas" effect  it looks like this, when * REAL SCIENTISTS*
who know how to operate an  infrared Spectrophotometer compare their findings with these "scientists":







The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact



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



*Not that there is any hope in hell you will quit publishing your I.Q. levels here:*


> *Mathew:
> 2011 .56
> 2012 .575
> 2013 .590
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

Thanks the fuck a  lot for destroying my fucking thread. Yeah tell that to most scientist and governments on earth. All you have are insults. I dont need this shit right now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm done with this thread. My life and my family are going through a hard time and I'm not going to waste anymore time on fighting with anyone. I may look into that data you posted.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 26, 2011)

Matthew said:


> I'm done with this thread. My life and my family are going through a hard time and I'm not going to waste anymore time on fighting with anyone. I may look into that data you posted.


O.K. Mathew I want to apologize for my "reactive armor" habit I acquired from too many Years  in the service. I certainly wish no harm onto You or Your family and if I worsened the situation with the way I have been sparring with you here that was not my intent!
If there is anything I can do, write me a private message and I will do it...short of You asking me to go f...k myself of course.
Forget about this thread here for a while and look after Your family....*nobody here will con"screw" that to a man made GW  skeptic victory if You don`t answer the spectroscopic analysis data.*...because You certainly do have more important things to do than that!
I hope everything will turn out O.K.!!
and best wishes deep from the heart of Canada


----------



## polarbear (Jan 26, 2011)

I sincerely regret Mathews situation and sympathize with that, because I do know how these problems can compound .
For everyone else here I would like to add that Dr.Heinz Hug * could have gone way further in his assessment:*


> CO2 doubling must be *much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely.*
> We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
> Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get
> 
> ...



Because he could have pointed this out as well:













The spectral region where the Infrared Absorption with CO2 does take place, but so does water vapor...and much much stronger, is where the solar radiation relative energy drops off very sharply. "Climatologists" ignore not only that but they ignore all of Max Planck`s physics laws how the energy quantum per wave @ wavelength drops off:





I have been trying to communicate these facts over and over again in all the other threads here where man made GW is discussed.

I don`t blame people like Mathew when they get passionate about pollution, I get passionate about that too...very much so!...
But I also get a little "passionate" about the truth. So when I see how certain "scientists" bend laws of Chemistry and Physics I do get vocal:




When You do an X-Y graph You can choose any scale You want on either axis and the X-axis scale nobody would object to.
But when the desire to sensationalize and to exaggerate determines the choice of scale for one variable to be adjusted so that You get a match with the other variable that is no longer just exaggeration but outright fraudulent as is with this graph, where 2 scales were chosen to do just that.
Also this graph violates every law of physics dealing with absorption laws.
*No matter which substance You choose the % energy absorption over ANY range of concentration slopes off, never ever upwards!*
*And I have every right to use the temperature curve of this graphic representation as "% Infrared absorbed", because exactly that is the assertion global warming "science" is making.*
I don`t know if it is a funny fact or a sad fact, that window manufacturers know more about Infrared radiation and absorption than "Global warming scientists"


----------



## polarbear (Jan 26, 2011)

I get just as passionate about pollution as anyone from the Sierra club, but I am even more passionate about the truth.
So when the Rancher in Montana who uses a pick up truck with a V8 is supposed to feel guilty about "drowning polar bears" or Eskimos who`s life style he supposedly ruined because "scientists" tell him the ice is too thin, they can`t go hunting and have to eat grease-burgers from the Iqaluit Burger King instead of raw seal meat according to CNN
 I can`t just leave it like that.
That Montana Rancher can`t go into the arctic to see for himself, and has to go by what News Paper Reporters tell him who go with the carefully guided tours the way communist countries do it into the arctic and come back with "reports" like this:

News


> &#8220;Life-changing&#8221; trip opens teen&#8217;s eyes to climate change
> &#8220;The Inuit have such an affinity with the land. They are connected with nature in a way we are not. Climate change is affecting them right now.&#8221;
> Two Inuit hunters were part of the Students on Ice educating team, the elder Jushua Illauq and the Arctic Games athlete Johnny Issaluk. From these men the students learned about Inuit hunting, food and games.


And in these carefully orchestrated tours organized by the Sierra club, and other various environmental activist groups they portray today`s *self governing Inuvik *, formerly the NWT, given to them  by the Government of Canada to the Eskimos like this:




An Inuit posing for the press!
Well I think it is my duty, since I was one of the privileged few who were paid to be in the arctic to inform a Rancher in Montana or other motorized Americans anywhere else in the U.S. of A.  that it is not their fault if Eskimo`s Lifestyle got ruined or if Polar Bears die because they ate toxic waste:
here are a few pics from Inuit dumps, they are not my pictures they have been in the Newspapers and on CBC Canada:






> *Iqaluit fire crews battle dump fire*



Imagine how the E.P.A. would be down Your neck if you would do this in California in the middle of a protected wilderness area!
People that had business in the arctic and were not herded around in guided tours will tell You something completely different from what the media is feeding Americans who have to stay at home and go to work next day so they can afford to put food on the table and gas in the car say this:
Autonomous Source: Impressions of Iqaluit


> *The first thing you'll notice in Iqaluit is how filthy and run-down it is. Garbage rolls through the streets and the houses are in poor repair.*



It`s the same thing with the very "scientists" who want to send You on a guilt trip because You burned a few gallons of gas going to and fro work:

Here is what  the "global warming scientist" drives to work at C.F.S. Alert ~450 miles from the pole:






It gets a whole 8 mpg with the jet fuel we give them and where every gallon has to be flown in at a cost of 14 gallons to 1 delivered by our Hercules C-130`s



No, that`s not one of our guys that is him:






"proving" that Your SUV exhaust is in the arctic ice.

We go and drag our stuff from the airstrip like this, and often we have to clip a harness onto the rope behind so the furious winds don`t sweep us out onto the polar ice cap:





We heat all our buildings with the heat exchangers on our Diesel Generator exhausts and from the engine coolants:





*They could not be bothered with that*, here is the Diesel for their "Greenhouse Gas Lab":





One time during a severe storm they were too stoned to shut that door and lost all their power...we had to go over there during that storm and restore their power so they would not freeze to death..*.see no heat exchanger!*


All our Garbage is sorted then compressed, then incinerated in a special furnace, with a scrubbed and filtered flue stack, after that what is left goes in sorted crates and is flown back all the way to Trenton Air force base were it is disposed:





They just throw their trash into a trash can...one of us then has to go over there and sort the empty glass bottles and beer cans from the paper and other waste before we can incinerate it!

The only time we made a fire like the nature loving Inuit do every day is when a Herc brought us new matrices and there was no way to put the old ones into our incinerator.






Inuvik has now satellite television and they can watch CNN, the "Discoverey Channel" and the "National Geographic".
Now the Government of  Inuvik is contemplating suing the Government of Canada for the damages done by "greenhouse gasses".
So, now You guys further south of me are up to date!
Of course some here would call what I just did "ranting"
Yes Mathew I have problems at home too, we just had a death in the family, my wife is still devastated and it tears my heart out to see her like that.
I hope You can resolve Your problems and we`ll resume our sparring at a later date.
*Take Your time...this is not nearly as important as family*
I`m willing to bury the hatched and will try my best not to  treat You like a drill Sarge meatgrinds a fresh recruit.
Greeting form Canada to You & Your family!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 27, 2011)

Polar with a post of devestation for the k00ks......................

Hey Polar, perhaps you'd be interested to know that as of this am, New York set an all time record for snow in January.

Anyway.......compelling post bro............and this quote absolutely hysterical..........

*I don`t know if it is a funny fact or a sad fact, that window manufacturers know more about Infrared radiation and absorption than "Global warming scientists"*


This post just further strengthens assertions I have been making for over 10 years. That this whole global warming dynamic is comprised of thee driving forces: 1) Special interests ( opportunists, public and private, who profit from the scam) 2) Followers ( folks who invariably embrace the prevailing social dogma) 3) OCD Oddballs ( people who are obsessed with hard sciences as they relate to hysterical theories)


----------



## IanC (Jan 27, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I sincerely regret Mathews situation and sympathize with that, because I do know how these problems can compound .
> For everyone else here I would like to add that Dr.Heinz Hug * could have gone way further in his assessment:*
> 
> 
> ...



you made a coupla great points. those combo graphs are often very misleading, and that is why all good scientists should have come down hard on Mann's hockey stick graph. mixing types of data (proxies and instrumental), while cutting off the divergent last 25 years and hiding the end point under other lines was spectacularly dishonest.

I wish there was more info on the extinction effect of CO2. I believe there has been proper layer by layer calculations that show a ~1C increase for 2xCO2 but most of the effect is in the upper atmosphere where there is little water. It is one of those areas that is easily distorted depending on what you want it to show, like Old Rock's link that he has put up 1000 times.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 27, 2011)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I wish there was more info on the extinction effect of CO2. I believe there has been proper layer by layer calculations that show a ~1C increase for 2xCO2 but most of the effect is in the upper atmosphere where there is little water. It is one of those areas that is easily distorted depending on what you want it to show, like Old Rock's link that he has put up 1000 times.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2011)

However you measure it, the CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.CH4 from around 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. The Arctic Ice continues to melt in spite of the fact that two of the forcings of the Miliankovic Cycles should have it growing. And, in spite of the snow on the East Coast, I bet that the January anolomy will be positive. 

Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> However you measure it, the CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.CH4 from around 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. The Arctic Ice continues to melt in spite of the fact that two of the forcings of the Miliankovic Cycles should have it growing. And, in spite of the snow on the East Coast, I bet that the January anolomy will be positive.
> 
> Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.


*You just don`t get it do You*!...No matter if it`s explained that even a grade 6`er could understand it. And off You go about taxes and who pays and paid me.
I know full well if I explain Beer Lambert`s laws in pure technical terms *everybody but You in this forum will understand.* So for their benefit I`ll go into the exact details how "climatologists" fuck up because none of them has a clue about *what HUGE difference* there is between *actual Infrared Absorption* and how You actually have to measure it and how they report it.
*THEY DON`T EVEN USE INFRARED TO MEASURE IT THEY USE GC`S!! i TOLD YOU ALREADY!
I EVEN SHOWED YOU WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR LAB...(the pics are in my Album)
*
In Infrared Spectroscopy there is NO Instrument that measures Infrared absorption versus "Molar ppm".They are all calibrated in ppm weight per weight, ppm weight per volume or ppm volume per volume...and then there is a HUGE difference between how many % (=Absorption) and ABSORBANCE!
Climatologist are not smart enough to understand, so with the latter their stupidity *accounts for a HUGE ERROR here, but with the "Molar ppm" that was deliberate, so let`s start with that one! And I know that they do, because a Gaschromathograph has to be calibrated the same way!..in ppm w/w, ppm w/v or in ppm v/v!*

So now again this is how the huge cheat works that they use in their stupid graphs and their stupid doomsday prediction *in exact numbers:*

Air Composition


> The sea-level composition of air (in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa) is given below. =%V/V
> 
> @ 15 C there are .0314 ccm of CO2 in 100 CUBIC CENTIMETERS of air! at 1 atm, 101325 Pa


Gases - Specific Gravities


> Specific gravity of air, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and some other common gases
> Carbon dioxide - CO2     1.5189  using air as 1 mass/volume
> air= 1.21kg/m3 at 20 deg C at sea level



*.0314% of that is CO2=  0.37994 grams of Carbondioxide  per cubic meter air at sea level.*

Everybody but You knows this:





And if You go up 18 000 feet everybody will use  an Oxygen mask!
*...except You!*, because as You say, there is no difference with how in this example Oxygen concentration is really measured and the idiotic "Molar concentration" the "climatologists" continue to con You!..*.that stayed the same as on see level! *
You want to stake your life on what "climatologists" are telling You?
So here is the ACTUAL Carbondioxide concentration at 18 000 feet the way EVERYBODY ELSE but climatologists would report it:
*at 18 000 feet you have 0.18997 grams Carbon dioxide per cubic meter*
and so on if You can`t do the math You can just extrapolate it from the graph above.

*But with the "molar concentration" You have 380 ppm CO2 at sea level and You still have 380 ppm @ 18 000 feet, bozo!
*
Not that You would ever get that into your cement head.
For the rest here I want to show them something about Spectroscopy, about which for some strange reason there are only Equations in the Internet, but no Graphs whatsoever.
Everything to do with "Absorption" + "Spectroscopy" + "CO2" in the Internet has been snowed under by "climatologist" bullshit!
So I`ll show the equations of Beer Lambert`s laws about Absorption first:
http://weather.nmsu.edu/teaching_material/soil698/student_reports/spectroscopy/report_files/image005.gif






> *The idealized calibration or standard curve is stated by Beer's law* that the absorbance of an absorbing analyte is proportional to its concentration.



*See thats why "climatologists" think double the CO2 will absorb double the Infrared.
And that is EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLUGGED INTO THEIR IDIOTIC COMPUTER MODEL for man made GW!*
*Well Yeah and the "Molar ppm" CHEATING!
*

*BUT BY FAR THE HUGEST error is that they think "Absorbance" represents how much infrared ENERGY CO2 absorbs!*

You know they would fail every Physics test at any University in any country because they have no idea what absorbance is!
*Absorbance is a linear function and that is Beer Lamberts Law how  to calculate that from the % Energy Absorption in a Sample through which You pass a  beam of light!

Beer-Lambert Law



			A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).
		
Click to expand...

*
I guess none of these "climate scientists" have the slightest clue how to* calculate back *from *ABSORBANCE *to how  many *%* of the beam energy has been* ABSORBED.*

And all You have to do is resolve Beer Lambert from *Absorbance* = -log T = - log (I / Io).
*back to % ABSORPTION!!!!*

And nothing could be simpler!
*Absorption* = 2 - log(%T)
where %T = Transmission or the Energy in *% from the Light beam that has not been aborbed!
*

So all You have to do is run this through a calculator:
for X the range of 10 to 100 and subtract that from 2.
For 10 and 100 hundred You don`t need a calculator because we all know that 100=10*10 or 10^2 so the result would be 2-2=0.
which means no light was absorbed.

You can have a function like this plotted online:
Online Equation Plotter
enter the function  y=log(x) in the top window
then below these values
Xmin=1, Xmax=100
Ymin=1,Ymax=5

*And then judge Yourself if double the CO2 will absorb double the heat energy!*
*Look up ~ the middle of thegraph...THAT`S where we are today!*

For those who don`t like to be sent to unknown web pages I have stored this graph into my Album:






Now please let`s also not forget what Dr.Heinz Hug published when he did not just an estimation but an actual measurement:


> *CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely*.



And what Heinz did not even mention:






And now You have also this information:
*Absorption = 2 - log(%T)*


So now You know that the "climatologists" have exaggerated the impact of CO2 as much as somebody who tells *You this has as much impact :*







*as this:*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

Some people make a virtue out of stupidity and I have been ripping into the wrong guy here when I took Mathew into my crosshairs.
At least Mathew has the brains to evaluate what has been said here and his only error is the information vacuum regarding Infrared Spectroscopy & Absorption in the Internet.
He did in no way come back with stupid remarks like "Big Fitz" who since changed his moron D.License avatar here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-8.html


> Big Fitz
> I suspected that the instant he started talking. He proved it by posting pictures of satellite weather imagery claiming it's temperature data when it's obviously cloud cover.



When I did explain first how a Satellite can see passive infrared and the "picture of a cloud" was a thermal image, showing how much heat water vapor absorbs!
After that I explained the difference between "dry Molar Moisture corrected CO2 levels" as Mauna Lua reprts it and what kind of gisgusting cheat that is:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-6.html
Then I explained the difference between %Absorption and absorbance and that double CO2 does not absorb double the heat energy, and this Moron started up:



> OldRocks
> Well, for sure you like to yap, Polar. And state that scientists are a bunch of dumb asses.


And topped it off shooting his own foot off:


> OldRocks
> By the way, you have made so many fucking dumb statements concerning CO2, perhaps you should review what real physicists state;
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


And thats what`s written on that web page that this Fred Flinstone "Scientist" from Old (Bed)Rock quoted and had not the foggiest idea what they are saying:


> Still more  persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. *More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely*
> 
> Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that *the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure,* but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% &#8212; like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.



That modern spin doctor sentence in there is not easy to spot unless You do know Spectroscopy:


> the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure



They stated it the exact other way around as what Beer-Lambert`s Law says when You deal in actaully MEASURED %Absorption instead of a calculated value like Absorbance:

*Where You WILL see, that if you INCREASE the amount of CO2 the ABSORPTION INDEED goes up by ONLY 0.4% *






The only thing that does go up by *1% is the calculated ABSORBANCE value*, which has nothing at all to do with % "Heat Energy" absorbed by CO2 at that particular wavelength!

I even explained it to this moron:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-7.html

And even after I showed him pictures from which a Kindergarten Kid would have grasped the entire concept this globalwarming moron*




 comes back here again with the same crap.*
And all the while I have been ripping into Mathew.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

Instead of explaining 'OldRock" the difference between the LINEAR Absorbance which may under ideal circumstances for SOME substances double and why that has NOTHING to do with %Absorption he can ask around in his home town bedrock if someone has a calculator with a Log Function...maybe Fred Flinstone or Barney have one.
Then he can go to the %Energy ABSORPTION graph and apply Beer Lambert`s eqaution:
*Absorbance=log (I / Io).*




Or if he can actually figure out how to use this:
Online Equation Plotter


> enter the function y=log(x) in the top window
> then below these values
> Xmin=1, Xmax=100
> Ymin=1,Ymax=5



And that`s how you get the linear graph that "climate scientists" have been using in their retard computer model all these years!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.



Oh by the way, in case no one in the town of Bedrock has a calculator with a log function obviously You are sitting in front of something that looks like Fred Flintstone`s TV but instead of having to scrawl runes into rocks somehow the TV shows text when you hit that thing on the table with a rock instead of showing "The gay couple"





Try this, click on "run" and paste this in:
%SystemRoot%\system32\calc.exe
Then Your "defective TV" is a calculator with a log function.
and as for that "bi-polar"remark what kind of fantasy buss word world do you live in?
Show me something in the REAL world that is mono-polar!


> I have worked for private enterprise,


Well I`ll make sure I`ll pass up the McDonald`s where You flip the Burgers.
You must be the guy that wears the football helmet!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 28, 2011)

Very interesting Polar bear. You make a damn good case. I will read more into these laws...Good stuff.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Very interesting Polar bear. You make a damn good case. I will read more into these laws...Good stuff.



*I knew You would understand*...and I again I wish I could take back every insult I have thrown at You...but I don`t know how to unscramble eggs.

So instead I wanted to show You how You can use Your PC to do these assessments Yourself and this would enable You to double check what Dr.Heinz Hug and I have been saying.

The easiest way to do this without going into a whole trunk full of differential and Integral Math is if You get Your self an autoCAD Program...they are not cheap but if You want mine I`ll be happy to send it to You in a G-mail account and send it there as a zip file,...
because with it You can check Dr.Heinz Hug`s Integration and mine with just a few mouse clicks or by pasting in any nonlinear function:

Here is that Spectral absorption Graph just before I got very abusive with You





Here is Dr.Heinz Hugs Integration Analysis:





But You don`t have to double check it, You can of course if You want to, but when I checked I came up with EXACTLY the same numbers as he:


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



But You see he stopped there and I am trying to find out from him why!

Because that`s not the whole story!






*Total solar relative energy proportion in the Infrared Spectral Region for ALL trace gasses, not just CO2 but also Methane etc...:... is only 0.42 X * of what Dr.Heinz Hug published[/B]

And that is if You had  0.38 grams CO2 per cubic meter all the way into the outer atmosphere layer, but You know that ain`t so, but diminishes for all gasses like this in w/v ppm...which is all a ray of energy is interested in:






*And when You put Your OWN computer model together *

You get, even when using the grossly exaggerated LINEAR function where double the CO2 gives double the* Absorption*...which it can`t as You can see from the Beer Lambert equations...but never mind that this is the final result:

*With today`s CO2 concentration this trace atmospheric gas can absorb 0.0425 % solar radiation energy AT BEST!!!
*
And that  the 30 Year solar cycles vary in total solar radiated power hitting this planet =0.1% of 174 PETA WATTS comes out *to 174 trillion watts*  more Energy the sun dumps on us every second we all agreed on before the fists were flying.

So this is what Dr.Heinz , many many others and I have been saying...
its like comparing this:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





To something like that:







*And I do hate pollution!
It is number 1 on my hate list that is 2 items long, I`m sorry about item #2, but I am an old fashioned guy*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 28, 2011)

@Mathew:
Well You would probably agree that this here is not about who has the last word and so on, but I just love it when I can make another person really curious, and then they get ever more hungry for more of the same.
You may wonder why I`m going into this, but I assure You it is not off the subject!
See, at first a lot of people ignored climatologists and thought they would go away like any other fad,...but now we know different.
They did realize that there are some very serious flaws in their computer model about the CO2 "greenhouse gas effect" and how that manifests itself in temperature increases, but way too late and it got way more serious than just saving face!
So out came the "positive feedback" effects.
I am not saying these are pure B.S...because gray snow/ice or no ice  does indeed have HUGE effect!...however the CO2 has nothing to do with how the ice got gray or exposed darker colored bare land underneath.
So they went to claim that CO2 does not only absorb energy but prevents the energy it just absorbed from being radiated again...sort of the way crooked accountants do "double costing".
Everybody at NASA and the Military knew that this is pure B.S. because it just ain`t so, but to really get into that, You have to first get away from "climatology" and get into this subject of Physics...:
Google that:
co2 laser +shg
"SHG" =* S*econdary *H*armonics *G*eneration
and that`s where You first learn that CO2 cannot "double cost", because it does not even re-emit the energy it absorbed at the same wavelength where it absorbed it:
Second-harmonic generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Second harmonic generation (SHG; also called frequency doubling) is a nonlinear optical process, in which photons interacting with a nonlinear material are effectively "combined" to form new photons with twice the energy, and therefore twice the frequency and half the wavelength of the initial photons. It is a special case of sum frequency generation.
> Second harmonic generation was first demonstrated by P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1961. The demonstration was made possible by the invention of the laser, which created the required high intensity monochromatic light. They focused a ruby laser with a wavelength of 694 nm into a quartz sample. They sent the output light through a spectrometer, recording the spectrum on photographic paper, which indicated the production of light at 347 nm. Famously, when published in the journal Physical Review Letters,[1] the copy editor mistook the dim spot (at 347 nm) on the photographic paper as a speck of dirt and removed it from the publication



Climatologists are *Lucky* that the general Public can`t find out a whole lot more than that in the Internet...and this is why You will not find a whole lot, because You are now in this science:
Efficient CO2 laser SHG in a GaSe crystal


> Abdullaev, G. B.; Allakhverdiev, K. R.; Karasev, M. E.; Konov, V. I.; Kulevskii, L. A.
> AA(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AB(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AC(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AD(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AE(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR)	Kvantovaia Elektronika (Moscow) (ISSN 0368-7147), vol. 16, April 1989, p. 757-763. In Russian.
> CARBON DIOXIDE LASERS, GALLIUM SELENIDES, HARMONIC GENERATIONS, LASER OUTPUTS, PULSED LASERS, SINGLE CRYSTALS, GERMANIUM COMPOUNDS, LASER PUMPING, POWER EFFICIENCY, ZINC FLUORIDES



*and this:*





*So for now the climatologists get away with what they are telling You about CO2!*


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2011)

when you study the traffic patterns in communities, it is often counter-intuative to see what happens in high capacity events.  heat exchange between the earth and space is the same. the energy wants out and it will take any path available. IR can't get past the blockade of CO2 and wter vapour at low altitudes so it uses evaporation and condensation to get higher. once higher it has a chance to run the gauntlet of water and CO2 molecules. my question is about the type of radiation that comes off the molecules after they have absorbed IR. do they radiate mostly in the wavelengths that they absorb, or are they black body radiators, or a combo of both. once a photon finds a hole in the atmosphere it is gone. Climate Science +/or Physics have done a poor job of making this part of the energy cycle available for laypersons to understand


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2011)

ClimateGate Goes Back to 1980



> Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960&#8217;s to 1970&#8217;s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 warmer (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).
> 
> Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 &#8211; 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970&#8217;s
> 
> ...




and the best line......

GARBAGE IN, GOSPEL OUT!   hahahahahaha


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> when you study the traffic patterns in communities, it is often counter-intuative to see what happens in high capacity events.  heat exchange between the earth and space is the same. the energy wants out and it will take any path available. IR can't get past the blockade of CO2 and water vapor at low altitudes so it uses evaporation and condensation to get higher. once higher it has a chance to run the gauntlet of water and CO2 molecules. my question is about the type of radiation that comes off the molecules after they have absorbed IR. do they radiate mostly in the wavelengths that they absorb, or are they black body radiators, or a combo of both. once a photon finds a hole in the atmosphere it is gone. Climate Science +/or Physics have done a poor job of making this part of the energy cycle available for laypersons to understand




Your statement is overall correct and if we look at the whole Chicago O`Hare traffic pattern as You put it then we can`t track what happens to the mosquito on the airfield.
But when we track the mosquito we tend to forget that the amount of IR that CO2 does absorb  approximates the amount of water a suspended wire can prevent from falling to the ground.* And that is where the "black body" effect that You mention occurs.*
Everybody knows You can`t make energy disappear or annihilate it,  it can only be changed from one form to another. 
And the entire 174 Peta-watt - the 0.0425 %, what the CO2 caught happens then.
Of course now there is a huge difference if that impacts on a dark surface or something as reflective as snow or ice. And there is an equally huge difference if there is water either in the from of just moisture or as a large body of water at the "impact" zone.
With the last 2 cases there is initially very little IR energy re-radiated, but a huge amount is expended as heat of evaporation. It`s not seldom that the amount of water that is evaporated is large enough to flood several  states. No use to attempt calculations here, the upper and lower possibility limits would render these useless anyway. But all that weight is no lifted several thousand meters against the force of gravity...then adiabatic cooling happens at greater altitude, water condenses and in the process releases all the heat it took to evaporate it...and is doing that at a different wavelength as where it absorbed it!!...*.and also has a huge head start of several thousands of meters where this new infrared does not have to travel through dense atmosphere on it`s way out to space.*
These towering cumulus reach easily to altitudes in excess of 40 000 feet and the air up there is so thin there would be no way to breathe..
since 7/10 of the earth`s surface is water, that is what happens to the bulk of the 174 Peta Watts.
The other 3/10 do almost the same thing with the exception of the portion that hits bone dry ground or large white areas like snow and ice which reflect most of it, rather than absorbing it...only a very small percentage is absorbed...I do have the numbers somewhere in my data collection, but rather not quote from memory at this moment.
Now, as for the other portion of the 3/10th which was dry and non reflective an extremely interesting thing is happening there.
*You have to try this out yourself or else You will never believe me!*
Take 2 identical glasses out of a set. Light up a wax candle and soot one glass till it`s black. See if You can scrounge up 2 thermometers...and now pour an equal amount of very hot water in each glass. Observe how much quicker the black one cools off!...radiates IR..
And that is of course IR radiation at an entirely different wavelength as it would have received it from the sun...even includes some energy which it got ABOVE the Infrared!
I just noticed that Mathew did get very curious about all that stuff and he just dug out some info regarding this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...es-and-results-in-a-positive.html#post3256820
I`ll quote him here:


> *Mathew:
> *
> The shortwave changes are larger than the
> longwave changes and results in a positive decadal
> ...


 
*And he concluded ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:*


> Shortwave radiation from the Sun enters the surface-atmosphere system of the Earth *and is ultimately returned to space as longwave radiation* (because the Earth is cooler than the Sun). A basic necessity of this energy interchange is that incoming solar insolation* and outgoing radiation be equal in quantity*. One way of modeling this balance in energy exchange is described graphically with the use of the following two cascade diagrams.


 
*I knew he would look into all that after his appetite got wetted after he has looked at that cool application of the SAME PRINCIPLE:[*

Second harmonic generation of TEA CO2 lasers with high output power for lidar systems | Publications: SPIE


> The pulse repetition rate satisfies condition of the 'frozen' atmosphere and the energy is sufficiently large for working on topographic targets that are 10 km off using both CO2 laser emission and its SH (the conversion efficiency is from 5 to tens of percent).








*I used that same dirty trick as I used on Mathew on all my grandchildren as well.*
They first thought Physics Math and Chemistry are yawn.... "Nerd stuff"...till I bought them a chemistry set, spruced it up a bit and we did some what I prefer to call "spectacular chemical reactions"....
*You should have seen how they all started hitting these "nerdy"  books after that!*

Actually I can understand Old Rock, and I wish he`d have seen that I did not register here to enter a who is right and who is wrong debate, but rather what is true and what is not.
And when it comes to man made GW and the IR-trigger effect, "positive feedback" etc Yes You may argue that the nail and our SUV exhaust have similarities:


> For Want of a Nail
> 
> For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
> For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

I hope Y`all forgive me if I rant just a tad more, pretty soon I won`t have to, `cause I am sure Mathew will never quit digging now...and he`ll do it for me, sooner or later!

Physics or Chemistry will look at the same mosquito in a very different way than  Biology.
The Biologist can tell You things about mosquitoes that no one in Physics or Chemistry knows.
That`s because in these sciences we wish we could unlock technology that can perform like a mosquito can do,.....make a machine like for ex. like a spider or an ant that can jump further than 10 times its size dimensions or lift 100 times their own weight and do all that without hydrolics, pumps, engines and batteries of fossil fuel.
Any Chemist would give both his You know what if he could figure out how the tertiary structure of poly-peptides could change so rapidly, that with a tiny e-impulse from the brain to the nerves a snake can strike lightning fast at it`s pray!

And that explains also the difference how we regard Infrared radiation and how all other well meaning people perceive it.
It`s more than just "heat"!!!!...it is in every way like any other electromagnetic wave!
Its just that somewhere there is a disconnect for some reason with people that have absolutely no problem when they look at a mechanical Oscillation, but then forget about everything they do know abaut that when that happens at the molecular level.
*It is the same thing*...essentially
A weight on a spring will oscillate following the same laws as molecules and atoms...!
T=2*pi* sqr-root(Mass/ the spring constant D)
And that`s how CO2 does it too...except the weights are then the mass of the Oxygen Atoms and the weights of the Carbon Atom and the "springs" are the Carbon-Oxygen stretching, torsion and scissoring  forces.
That`s how CO2 absorbs energy much like a tuning fork starts vibrating in front of a loud speaker that played the right tone!
Only difference is that when this "molecular" tuning fork vibrates it will energize other "springs" and "weights"...and these are the neighboring molecules they will of course get  a few kicks form the vibrating atoms of the CO2 Molecule...and then these heavier "weights" and "Springs" will oscillate of course at a lower T(ime) per 1 complete sine wave...so a whole lot of the "tone" the loud speaker imparted as quasi infrared ennergy to the quasi CO2 tuning fork will have been changed to a MUCH lower frequency that another quasi CO2 tuning fork nearby has no way to absorb!
But like I said...pretty soon Mathew will dig all that out and I don`t have to sit here and try to work this keyboard with my over-sized paws...but can just sit here, put my feet up, have a cup of coffee, smoke a cigar and read what he will sooner or later post here!
Just don`t forget about Your family in the meantime Mathew...I hope it will all turn out O.K.
My best wishes to You deep from within Canada


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

*About SHG...:
*
Everyone who is a parent here has at one time or another pushed a swing which  his or her child enjoyed riding.
And they have surely noticed that You don`t have to "pump" the swing at every oscillation.
At 1/2 the number of Oscillations per time, that will do just fine...and that is EXACTLY how SHG works.
whatever is around the "pumped up" CO2 "tuning fork" will be very very happy at exactly twice the wavelength...
So the tiny child where the parent "pumps" the swing could give another swing with a much heavier weight a tiny little
kick every second time it gets over there...and pretty soon You have the equivalent of a huge battering ram swinging
sky high...!
*Just this Mathew..:
Don`t start building something where the FBI will come knocking on Your door! *

I just want to sit here, read what You will write here and put my coffee cup down, reach for the mouse and click on the "Thank You" button..
*I don`t want to read in this forum how the "chemistry set" got bigger than all of us here! *


----------



## IanC (Jan 29, 2011)

polarbear- I think you may have misinterpreted my traffic example. much like traffic wants to get through a community by any means possible, heat wants to escape by any means or any wavelength possible. my question really is whether the CO2 molecule re-emits energy in the shoulder areas or by some other blackbody radiation that is not favourably reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules, and therefore easily escapes. even if the rate of transposing into less absorbable photons is small, it only has to happen once or twice to escape.

my concern is that there is not a comprehensive understanding of all radiation being lost to space because of oversimplified models.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> polarbear- I think you may have misinterpreted my traffic example. much like traffic wants to get through a community by any means possible, heat wants to escape by any means or any wavelength possible. my question really is whether the CO2 molecule re-emits energy in the shoulder areas or by some other blackbody radiation that is not favourably reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules, and therefore easily escapes. even if the rate of transposing into less absorbable photons is small, it only has to happen once or twice to escape.
> 
> my concern is that there is not a comprehensive understanding of all radiation being lost to space because of oversimplified models.



No, Your traffic example was perfect, my answer to it should have been shorter and the gist of it got lost...short answer, after several repetitions *ALL* of the re-emitted energy is at a lower frequency as the wavelength where CO2 absorbed it, and that includes the shoulders Dr,Heinz Hug showed in his spectrogram.
and now I take the liberty and use Your own words*, because I see You have already figured it out Yourself:*


> and therefore easily escapes.


This guy here was essentially saying the same thing how I answered You, but he did it way more cryptic than I inadvertently have been:
Second harmonic generation of TEA CO2 lasers with high output power for lidar systems | Publications: SPIE


> The pulse repetition rate satisfies condition of the 'frozen' atmosphere and the energy is sufficiently large for working on topographic targets that are 10 km off using both CO2 laser emission and its SH (the conversion efficiency is from *5 to tens of percent*).


I highlighted the answer You were looking for, that`s about the numbers for how much is re-radiated at 2 times the wavelength than where CO2 absorbs IR.
The other 90 to 95% where the CO2 scissor/stretch/torsion "tuning fork tone"still  stays the same does not get very far and then it will succumb to the same conversion to a lower frequency and radiate out without being able to absorbed again by any CO2 it encounters.
See he can do his 5 to 10% SHG frequency conversion already within:


> pulse duration (tau) equals 50 ns, pulse repetition rate f equals 1000 Hz, pulse power E equals 50 mJ.


And this guy is only interested in THAT frequency...he wants to wipe out tanks and buildings, that`s why...all the other lower frequency that is emitted is just so much junk to him!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

Jeees...I can`t even type 3 words and either the phone rings, or there is a knock on the door or one of the kids tap me on the shoulder...
I am sure if You bring this up the first thing Your opponents will throw into Your face is...Oh yeah but even though it`s at a longer wavelength, it`s still heat and the atmosphere that it will pass through will still be heated..WRONG...
all other gasses have a much lower molecular weight than CO2 (12+32) and the other ones are 28 and 32...so even when You want to go all the way down to "Brown`s" Oscillations You are OUT OF tune with these as well!
That`s just the way things are...EVERYTHING that is at a higher potential energy state will try and find an energy valley....after all, that`s why the electrons that where pumped up say in the UV range around an Atom will fall back and dump the energy they just absorbed again...
With the bond vibrations in the IR wavelength...no difference, with the higher energy state of a shorter wave wanting to become a longer wave...no difference
The only time when that process does not happen is when a wave like that travels through the near vacuum of outer space!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

See here we just went again...where are the car keys, asked my wife!..
And I was just wanting to type this...the lower You go in infrared the more transparent things get!
For example there is Infrared night gear where You can make out a target in total darkness, but You would not see very well through cloud,....yet there is Infrared gear, that look right through a cloud as if it did not even exist.
Your fog lights on Your car...same thing...longer wavelength ...shine much better through the fog.
RADAR, same thing, at a higher frequency You can make out a bird, but can`t see through the ground...lower the frequency enough and You have Ground penetrating RADAR and can see a bunker under 20 feet of dirt.
And that`s the way the IR energy that hit us eventually radiates out back into Space...else all the planets around our sun would have reached the melting point millions of years ago...we should have been first if one applies the statements climatologists make...because of our atmosphere which as they say prevents this outward radiation.
Surely they will not go so far and try tell us that Nitrogen and Oxygen don`t absorb Infrared...they do!
An Oxygen Molecule has the same torsion/scissoring/- bond stretching vibrations as CO2 has, so does a Nitrogen Molecule,...so does a water molecule...they just do it at a different wavelength, that`s all!
Man made GW doctrine has it these other infrared absorbing gasses don`t exist when discussing incoming infrared..*.but they sure as F@&< exist all over sudden in their computer model for the outbound infrared!*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

*Iqaluit, NU*
Current Weather Updated: Sat, Jan. 29, 2011, 22:00 EST - Iqaluit Airport
*-34 °C*
[/quote]

Weather Forecast: Churchill, Manitoba - The Weather Network


> *Churchill, MB*
> *-32 °C*
> *  Feels Like: -47
> * Wind: W 26km/h
> ...



Weather Forecast: Thompson, Manitoba - The Weather Network


> *Thompson, MB*
> Current Weather Updated: Sat, Jan. 29, 2011, 20:00 CST - Thompson Airport
> *-30 °C*
> *  Feels Like: -40
> ...



CBC News - Manitoba - Winnipeg to spend $4.5M digging out of storm


> *Winnipeg to spend $4.5M digging out of storm*
> Last Updated: Friday, January 28, 2011 | 5:47 PM CST
> CBC News


Weather Forecast: Winnipeg, Manitoba - The Weather Network


> Winnipeg, MB
> Updated: Sat, Jan. 29, 2011, 21:00 CST - Winnipeg Airport
> *-21 °C*
> 
> ...



New York Weather Forecast and Conditions



> *New York Weather*
> 
> Updated: Jan 29, 2011, 10:25pm EST
> *31°F
> ...



http://www.weather.com/weather/today/Munich+Germany+GMXX0087?from=search_city



> *Munich, Germany Weather*
> Updated: Jan 30, 2011, 3am Local Time
> *14°F*



http://www.weather.com/weather/today/Moscow+Russia+RSXX0063


> Moscow, Russia Weather
> 
> Updated: Jan 30, 2011, 6:30am Local Time
> *23°F
> *



http://weather.ca.msn.com/local.aspx?&wealocations=wc%3A33287&q=Thule%2C+GRL&setunit=C


> *Thule, GRL
> *
> *-25°C*


*
And the strangest thing is that even in Canada there is not a single weather station that records daily Temperatures in the arctic.
So where do these averages come from?*

*If You Google it with U.S. or the Canadian Google all You get is this for the ENTIRE ARCTIC REGION:*
http://www.oceandots.com/arctic/canada/ellesmere.php



> *Ellesmere Island*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Nope, I did a thorough check, They use the Iqaluit weather Station as a "Barometer" for the ENTIRE CANADIAN ARCTIC REGION...it is the ONLY one that does daily reports!*

And that`s the way it`s been for 50 Years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic


> Another interesting use of models has been to use them, along with historical data, to produce a best estimate of the weather conditions over the entire globe during the last 50 years, filling in regions where no observations were made.[B] These reanalysis datasets help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic[/B]



And that`s how You make hockey sticks:


> (same Wiki URL
> The models, though imperfect, often provide valuable insight into climate-related questions



*I mean why not, Ice hockey is a national sport in Canada,....so why not make temperature trend graphs in the same shape.*

and also on the same Wiki page:


> . Average January temperatures range from about &#8722;40 to 0 °C (&#8722;40 to +32 °F), and winter temperatures can drop below &#8722;50 °C (&#8722;58 °F) over large parts of the Arctic. Average July temperatures range from about &#8722;10 to +10 °C (14 to 50 °F), with some land areas occasionally exceeding 30 °C (86 °F) in summer.
> 
> The Arctic consists of ocean that is largely surrounded by land. As such, *the climate of much of the Arctic is moderated by the ocean water, which can never have a temperature below &#8722;2 °C (28 °F).* In winter, this relatively warm water, even though covered by the polar ice pack, keeps the North Pole from being the coldest place in the Northern Hemisphere, and it is also part of the reason that Antarctica is so much colder than the Arctic. In summer, the presence of the near-by water keeps coastal areas from warming as much as they might otherwise.



*But no mention of any of that, + that the temperatures in THE ENTIRE ARCTIC REGION for the past 50 Years came from a "climatologist computer model" and not actual measurements*..*.and to boot they are still doing it the same way today*

And here is what Old Rock stuck into my face in the ice melt panic thread here:
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/anderson/story/43733/hudson-bay-region-still-waiting-for-winter.asp

I just went back there and the last time they looked at temperatures there was:


> Hudson Bay Region Still Waiting for Winter
> *Dec 30, 2010; 5:41 PM ET*
> 
> Much of northeastern Canada is still waiting for winter to set in, and the latest projections continue to show more abnormal warmth across the region into early January.



*And the Hudson Bay, that`s where Churchill Manitoba is...scroll up on this post and tell me if they are still sweating today!*
Churchill, MB
-32 °C

*But they tell us WE go cherry picking?*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 29, 2011)

I am trying to be civilized
But I have been up there for a looooong time and *I know how much colder it is on Ellesmere Island  than it is just across the channel from us in Greenland...*
we go there almost every weekend just to warm up and go to that nice bar they have on SAC Thule to live it up a little...




After that You don`t freeze as much on Ellesmere, and were it not for the hangover it would be half ass O.K.

..........and look at the difference on this Satellite photo:





That just goes to show, that the amount of ice you see has NOTHING to do with "average temperature" but EVERYTHING with what traps the drift snow that gets blown in with the wind.
From this perspective You might think You could go skinny dipping on Ellesmere.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

to be a civilian and to quit cussing...
but when I came south and see nothing but this in the media, that does not help:









Because in the arctic, this is the only place where You might see a Polarbear like this in the summer time, and that would be in that Nares straight between Ellesmere and Greenland.:




*And that is always open water and always has been...even when they arrived here:*









That is THE ONLY place where You migth see a polarbear like that.





But they don`t drown!...





*and there is A LOT of ice all around as and it stays! This is a look just a little to the left at the same day and time as we snapped that picture:* in the middle of summer





This is also in the summer on Ellesmere Island,,,*else THERE WOULD BE NO SUN..:*





And on our side Nares straight looks like this in the summer:




And that melt is not from the "heat" but because that water is always "warm".
For FFFFFFFhshh sake how can these bastards con this many people, I thought  at least the people that gave Al Gore the Nobel Prize would know:
Seawater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The freezing point of sea water decreases as salt concentration increases. At a typical salinity it *freezes at about &#8722;2 °C (*28.4 °F).[1] *The coldest sea water ever* recorded (in a liquid state) *was in 2010, i*n a stream under an Antarctic glacier, *and measured &#8722;2.6 °C* (27 °F).[2]


The rest of Ellesmere Island right next to Greenland looks except where there is no drift snow pretty much* like this ALL SUMMER LONG:*





*And even to this day "climatologists" do not collect daily temperature data about Canada`s vast arctic area, but simply took a wild guess what these might have been for the past 50 Years and tell You the arctic is warming up*
*And almost every newspaper and 97% of the "experts" echo that like a parrot!*

My God what the hell are they photographing up there, they must do that somewhere way down south near an Iqaluit dump in the middle of July!
Because the arctic looks like this all summer long:





And they show crap like this to the public in the United States; without even measuring a single day in the past 50 years to this date what the temperatures actually are:
PlanetBye: In The Arctic


> Arctic Temperature


"observed temperatures" while in fact they have not observed anything:
Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Another interesting *use of models* has been to use them, along with historical data, to* produce a best estimate *of the weather conditions over the entire globe during the last 50 years,* filling in regions where no observations were made*.* These reanalysis datasets help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic*


*

 to con them with their "calculated average arctic temperature" into the same gas prices at the pump as in Germany, whose "climate chancellor" Angela Merkel has been twisting the arm of every U.S. President since she has been in Office to sign on to her bullshit "Greenhouse Gas Legislation"...all the while bankers are already salivating over the distinct possibility they get a world trade with the "Carbon credits" which would dwarf the NASDAC,+ the DAX + the FTSE + the NIKKEi and the HANG SENG all lumped as one. 

And at the same time I am trying to quit swearing at people who tell me they know what`s going on in the arctic...because of the bullshit in the internet which is the same bullshit as in the newspapers and on TV:
OSU study: Arctic warming could be worse than thought | KVAL CBS 13 - News, Weather and Sports - Eugene, OR - Eugene, Oregon | Local & Regional News



			OSU study: Arctic warming could be worse than thought
CORVALLIS, Ore. &#8211; A new analysis of the Northern Hemisphere&#8217;s &#8220;albedo feedback&#8221; over a 30-year period concludes that the region&#8217;s loss of reflectivity due to snow and sea ice decline is more than double what state-of-the-art climate models estimate.




Click to expand...


and stick it in my face
it`s not easy to quit calling people who believe this crap some choice names after they drew first blood in that department.... I tell You!
I think I`ll go to back my roots for a while coming summer vacation  and see if my uncle there left me one of those in his will and start shooting:





Yeah "OldRock" now You have yet one more witty "come back" the next time You show up in this thread!
But careful, I might just get a fix on Your coordinates!




Sieg Heil!
Just kidding, all I vant is peace, a little piece of Russia and a little piece of Poland
Und dann ist alles in (Welt)-Ordnung! Alles klar jetzt, Lieber?



*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 30, 2011)

*LAUGH...MY...BALLS...OFF*

On the lousiest weekend in sports Polar scores two hat tricks!!!! Talk about total and utter decimation of the FAITHERS lame BS.

I want to see the k00ks response to this.........particularly Old Rocks, who you know is going to post up one of his bookmarked religious links he's posted up 1,000 times before.

I cant wait to check in here later s0ns....................


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

If you think Polar's posts are long, wait for Old Rocks to respond with his Epic Wall of Text. It will be off-topic, mind-numbing, and just generally wrong on several different levels. But one thing you can count on........it will be HUGE!!!!

But I have have to thank Polar for showing up.

A voice of reason among the religious AGW fanatics is quite refreshing!

(I've told them they should just go get laid, but they won't listen to me).

Polar.....thanks for what you do.....not just here on the board


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2011)

*Well, biPolar, you know why English is the language the world over for air traffic control. You lost the bloody war. 

It is very nice that you posted an article from the OSU. However, here are a number of people from places rather closer to the problem.*
Scientists review how global warming affects Arctic climate change

The research team was led by Eric Post, Penn State University, and included biologists, ecologists, geographers, botanists, anthropologists, and fish and wildlife experts from the University of Alberta and the Canadian Wildlife Service in Canada; Aarhus University and the University of Copenhagen in Denmark; the University of Helsinki in Finland; the Arctic Ecology Research Group in France; the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Greenland; the University Centre on Svalbard, the University of Tromsø, and the Centre for Saami Studies in Norway; the University of Aberdeen and the University of Stirling in Scotland; Lund University and the Abisko Scientific Research Station in Sweden; the University of Sheffield in the UK; and the Institute of Arctic Biology and the U.S. Geological Survey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the Environment and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI) of the University of Alaska Anchorage, and the University of Washington in the United States.

Support was provided by Aarhus University, The Danish Polar Center and the U.S. National Science Foundation.  For more information: Jeffrey Welker, ENRI Director, at afjmw1@uaa.alaska.edu or (907)257-2701  

*Now I would have to say that these scientists are far more knowledgable than you are. *


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Cliff Notes on Old Rocks' response:

Old Rocks - never been there but knows exactly what its like.

polarbear - works and lives there but doesn't know what its like.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2011)

You are correct. Only been as far north as Yellowknife. And that was in '75. But I find it far more likely that trained scientists would be more accurate in their observations than an anonymous poster on an internet message board. And when you have scientists from all over the world, including the nations that border the Arctic reporting that the Arctic is warming, that leads me to believe said poster is full of shit.


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You are correct. Only been as far north as Yellowknife. And that was in '75. But I find it far more likely that trained scientists would be more accurate in their observations than an anonymous poster on an internet message board. And when you have scientists from all over the world, including the nations that border the Arctic reporting that the Arctic is warming, that leads me to believe said poster is full of shit.



Opinions are like assholes.....

EXPERIENCE is where its at!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2011)

You mean like the scientists that have spent years in the Arctic studying that region.


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You mean like the scientists that have spent years in the Arctic studying that region.



And the guys who are there now, and have been for a while.

Which are you?

Oh that's right....

You're an opinion.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 30, 2011)

Mini.....he can write 40 pages........but heres the poop..........

Anybody coming into this forum with a curious mind is going to leave knowing two things after viewing the threads: 1) Theres alot they don't get in the mainstream media and 2) Those in lockstep with the religion have an agenda that goes far beyond the science.

And who do I have to thank for that? Ian, Polar, West et. al. who consitently blow holes in the warmer theories. I just stick around to add my exclamation points and bring the sobering news to the k00ks on where their politics stand. And thats the whole key to this forum is it not? The k00ks think we come in here to try to change their minds. Laugh my ass off...........we come in here to paint the picture for those who have only the conventional wisdom on AGW.......and have them leave as anti-k00k soldiers. THATS what brings us back...........watching the legends in their own minds like Rocks by made to look amatuerish by guy like Polar Bear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2011)

Ah yes, them thar librul scientists are a bunch of pointy headed queers. And all us good rednecks don't need no damned science, we got Rush. 

Sorry boys, flap yap at whatever extent you wish, in whatever language you wish. Will not change reality one whit. And the reality is a rapidly warming Arctic.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 30, 2011)

Greenland ice sheet is safer than scientists previously thought | Environment | The Guardian




*Oooooooooops!!!!!*



What is it about the far left.........stuck in 2005!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 30, 2011)

*Britons going cold on global warming: Number of climate change sceptics doubles in four years*

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 9:00 AM on 28th January 2011

Comments (386) Add to My Stories The number of climate change sceptics has almost doubled in four years, official research showed yesterday.
A quarter of Britons are unconvinced that the world is warming following successive freezing winters and a series of scandals over the credibility of climate science.
The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall  that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical and expensive policies.


Read more: Climate change sceptics double in 4 years as Britain goes cold on global warming | Mail Online

Climate change sceptics double in 4 years as Britain goes cold on global warming | Mail Online


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, them thar librul scientists are a bunch of pointy headed queers. And all us good rednecks don't need no damned science, we got Rush.
> 
> Sorry boys, flap yap at whatever extent you wish, in whatever language you wish. Will not change reality one whit. And the reality is a rapidly warming Arctic.



I love Science, Old Rocks.

ALWAYS have loved it.

It is one of the things that has proven to me the value of an open mind, and not assuming too much about anything.

Do you consider Benjamin Franklin a "scientist?"


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, them thar librul scientists are a bunch of pointy headed queers. And all us good rednecks don't need no damned science, we got Rush.
> 
> Sorry boys, flap yap at whatever extent you wish, in whatever language you wish. Will not change reality one whit. And the reality is a rapidly warming Arctic.



liberal and conservative concern politics not science

weather is not climate

it really is amazing how distorted your thinking is. bloggers arent funded by big oil, bad statistics arent good science, consensus doesnt trump data. you have a knack for picking out details when you should be looking at the big picture, and generalities when the details count.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *
> "Counter argument#1:
> Well, biPolar, you know why English is the language the world over for air traffic control. You lost the bloody war.
> 
> ...



#1 - #4...Is that all You`ve got?...or were there some more that You deleted before I came back here?

OooohKay..let`s start with#1


> *You* lost the bloody war.


*I *did not loose the war! Are You sure it`s over? Rumor has it a lot of us  Nazis are still hiding  in Canada and Brazil...You know..."The boys from Brazil"?



> English is the language the world over for air traffic control.


A sticker for detail like You should know this: except in Quebec...
So, let me get this straight 'I" lost the war because *"we" * used Enigmas instead of plain English when we told our U-boat fleet to go right up the St.Laurence River and sink everything in sight...or off the coast of New York?
*Enough of responding to Your cheap trolling jabs!*
Let`s get to the meat of it:


> You are correct. Only been as far north as Yellowknife.


So You think You have been in the arctic..
Yellowknife= Lat: 62.47N, Lon: 114.43W
The arctic circle starts at  66° 33&#8242; 44&#8243; 
So let`s see that would be 3 degrees + 46 minutes too far south or 3 X 60 +46= 226 miles south of the arctic and still inside what we call in Canada* the "Banana belt" because You have not even left the tree line yet..*





By the way I just checked the current temp in Yellowknife NWT:
Weather Yellowknife NT Weather Forecast - Find Local Weather


> Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
> Lat: 62.47N, Lon: 114.43W
> *Temp:   -31°C*




Now for this lame attempt....the old "credibility" smear:


> be more accurate in their observations than an anonymous poster on an internet message board.



Let me get this straight...if I scan in all my credentials + my curriculum vitae and publish all that in an Internet forum for every credit card scam artist to see You are offering to shut up and crawl back under your anonymous rock?

Aside from the typical troll methods which started off topic with linking a war from the last century and is supposed to counter what I have confronted You with:

Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Another interesting* use of models* has been to use them, along with historical data, to produce* a best estimate *of the weather conditions over the entire globe during the last 50 years, filling *in regions where no observations were made*.* These reanalysis datasets help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic*


*


And since the rest of #1 to 4 is all the same:



			You mean like the scientists that have spent years in the Arctic studying that region.
The research team was led by Eric Post, Penn State University, and included biologists, ecologists, geographers, botanists, anthropologists, and fish and wildlife experts....blah blah blah..
		
Click to expand...


I`ld like to ask You this:
Don`t You think it`s a little embarrassment  for this "science"  that every one of these scientists apparently forgot to bring along a thermometer?

Because to this date all we have for isotherm lines in the arctic is one single line dating back to:





and this:





where these fucks have fabricated every point on this graph out of thin air:





produce a best estimate
help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic

Click to expand...

For the past 50 years till present date !!! 

I have been up there summers and winters and have NEVER seen any of these ridiculous "research teams" in the winter!

I guess it`s not that easy in the polar winters to snap a picture of "drowning polar bears"  or grandstand in front of television cameras and tell a National Geographic Press team to photograph "soot from industrial pollution" on to of a glacier in Greenland,....like this "professor" You quoted in the ice melt panic thread in this forum

Except this guy from the Max Planck Institute:






 and he never went outside in the winter except to sit in his truck and drive the walking distance to come over to us , to chow down with the rest of us:





So I think You best bet would be to continue trolling:



			Well, biPolar, you know why English is the language the world over for air traffic control. You lost the bloody war.
		
Click to expand...


because that`s all You are  doing  here...+ re-posting Your retarded links like a Tibetan prayer mill
*


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

I still would like to know if Old Rocks considers Ben Franklin a scientist or not.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

These "scientists" "Old Rocks" is mentioning are flocking every summer to the arctic like  maggots because they finally found that out:
Seawater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The freezing point of sea water decreases as salt concentration increases. At a typical salinity it freezes at about &#8722;2 °C (28.4 °F).[1] The coldest sea water ever recorded (in a liquid state) was in 2010, in a stream under an Antarctic glacier, and measured &#8722;2.6 °C (27 °F).[2]



*Hoping they get good footage when a junk of ice slides into the open Nares strait....or a "drowning polarbear"*

*Ever noticed how they try to draw away all public attention form the antarctic lately?*

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/NZSP.html


> 24 Hour Summary
> 
> Time
> EST (UTC) 	Temperature
> ...




Weather in Antarctica - Antarctic Connection



> Coldest Temp:
> -129°F (-89°C) on July 21, 1983
> Location: Vostok Station
> Warmest Temp:
> ...



And that`s the difference between the North Pole and the South Pole:


> Why is Antarctica so Cold?
> Several factors combine to making Antarctica one of the coldest and least hospitable places on the Earth:
> 
> * Unlike the Arctic region, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating influence of water.
> ...




*So, what did You expect...of course they don`t send this herd of sacred cows  Old Rocks keeps quoting there....sure as fuck not while it`s winter down there*

Am I the only one who noticed that all these fuck estimate graphs wich go "hockey stick" are from the Northpole, where the same fuckheads don`t even record temperatures but publish this crap all over the internet and on TV..






> *produce a best estimate
> help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic*



Yet at the south Pole there is data recorded every hour every day, month and year:
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/climate_graph/vostok_south_pole_mcmurdo.htm 






And these con artists do everything they can to distract public attention from it...like a pick-pocket with a whore accomplice who lifts her mini-skirt while he reaches for your wallet. 
Exception is when they can tell You that a chunk of ice has broken off...as if that had anything to do with "warming"...
That was discussed in the glacier melt thread here, what happens to ice, supercritical water & the triple point at the extreme pressures way down under ice layers that are this massive!




*But I guess that would be unfair for any of us to call that "cherry picking"*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> If you think Polar's posts are long, wait for Old Rocks to respond with his Epic Wall of Text. It will be off-topic, mind-numbing, and just generally wrong on several different levels. But one thing you can count on........it will be HUGE!!!!
> 
> But I have have to thank Polar for showing up.
> 
> ...



Hey, I apologize for that, but I think You and everybody else has a right to these pictures.
National Geographic would never publish these even if I paid them to do it...

Like these tree stumps at Fort Conger:









*Because these are not officially  trees stumps until "Old Rock" comes up here and verifies that!
*

So, I came here `cause I thought a lot of farmers, ranchers, drill rig workers, and other Americans that have to drive to work every day should be able to see what is real and what is memorex concerning the arctic...
I wish one of You guys would go in my album and download + copy pictures and make bumper stickers, T-shirts or something!
Hey by all means do so and sell the T-shirts..*.I hope You can make a shitload of money!...be my guest...*I don`t even want a Pizza slice!
Courtesy of polarbear a.k.a. *"Dr.Destructo".*..so *now *a lot of armed forces members who read this would know who wrote it!
And they would come to this forum right now and advise "Old Rock" to crawl back under his rock:





Because that`s how I got stuck with* that *nick name:




But I am* trying my best *to adjust to civilian life and haven`t done any of that....lately.
I even tried my best to shake my old nick name and *did earn a new one *with a less negative co-notation meanwhile, which is the one *I personally prefer*:




But then You get older, outgrow that and before You know it it`s back to the same old habits and the same  routine:





*I just can`t help it!*


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > If you think Polar's posts are long, wait for Old Rocks to respond with his Epic Wall of Text. It will be off-topic, mind-numbing, and just generally wrong on several different levels. But one thing you can count on........it will be HUGE!!!!
> ...



No apologies necessary (I actually enjoy all the data, and maybe even more so, your insight).

And I admit, it is fun to watch a true Scientist taking a handful of neophytes to the woodshed, when all they have are their propagandized talking points and personal opinion. 

They want so badly for it all to be true, but the numbers just aren't there. Yet I give them credit for remaining faithful to their religion, even in the absence of scientific proof.

Thanks again, and please, keep going


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Mini 14 said:
> ...



*Thank YOU!!!*...but it is *You guys *that should take these assholes to the woodshed, because it is YOU guys who pay for our fuel we use up there...all we got is JP8 jet fuel, we get it from You @ SAC Thule with C-130`s. It takes 14 gallons to fly in one gallon.
And in the winter our crews risk their lives doing that:





















And take a look at what the "climatologists" drive..:




*8 miles per gallon.*

But hey, to each his own, however in the arctic stupidity normally carries the death penalty with it...look at this how stupid "climatologists" can be:





They went to their lab and forgot to close the door to their generator shed...a storm kicked up and they called us because *they were about to freeze to death*! when their power went out...the entire shed was cram packed with snow and every circuit behind the control panel was toast!

So we fixed it while they sat in our quarters and ate steaks.

Then 2 weeks later we went over for a snap inspection,* guess what we found:
*





We asked them why do You leave your door *open again.????*

Answer was ,,*,,otherwise it gets too warm in there!
*

*I mean just how retarded can people be?
They could have asked any of us to show them where the ventilation fan switch is!*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I mean it, please download & copy the pics I uploaded and print T-shirts or bumper stickers or take them to Your local news paper<<<<<<

*Better than that would be You guys e-mail them to R.Limbau...he`ll nuke these bastards with these!*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2011)

So we have someone that dislikes scientists, liberals, gays, native americans, and anybody else that is not Polar Bear trying to tell us that the Arctic is not warming.

And in the meantime we have scientists like these that warned us years ago about the present methane releases 

http://earth.usc.edu/ftp/lund/BERIN...Eurasian Basin/Shakova and Semiletov 2007.pdf

Methane release and coastal environment in the
East Siberian Arctic shelf
N. Shakhova &#8270;, I. Semiletov


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So we have someone that dislikes scientists, liberals, gays, native americans, and anybody else that is not Polar Bear trying to tell us that the Arctic is not warming.
> 
> And in the meantime we have scientists like these that warned us years ago about the present methane releases
> 
> ...


Hey why be so modest* don`t exclude Yourself!
*
Oh by the way my wife is a native American Lakota Sioux, and You know what else, they even made me a band member!
and that`s why I don`t have to pay 1 red cent fuel tax....I hope that twists Your guts...no, let me re-phrase that, You don`t have any.
Let`s try "a weed up Your ass"...
No that don`t work with Your sort either, cause You stick stuff there just for the enjoyment...
Aaah maybe a nervous breakdown and if You had a good sex change maybe You get Your periods prematurely


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So we have someone that dislikes scientists, liberals, gays, native americans, and anybody else that is not Polar Bear trying to tell us that the Arctic is not warming.
> 
> And in the meantime we have scientists like these that warned us years ago about the present methane releases
> 
> ...



Come on man, are You just playing or are You really that stupid.?
Because if You really are, then You better pray "Global Warming" is not happening!

Have You not noticed who is  America`s the largest supplier of crude oil ?
Don`t wait for us to sign on to this man made GW bullshit,...we supply > 60 % of all Your oil. It does not come from where the likes of Al Gore is telling You, it comes from here:





and that does *not yet* even include crude that comes from our tar sands:





*In Canada we wish "Global warming" was true *because then we would not have to fight the ice like that:





because look at what is there:






> Arctic oil reserves (in billions of barrels above) are largely under the ocean


*Read it and weep:*
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | The Arctic's oil reserves mapped

So if all that ice is going to melt, as *You keep warning us.....*push will then  surely  come to shove  who do You think is going to win?





Or that old  club...?









New York may just look like that that after all:






*If You switch to these toy electric cars, but it won`t  be water us Canucks will flood You with!
*

You know what is going to happen to dope heads like You, if You are  still too retarded to get the fuck out of the way before it`s too late...?






*So hey, I do wish there were something to this GW crap! because then assholes like You will be roadkill!*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And in the meantime we have scientists like these that warned us years ago about the present methane releases
> 
> http://earth.usc.edu/ftp/lund/BERIN...Eurasian Basin/Shakova and Semiletov 2007.pdf
> 
> ...



*I did read that and I am not impressed.*
Also in case You don`t know what comes our of Your asshole when You fart is mostly methane.
And there are a lot of assholes!
*Sorry I take that back because i have vowed this is the new me and I do want to quit cussing!*
It` just sooo hard not to when I constantly get the samo samo crap like that stuck into my face over and over again!


However I do admit that there is a group of scientists, which may indeed be on to something.* It is a realistic assessment and I think even the toughest skeptics here in this forum could agree on that.*
And true to my principles I will not sequester any facts:

http://askbernhard.9f.com/ 


> Environment Science Council meeting
> _Alarming new facts_ are tabled at the recent council meeting
> Things may get worse than expected as a stunning new development unfolds



*Well that I could agree with*, what about the rest of You guys here?

So here we had one panel of Scientists and here is what other Scientists have to say about man made GW.
But You won`t like it,  because he is a German like I am.
*However I can personally verify myself that this Scientist has been all over the same Country , Ellesmere Island and Greenland.*
Could be You would say he is nor a "real scientist", but I`ll take my chances with the rest of the guys here in this forum who are a bit more open minded than You could possibly be, with Your little birdbrain.
I`ll start out like this because You insist on a curriculum vitae:
*After that show us Your`s!*
*Andreas Münchow, Ph.D.*
2000-     Associate Professor     Graduate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Delaware
1994-2000     Assistant Professor     Institute of Marine and Coastal Studies, Rutgers University, New Jersey
1992-1994     Postgraduate Researcher     Center for Coastal Studies, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California
1987-1992     Graduate Research Assistant     University of Delaware, Delaware
*1981-1982     Paramedic     Rettungsdienst Nordfriesland, Germany*

I know You will shoot him down because he started out as a paramedic cruising the North Atlantic risking his life in the most sour weather & storms saving people`s lives.
Np matter he is one of the Authorities on Glaciers and why they slide into the sea..I did learn a lot from this guy!





I`m sure he does not mind me posting his picture etc here.
Let`s cut to the chase, because Yeah my posts are quite long, but You can`t one-liner a subject like this.
This is his Graph for the same arctic where I spent my time, let`s see if I have been lying:





And here is his raw source data, as You can see it is a far cry of this pityful "climatologist crap" where they con the public "with a lack of information, a lack of data from the arctic"...and then make hoeckey stick graphs using thier "best estimates" and "computer models"
Here is the entire heap of data that we do have, but the "climatologists" will not even mention it..
*it is day by day, almost hour by hour thermal imaging starting 2003 till this very day & hour: * *and that is what that graph above is based on:*
here are the thermal images of Greenland and the ALWAYS ICE FREE Nares strait I mentioned all the time:
*Nares Strait MODIS Brightness Temperature *
http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/Nares2003/Band31/
http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/Nares2003/Band01/
2004 Nares Strait MODIS Imagery
2010 Nares Strait MODIS Imagery
You can chew Yourself through the entire set and compare 2003 with 2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,20110, 2011, shit even to today, day by day, month by month sometimes even hour per hour :
Arctic, Coastal, and Physical Oceanography



*And I am supposed to look at this idiotic graph "climatologists" are waving around and take that serious?*

*And the media are trying their best to twist his words:*
CNN, CBS,NBC all had to take a number waiting to hear what he had to say when everybody freaked out because a junk of ice the size of Manhattan came out of the Nares strait:


The World Today - A chip off the cold block 09/08/2010


> JENNIFER MACEY: So why has it broken off at this time?
> 
> ANDREAS MUENCHOW: Nobody really knows why it happened on Thursday but floating ice shelves or glaciers, it's natural that they break off.
> 
> ...



He knew that had absolutely nothing to do with "global warming" because he and some others could *watch it break live on this satellite*:
Crack in the Petermann Glacier : Image of the Day
here are 2 revealing still shots:





When it happened there was no question in anyone`s mind why that break happened...*and after all Andreas Münchow is thee authority in this subject worldwide:*


> And this specific glacier is being melted by how much heat the ocean is providing from below. This ice sheet is 200, 300, 400, 500 metres thick and it's floating on the ocean and the ocean underneath is relatively warm to melt it.









> At the glacier's terminus or end, *huge slabs of ice are weakened and then broken by the action of the rising and falling tides. This process is called calving and results in an iceberg's birth*.



That`s what I have tried to explain in the ice melt frea-kout thread in this very forum but assholes like "Old Rock" know all that better.
As if something like this could possibly be "melted off" a massive glacier by the sun,:




some people simply cannot comprehend that any structure can have structural failure because of it`s own weight...else we would not need a spaces shuttle we could just build a "high rise space skyscraper".
*It should be possible using "climatology" and the physics "laws" they plug in!*

Any way. I know that none of You have the software that can plot the trend using the thermal images we have so I`ll dump the raw data in numerical form in here...
sorry guys, that my posts are always so long...maybe I`ll wait and wont do the dump here till You guys explicitly ask for it.

Oh yeah Old Rocks, and Your 97% of assholes agree that the greenhouse gas comes out of assholes* this is how we treat computer models...in REAL SCIENCE...:*
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/antarctic/2010/seasonal_outlooks/ross_sea/ross_sea_seasonal_outlook_2010-2011.pdf


> Models
> While there are no validated sea ice forecasting models developed that would indicate this sea ice edge recession calculation, the results of the in-house Helfrich Statistical Ross Sea Opening Model [2], are considered in determining the final results of this outlook. This is a linear regression model, assisting in indicating the recession of the Ross Sea ice edge and a navigable
> 
> .   Model variables include September Antarctic Oscillation values, vernal winds velocities off the Ross Ice Shelf, cumulative air temperatures, strength of the vernal Ross Sea Low, and the mean amplitude of ice extent latitude in October. * Since this tool is still under evaluation and has not undergone peer review,* *it is treated as only one tool *within the overall assessment.



And here is another part of a radio interview...the audio transcript...and You know what when it aired that was chopped off by a commercial break:



> Mr. BROECKER: Well, it was dumb luck, because it turns out that the record in Greenland was a very unusual record, and as we over the years got more and more records, the cycles that showed up so strongly in this Northern Greenland ice core didn't show up anywhere else.


See this is why EVERYBODY who is on station up there knew what kind of lies You are being told by "climatology" and the media:




Because it`s our job up there to maintain live satellite links, mostly for military purposes but also the ones where *You can watch LIVE ALL THE TIME *what goes on up there, shit even what happens in Your backyard!
*As if that is thee tell all sat-snapshot *like the internet, the "climatologists" and your "NASA (*climatology*)Scientists" tell you on the internet...
*Man are You naive!* here are a few root directory "soft-hacks":
Andreas has to be told "Mensch mach Deinen Laden dicht"...because it`s too easy with the server he uses to go and hack right into all his other data and wreck it.
Index of /Nares2010
Index of /Nares2003
Just to give You a rough idea with how many different bands and how thorough we do study with these satellites
So, yeah, Old Rocks, since I prefer do remain anonymous, is it  better to hear the same thing what I was posting from someone who unlike me is allowed to go public, without risking jail divulging details about a restricted area?

See "Old Rock" *this is where  Mathew has left You in the dust*
Long before I dumped this in here he realized something was rotten in Denmark, put his personal feelings aside and started investigating.
*It takes a big man and a lot more brains than You have to do that*...and I have the utmost respect for a person who  can do that! ....
even if he comes back here and has a counter argument...at least *it will be on scientific grounds and none of us skeptics here in this forum have any qualms with tha*t!
But I know when he pours over this comprehensive data set he will conclude the same way this foremost and worldwide respected scientist concludes...yet with an open mind if valid proof to the contrary is produced...and that`s the way real science works!...
Not the crap You keep quoting over and over again.
Now all the other guys here can quote Andreas Münchow and the links to some real data over and over again, till You finally shut up!



P.S.: for all those who don`t speak German, the cussing Elefanten advice how to take action (wenn`s juckt hilft nur noch kratzen) loosely translates to if the (bullshit) starts itching scrape it off"...You guys would shorten that to "get a shovel"...Yes?
But at "Nichtnachdenken.de" we all promised to quit cussing! 
"Nichtnachdenken=is a German joke for Government gobbledegook You are not allowed to question, but should believe without further independent scrutiny
it was the e-mail address where to send Your choice swear words...*but as man made GW took off the response was too huge to continue!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2011)




----------



## IanC (Jan 31, 2011)

there is a huge difference between matthew and old rocks. matthew is looking for understanding and doesnt shy away from areas that are at odds with his beliefs and old rocks KNOWS the TRUTH and anyone who disagrees with him has corrupt intentions.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 31, 2011)

IanC said:


> there is a huge difference between matthew and old rocks. matthew is looking for understanding and doesnt shy away from areas that are at odds with his beliefs and old rocks KNOWS the TRUTH and anyone who disagrees with him has corrupt intentions.


I have to learn to shorten my postings, but the problem is that there is a huge amount of info that for some reason the press does not want to mention.
And I think it`s a shame when people like Westwall, skookerasbil, you IanC and first and foremost the likes of Mathews do not have access to such information.
Google is an oracle that can`t possibly sort out the mess man made GW propaganda has dumped into cyber space. But it will get You straight to want You want if You key in very specific search criteria.
Then, if You use the windows function...if You do use that OS the secondary search by pressing and holding [control] then press the letter [f]  and entering a a second search term  will get You straight to what You want to find out even in a mile of other text.

So if You Google using the term "ice berg alley" You can find out that this is where all the icebergs have *always been coming from*....the Greenland Glaciers.
Ever since one of them sank the Titanic these icebergs have been counted and monitored...with aerial recon after WW2. There were that many that posed a hazard that USAF tried to bomb these, but they are just too massive.
Back then visual spotting was the only way and as RADAR improved it was easier to find almost every iceberg coming from the Greenland "melting" glaciers down "iceberg alley" and into the open ocean.









Where do North Atlantic icebergs come from? &mdash; Infoplease.com


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



And they got this straight form this main source:
Icebergs of The Arctic and Antarctic
So when You are on this web page do that windows [control]f then paste this secondary phrase in the pop up below:* Current positions*
and it will lead You to the latest up to date info how many icebergs came down "ice berg alley" and what their current position is.
So man made GW tried to use the fact that RADAR could spot ever more icebergs as RADAR was improved since the crude WW2 RADARS to mislead the public that the Greenland Glaciers are "melting" at an ever faster pace...
Then well even Archimedes could do that they "calculated" this 5/100 th of an inch yearly rise in Ocean  evel, because Yeah..eventually all these icebergs will dissolve and then they started publishing this kind of garbage...and Al Gore + the media ran with it:






So, I`m trying to make my posts shorter and easier to read and I`m pretty sure I can leave the rest up to You guys.
Welcome aboard Mathew!...why don`t You *get into this stuff professionally...You do have what it takes!*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 31, 2011)

just a word of caution..when You click on the videos the coast guard public relations speaker talks about increasing temps+melt water going down the cracks and so on...we do know in the meantime that these cracks don`t go down far enough for "melt water" to do this...also we do know that there will be "melt water" from the mechanical pressure of the weight of these massive ice layers.
ice has a larger specific volume and water has the highest density at 4 deg Celsius,....so it will under high pressure try to achieve this state ....and that is the "triple point" and the super critical water under these ice sheets...was all discussed in the ice melt panic thread in this forum.
No matter which public service You work in, today You have to toe the politically correct line, especially a pr spokesman!...so take his comments with a grain of salt...we call these guys "talking heads"...they just read from the script!
*He is singing from that same  old song sheet, the "climatologists" national anthem, the hockey stick temperature song:*








*with slightly changed lyrics from the wikipedia  original* like a con artist who got caught lying to the cops, that`s what they said first:


> to produce a best estimate
> help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic


That`s how easy it is to find it:
copy this line:
help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic then add ONLY with Google the term 1 space +wikipedia 
Then when You are there press [control]f
and paste in the pop up belwo again the words: help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic
and You have it!
also go back to the post in the "ice melt" thread and see what NASA showed on the SAT picture...*the tops of the Greenland Glaciers have actually grown!*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/151792-new-melt-record-for-greenland-ice-sheet-exceptional-season-stretched-up-to-50-days-2.html






> 1.) Look at the color coded scale...notice something?
> Look at the color scale for an INCREASE !
> 2.) If he was an "expert" he should have noticed where the highest decrease is!
> That`s where You have the STEEPEST terrain gradients in all of Greenland, nowhere else does it drop off that steep and that long...


and last not least don`t forget what we also know about the Nares strait water temperatures *THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL BUT WERE ALWAYS AT THE SAME TEMPERATURE...and ships could go into that open water way back in the 18 hundreds...like HMS Discovery had!...she was not an ice breaker...*
So please don`t do a "nichtnachdenken" but use You own brains and don`t ride piggy back on the PR spokesman!
Because he is not an expert who is qualified to make these conclusions...this man is:




*and he come to an entirely different conclusion!*




Than the coastguard Pr guy!..well You all know that already...
Nares Strait MODIS Brightness Temperature
http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/Nares2003/Band31/
http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/Nares2003/Band01/
2004 Nares Strait MODIS Imagery
2010 Nares Strait MODIS Imagery


> Now if you compare temperatures from 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, those were the four times that we were in there, um yeah, four data point, it goes up and it goes down. So on seven years of temperature record I cannot say if global warming is at work or not.



*But don`t let me do the same thing the Coast Guard PR guy is doing!...You know know where to find the data, study it and draw your own conclusions!*
 Bu please do watch the videos, especially the ones about Polar bears...You will see they quite different from  Al Gore`s "drowning bear" version! 
*and thicker ice does not make their survival easier!*....quite the opposite is true. Polar bear watching was our favorite past time up there...they eat rather well when the ice breaks up.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm


----------



## polarbear (Jan 31, 2011)

Climatologists are flocking each summer to southern Greenland and part of the Nares strait in a desperate last ditch effort to uphold the assertion that a CO2 increase of a few parts per million can calve Glaciers. They have chosen to prove this in a polar area where the sea water is the warmest and try tell You that "melt water" from the top seeps all the way down the ice sheet *"lubricates the ice down there" *and then  huge chunks of ice break off and flood New York soon, if we don`t throw the keys to our cars in their collection baskets.

Meanwhile the process of glacier calving is no different in the antarctic..they have sensationalized each time a huge junk of ice calved and attributed that to CO2 GW..

Lets look at what real scientists have to say how calving works:
Iceberg Drift Research | The Department of the Geophysical Sciences | The University of Chicago | The University of Chicago

This was the "Laboratory":









And this was the equipment:


> During the 4-season effort (extended to 6-seasons, because 2 prior field seasons were supported by a related SGER project), 8 automatic weather stations (AWS) equipped with specialized sensors useful in understanding iceberg drift, melting and break-up (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) receivers, thermistor strings to measure firn temperature, solar flux pyranometers, etc.) were deployed



The study also included iceberg drifts, which is off this subject, we just want to know what this group of scientists have found out about the process of ice sheet calving..

First lets get this silly assertion out of the way, that melt water from the top goes down a crack all the way to the bottom and "melts" the ice way down there...one look at this graph will clearly show how silly this assertion is:




E. Iceberg Firn Temperature Analysis. Analysis of the firn temperature/depth profile on iceberg C16 is an ongoing process (and will continue as long as data is transmitted from C16).  Initial results involve the application of inverse methods to the analysis of temperature data as a means of determining basic thermal parameters needed in future analysis.

Both methods are tested on temperature records from thermistor strings operating in the upper 2.5 meters of firn on iceberg C16 (Ross Sea, Antarctica) from 2004 to 2007.  Results of the analysis show promise in identifying melting events and the movement and refreezing of melt water within the snow/firn layer.

Now that this man man CO2 GW glacier melt-water ice sheet destruction has been dealt with, we can move on and see what "melts" the ice and breaks off huge junks that are hysterically reported in the media, along with the flooded New York images...+ maybe a few interviews and opinions added by "climatologists"...but certainly none of the scientists that knew why it did break off:



> Iceberg and Ice-Shelf Response to Sea Swell and distantly sourced Tsunamis. In addition to the study of IHT (above), the seismic data collected on icebergs C16 and B15A, and Nascent Iceberg (on the Ross Ice Shelf) revealed  the extent to which large floating ice masses respond to ocean swell and to earthquake generated tsunamis.*  Two tsunamis were recorded by the seismometers in late December of 2004. One was associated with the Sumatra Earthquake (Magnitude 9.3 on 26 December, 2004), the other was associated with a smaller, less publicized earthquake occurring near the Macquarie Islands (23 December, 2004).* *Equally striking is the fact that sea swell generated by storms in the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans excites the strongest and most persistent motions of the icebergs and ice shelves in the frequency band below about 0.1 Hz.*



Ninety three such swell events are identified in the seismometer record, 83 were identified with specific swell producing storms through comparison with NOAA Wave Watch III wave model analysis.














and this is what how it impacts the ice:





Main conclusion:


> Ice Shelf response to ocean tide and tidal variations in ice stream inflow.  Kelly Brunt created the first numerical model of an ice shelf's response to ocean tide.  This model also investigated the sensitivity of ice-shelf flow to the tidal modulation of ice-stream input.  *The work formed the basis of her PhD thesis, which was successfully defended in Spring of 2008*.



*And that`s the way REAL SCIENCE WORKS*

If You read what climatologists post in the internet and report to the news media, it`s no wonder so many people have the impression that Greenland glaciers are "melting" and are being changed into water which runs into the arctic ocean...
But that is not really happening to as a great extent as they are telling the media...here are some pics from up there which I uploaded into the forum album here:









See the ice slides being pushed downhill by force of gravity into the sea and then calves......and the forces behind the calving process are the same as on the south pole..!
Climatologists of course pick the best spots in Greenland which are *the steepest downhill gradients and thee most MASSIVE ice layers with THEE MOST  MASSIVE PUSH- force behind it to uphold their CO2 ice melting assertions.*
Sorry that I show something from a previous post here again, but I do think this will be a "myth buster"




This was when that Manhattan sized junk calved off Petermann`s...
and these are the words the media tried to stuff into Andreas Münchow`s mouth why it calved off:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2977528.htm


> JENNIFER MACEY: So why has it broken off at this time?
> JENNIFER MACEY: Is global warming or is climate change a factor?
> JENNIFER MACEY: So do we know that the ocean or the sea temperatures are warming in that region?


See *it`s the same problem as trying to disillusion  believers in para-physics* that supernatural forces were not at play when a "crop circle" appeared in a wheat field. 

I hope this was not one of these boring long posts, but helped explain Ice calving the way it really works.
If someone can prove that the laws of physics are different north of the equator, then I have to go back to school.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


> to be a civilian and to quit cussing...
> but when I came south and see nothing but this in the media, that does not help:
> 
> 
> ...


*




That's a picture of Gustav I am not familiar with.  Where is it from?*


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You mean like the scientists that have spent years in the Arctic studying that region.






Oh, you mean the ones who keep falsifying the data?  Those guys?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like the scientists that have spent years in the Arctic studying that region.
> ...



I got Gustav from here:
gustav railroad gun - Google Search

set Google from web to images in advanced mode search for: Gustav railroad gun
and You have a lovely collection of Gustav at his birthday party..
I got mine second line, 1 from the left.

I just came back here to post this picture..which shows what kind of priorities the press has. Left= "crop circles"...+ how many people looked into that subject after the media hype and to the right is what You get for "ice sheet calving -warming -CO2"...or "glacier calving -warming -CO2".....SILCH-ZERO-DOES-NOT- EVEN-EXIST!!!

except if You exclude "Lifestyles" and so on and ONLY look into "science" then You get a few measly numbers.

But if You just enter "glacier melt"..."Ice sheet melt" then the media goes to the roof almost but not quite as good as the "crop circles"...
which I think tells a lot how that "science" makes its case:





and if You enter "glacier +warming" it goes super nova:


> Categories: Lifestyles (25-50%), Local (0-10%), Travel (0-10%), Science (0-10%)   more... ,  Entertainment (0-10%), Industries (0-10%)



Try it out with this Google tool:
Google Tendances des recherches

They call it Google insight for search...and if You log into Your Google account You get the numbers with the graph + which newspaper or media hyped it the most!...it is an eye opener!
So no one, not even a single newspaper cares to know how chunks of ice the size of Manhattan break off the ice shelf...unless they can link that to CO2...
how it really works...well that interview I quoted is the template!,....don`t You think?

P.S. One of Gustav`s cousins is in a war museum in the U.S. I have no idea how that G.I. brought a souvenir that size home????!!!
http://crazylinkz.blogspot.com/2007/02/worlds-most-impressive-gun.html


> Worlds most impressive gun
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 that`s 21 feet of concrete or 3 feet of solid steel penetrations, plus You could send "parcel post" UPS to England.
Uuuuh I love this kind of shit!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 1, 2011)

@Westwall
That Gustav You asked about can actually be used for a good analogy how climato-idiotiology works:
I am right handed and I need not fire a revolver point blank into my left hand and a smoking gun in my right  to know what would happen.
I also know that every action has the exact same reaction and that my right hand holding the pistol absorbed exactly the same energy as my left hand and yet I would fire the pistol at a target without


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And in the meantime we have scientists like these that warned us years ago about the present methane releases
> ...






Well presented my man, well done.  And I agree 100% on Matthew and his reasoning.  He is doing a good job seperating the wheat from the chaff (a very difficult thing to do in this era of sensory overload) and his arguments for the most part have been very on point and as a scientist I have no problem addressing the SCIENCE of the argument.  He has come a long way.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


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






Thank you for the link.  One of Gustav's projectiles is on display at the US Army's Ordnance museum at Aberdeen in Maryland.  There is video of it being fired into Sevastopol during Mansteins attacks and the size of the explosion is so huge it looks quite frankly silly.  They know it penetrated into the Soviet magazine at Sevastopol and that was under 20 meters of water then another few meters of mud and finally 10 meters of rock and reinforced concrete.  Simply amazing.

The railway gun also at Aberdeen is if memory serves a K5E of 28cm.  I love big guns too!

Ever watched any of Gerald Bulls HARP gun firings?


----------



## polarbear (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2011)

Quote: by Old Rocks
You are correct. Only been as far north as Yellowknife.


Quote: by Polar Bear
So You think You have been in the arctic..
Yellowknife= Lat: 62.47N, Lon: 114.43W
The arctic circle starts at 66° 33&#8242; 44&#8243; 
So let`s see that would be 3 degrees + 46 minutes too far south or 3 X 60 +46= 226 miles south of the arctic and still inside what we call in Canada the "Banana belt" because You have not even left the tree line yet..









How fcukking funny is this??? Ive been saying for how many years that this Old Rocks k00k is a fcukking phoney.
Polar Bear pwns his ass daily and he keeps coming back..........know what psychiatrists would say???


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Quote: by Old Rocks
> You are correct. Only been as far north as Yellowknife.
> 
> 
> ...



First @ Westwall


> A correction though, those are mainly 21cm and 28cm railwuy guns. I don't remember the diameter of the long supported tube though.
> 
> Here is video of Morser's Thor and I think Karl, as well as Gustav during the siege of Sevastopol. Sorry I forgot how to do umlauts!



Yes You are right...sorry about that, I spent all my efforts on finding a video that showed the recoil action because of the energy absorption analogy I made. Too bad I can`t find one of the "Schwerer Gustav" because he skidded back more than 7 meters when he fired a round and with all brakes locked.
Mit "ze Umlaute"...hey don`t feel guilty about that!...I don`t have them either on my keyboard and just write for example "ae" when I want to write a German ä ....
I don`t sit there either and type in all that crap like holding down [alt] and then type the ASCII 132 in....I`d go ballistic after a few German Words...and too boot every time You`d have to leave the forum HTML editor and do that with Notepad or such, then copy and paste it in here..*.no need to apologize man!*
I`d rather have it You give me some good advice how loose my German accent...I tried everything...I even quit eating Sauerkraut and drink Budweiser...
*for medicinal purpose only, of course!*
after 6 of those I can slurr my "rrrrrs" (You know that Doberman growl sound ...)..to an elegant "ah" like You guys , but a few hours later the f-ing genetic code gets the better of me again!  Ven I vant to say vee the same f-nig thing happens also again...I tried to make a call answer message for my phone...but gave up and asked my wife to record it in her  voice...mine  was so horrible, after I listened to it just once, I did not want to speak any English for a long time and preferred sign language

>>>>>@skookerabil 
Ja, there is just nothing anyone can do, it`s even worse than trying to tell the crowd that insist on the crop circle makers... that no one from alpha centauri would travel through wormholes all the way here just to do a stupid thing like that....
but neither folks like You,Westwall, IanC, and all the other ones in this forum here have a chance to compete against the same media hype that is made about that assertion as is the case with man made global warming!
It always comes down to the same crap...the truth is supposed to be subject to a majority vote held of course *only inside the believer community!*
Like "97% percent of climatologists agree..."....well? ....does`nt* that statement* already say everything..?

With OldRocks it`s the same thing he keeps coming back with his "counter arguments" and every one of these is a "Rohrkrepierer"...Scheisse I don`t know how to translate the German Euphemism along with the verbatim translation, so I use this picture it transmits both:





He just does not have the ability to understand that a cigarette lighter can`t compete with a thermonuclear device the size of our sun.

Our climate is what it is because of the sun and what gets hit by this massive radiation source an at what angle...
And we can`t change with our SUV exhaust the fact that there are 150000000 more square  miles of land above the equator than below...or that the sun hits that many more square miles ocean surface south of the equator than north...else only icicles could exist here...we all know that the centers on continental land masses are the coldest damn places, cause land does not store heat as well as water can.

And just to show the difference in energy this picture can do that way better than I could with my screwed up German/English hybrid texts:





There it is neatly color coded in Watts per square meter...I mean what more could You add to that in words...?
let`s not start nit picking the word "reflected" here which was the purpose the publisher had in mindo to demonstrate...
I want to use it to show just how huge the difference of energy *is as the angle to the sun changes.*

I know already what that kook will say..."see, that`s watts/m^2 *REFLECTE*D..." and then he`ll go on and fire what will wind up yet another "Rohrkrepierer" so up there in the arctic the reflection is coded dark...see how much that "absorbed" because of all the "diesel exhaust soot" on the glaciers... 
I wish it was legal to shoot people who are that stupid...Mother Nature kills them off if they stray too far out of the city and into her turf!
*F--k even a monkey would have learned by now not to load the wrong ammo into a cannon!*
*But he just keeps coming back for more of the same*


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: by Old Rocks
> ...








  Had me laughing a lot!  I was trying to let others know that it wasn't Gustav I KNOW you knew it!  Don't worry about the accent nor the butchered syntax!  The main thing is you get the point across simply enough that an imbecile can understand it.......I'll leave that one for now........and the links you have provided have kept me busy for hours getting caught up on the real science going on and for that you have my heartfelt thanks!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Had me laughing a lot!  I was trying to let others know that it wasn't Gustav I KNOW you knew it!  Don't worry about the accent nor the butchered syntax!  The main thing is you get the point across simply enough that an imbecile can understand it.......I'll leave that one for now........and the links you have provided have kept me busy for hours getting caught up on the real science going on and for that you have my heartfelt thanks!



Yes Kamerad You are indeed at *50 000 feet...and please do never quit climbing!*
Because the higher You climb the better the overall view!
I just wanted to say again, if You look at the huge difference just the sun`s angle makes in the earth`s energy budget then even the roughest math using the color code chart will show that were our land/ocean ratio *+ where the land is *in relation to the solar angle any different either only heat resistant cock roaches or deep see arctic shrimp could survive here...as if a few more ppm CO2 could possibly have any impact of magnitude when using the right reference scale!
That` why climatologists use one scale reference for CO2 ppm increase and then another scale reference ~ 10 000 times larger *on the same graph t*o "demonstrate" very very graphically that *"there is a match*"...and the newspapers piss ink by the barrel fulls and print it.
With my syntax problems...I wish I could quit thinking in German and try use my mouth in real time mode in English...that`s the problem...!!!!
I lived here for so many decades now and am totally immersed in English, but my CPU upstairs refuses to switch from Source code to a more phonetic code.
Unless of course I had a few medicinal Budweisers...they do make this Bud  a little bit wiser in that regard

The accent, well I best explain it like this...every time I open my mouth, I don`t even want to any more the same thing happens.
Once @ a flight into St.Louis my seat was in the middle of a football team...I was squeezed between 2 huge fuck...why do You have to type this stupid  long version"african american" every time these days..they read a VW advertisement and had an argument how to pronounce Fahrvergnuegen...after 1/2 hour of gut twisting German spoken next to me, I decided to settle the argument and made the fatal error to say that word in German...after that the entire plane load roared with laughter and used physical force till I said all that other crap "asta la vista"..."come with me if You vant to live"...and so on...
The same voice timber is just a coincidence, but the other phonetic accent stuff, *we all sound the same and where I grew up* You can ride to Arnold`s home town with a bicycle.
My real first name is Bernhard...I`m married for 40 Years now and My native American wife + her entire tribe still insist to call me "Arnold"...You have absolutely no idea how annoying this is!
I have sec-clr. for the U.S. and could live there any time I choose to, but I can`t even cross customs without incidence...they keep me there for 1/2 hour and call all their friends and insist I humor them all with every retarded "The Terminator" line they quote till they finally say...Okay You are clear to go!
*For Christ`s sake I never even watched any of these crappy movies!*


See, when I write something here I know You have no idea about me being German by looking just at text and I stay away from the "wiser" Bud medicine, but then the choice of expressions and the f`d up syntax...still shows up..  and that`s why You and a few others here in this all American forum smoked me out, right from day one as either a Kraut or an Ivan!...These are things You simply can`t hide, no matter how hard You try...so I came clean and decided, shit if I admit being a German I might as well fit the stereo type and OldRock caught tyhe football and does not quit try to score touch downs with it..
First I toyed with the idea instead of fag-hatred to  raise suspicions  I might be "anti-semitic" instead of anti gay...or mention "Holocaust denial" in the same sentence with "Global warming"...but that would have been a Rohrkrepierer for sure!...The other totally hollow football he is so desperately clutching is enough...he can play with  that one. I won`t spoil his fun!
It`s a little trick our soccer coach back home teaches a goalie...create a deliberate opening and you will ALWAYS know where the striker will shoot...and he can`t score.
So I decided to stand "Off center" on the goal line and give him the old "right winger" opening when he makes a shot on goal
 I just thought the anti-jewish German stereo type would have been far too big of a deliberate opening...and he would indeed be able to score with the "credibility" banana shot...so now You know all my little debating strategy quirks also...please don`t kill me!
These 2 little misunderstandings we had, You guys keep refering to as World wars are enough...I don`t want the same thing to happen here...
Hear that* all you gays*, sorry I fucking tripped up again, *I meant guys*, I was just kidding:




I love You!


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Had me laughing a lot!  I was trying to let others know that it wasn't Gustav I KNOW you knew it!  Don't worry about the accent nor the butchered syntax!  The main thing is you get the point across simply enough that an imbecile can understand it.......I'll leave that one for now........and the links you have provided have kept me busy for hours getting caught up on the real science going on and for that you have my heartfelt thanks!
> ...







I commiserate on the "Arnold" thing!  That would tick me off too!  You were wise to avoid the stratagem as well, I would have figured it out, most others here would have figured it out, olfraud and his ilk either aren't smart enough or don't care too.  They have an agenda that is devoid of science and would have pilloried you to discredit you because that is simply all they would have.

As far as those two world wars go, anyone who has studied the history will readilly admit that there were advocates on BOTH sides.  The media of the day were complicit as well.
I know many, many WWII vets and am a memeber of a couple of Kameradeschafts so got to talk with many over the years.   Sadly they are passing away at an ever increasing rate.  Gunther Rall was a good friend and would stay with me from time to time as would Erich Topp and a whole host of Fallschirmjaeger.  Decent, honorable men all.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

I googled  for some  stuff but could not find it on the net.
So I`ll upload some of it here 
 I do know that I have the book, but have not yet found the Book where it`s mentioned
but I know it is on my shelves.  Google  gagged totally when I tried the proper Word:
"Totalreflektionswinkel"...
That Word means ,  that every surface , no matter how dull or  black has
an angle of "total reflection"...even a pitch black asphalt road pockmarked  with potholes.
Sometimes You can see that when the sunlight is at the proper shallow angle and the road runs dead straight...it looks like a mirrors and You can`t see the distant road surface.
Well that`s why in that "reflected energy in watts per sqm" picture I linked in that other post.For the better part of the Year the poles don`t absorb anything, they reflect it all back at the equal angle back out into space..*.and the light does simply not care if all of Greenland is brown, green black or white!*
Another law of physics that climatologists try their hardest You forget it... that is the 'Raleighsche Streuungs Gesetz"...which says :




amongst other things, that the longer the path length, (i.e at a shallow sun elevation angle)  the greater the sacttering and consequently the weaker the radiation intensity..

Next, lucky for me!!!!....the polarisation effect of our atmosphere was on the same page I had scanned in.
Its the shaded area on  our dome of  of greenhouse doom you can see how much more light is POLARIZED at the shaded area with the shallower sun angle.
Everybody who had "Ray-ban" Polarized Lense sunglasses knows how much glare is gone from road reflected light which is also horizontally POLARIZED by the shaded area in the hemi-sphere picture.
This is  what`s happening at that sun angle before that light even gets to the doomsday greenhouse dome of CO2 emissions!
 Rayban lenses are transparent for vertical polarized Light but block horizontal..
Anybody who has such sunglasses  can verifivy that the road glare from the Totalreflectionswinkel" light is totally gone!
And the same thing what You notice with such sunglasses happens with the light that has to go through the shaded part of the hemisphere in that picture above.
Most of the horizontal wave component of that light, Infra red included does not even hit the target which is in a straight line behind that shaded zone !
But Climatologist tell You that 1+0 is still 2!
with this kind of "Climatomathic"  You could also prove that we are all mutants already.
We write from left to right, so numbers from 1-10, the 10 would be farthest right.
Starting with the right hand thumb=finger #10 and working to finger number #6 the right hand little finger, we add the 5 fingers we know are on the left hand and thus wind up with 11 fingers...their "math" works very similar.
Next page:




First off if the air contains moisture in  "German: words the Luft is not "trocken"=dry You might as well pack up and go home with your infrarredspectrophotometer and CO2 Absorption expectations!
If you have totally bone dry 0% moisture air only then is any IR left for the CO2 to  abosrb
and  .004 percent CO2 is the detection limit,  which by the WEIRDEST COINCIDENCE 
is exactly the same number that shows up over and over again as a trend increment in their graphs...which I suspect are not even based on actual measurements but have been cooked up, when I see something like that and this often!

Now going  down the table 3 more lines and You can see why climatologists are getting real horny about Methane...that will rise from the thawed out tundras and kill us all if we don`t hand in the car keys...they can measure the trend increase even if there is moisture in the air...and the precision + sensitivity will be exactly 10 times better as the invisible CO2...!
That is why they are trying to get You used to the new dooms day extinction event buzzword METHANE, CH4...the same way when the heat did not go up as their phony computer model trend...they changed it from global warming to climate change,


My God I hope the never discover the Ammonia!=NH4...um Himmles Willen, they will point out how much more of that will come out of the pig-cow-chicken and people shit when it warms up..it will dwarf the "thawing tundra effect" by a factor of 5 and that of CO2 by a factor of 50 times...

The next scanned page again shows the reasons for the new love affair with Methane..:






t has more, much wider and more intense bands, waayyy more than their beloved CO2...see it...in the middle.
Look one down...I wonder why Ethylene (Ch2)==(CH2) has not caught their attention, I mean these freaks spread the believe that 1 single Chlorine Radical Atom can have several 100000 collisions in a row with  Ozone molecule that  are hidden behind 999 997 other molecules before it will collide with another radical  right next to it that will terminate a spectacular chain reaction like that...Ethylene is used to ripen fruit make  plastics and is used in the chemical industry like we use water.
I tell You, You wanna see something react with Ozone...use Ethylene, that makes instantly an Epoxide about of Ozone! And look at the IR absorption...and these jerks bark up the CO2 tree...how smart could these "scientists" possibly be?

So summarizing how the spectral components change with the sun angle and then investigating climatology to see if they have given these facts any consideration, we find...(I have already, so did Dr.Heinz Hug)...*that they do not!*

*They plug in Beer Lambert theoretical absorption numbers as if the entire planet area was 24/7 under the same condition as the area on the equator mid summer at 12 noon!
*

And their computer model does the rest how our CO2 emissions will cook this planet.

I hope I can stay away from more of this German text translations because this is not good for my accent therapy!
Next thing I get slapped by the waitress when I go to town to buy a six pack of my favorite beverage because I pronounced with my accent again as:
"can a I have a sex Pack of my favorite beaverage"

Sechs is German for six and is pronounced like sex, and I have thought for a long time that the "bever..." syllable is pronounced like the British say "lever"...=phonetic like "leaver"..
I already answered my wife just now by mistake in German...now I need some more Bud wiser therapy for sure...

I probably had a typo accident in every sentence I wrote here but I am too lazy today to correct these.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

I have to add this, else a lot of people that make their living in a non related Profession will under estimate this Reflection component.
At the total reflection angle a surface regardless if pitch black or snow white will reflect 100 % of all the sun light.
*That in no way means, that if that angle is different that now 100% of the sun`s radiation is absorbed!*

The reflected radiation component starts from 0,_1%,_....till at the total R...angle it is 100%.
Now consider the date of the year and the time of day the sun is "seen" at these elevation angles from a huge area like Canada or Russia...especially the northern tundra and the HUGE arctic!

Sorry I should have mentioned that in the above post, it only occurred to me just now, that not everybody studied physics and would have taken that for granted.

Before I registered here I read what some of You guys wrote here and laughed my head off when I seen Your flat earth jokes about climatology..*.because sadly enough You guys were 100% right with EVERY joke You had cracked here in this forum!*...so I thought I`ll register and join the fun

Climatology treats the sun aspect angle and the physics associated with it in the spectral absorption energy region etc..*exactly as they would be if the solar radiation hits a flat disc-circle instead of a hemisphere:*







*Also the facts I just quoted out of my physics books do not change, regardless if I am a conservative, or a communist, or a Nazi, or hate fags...these laws remain as they are, without regard to the character of the person that quoted them!*


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

@Westwall and ESPECIALLY @ Mathew
I wish to thank You and all others who exercised the tolerance to look past my Nazi Redneck stereo type image and focused on the science.
I Germany our liberals have driven the lack of tolerance towards "right wing extremist" dissidents to an extreme, such that arrest warrants are issued.
Now, Westwall for example showed sympathy for my screwy "Terminator" voice and my German way of saying things that I could not hide even though he has seen only typed text from me.
There is another guy, form the same area where I am from who`s curse dwarfs mine, because no matter how hard he tries You`ld swear You are listening to Adolf Hitler...
but he turned his curse into a well paying career in comedy.
*I really hope the moderator does not edit this video link out!*
This is Gerhard Polt`s voice dubbed into a Hitler speech cracking jokes about crooked car dealers, one of them ripped off Adolf when he bought his Mercedes Benz in this comedy piece and Hitler rants angrily about the crooked dealer:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15I91i8RnnE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15I91i8RnnE[/ame]
Just listen to it for a few seconds and then You know what I`m going through with my f_ing "Terminator" accent every time I have to say something while I am in public.
One thing is for sure poor Gerhard would never qualify as Germany`s Ambassador to Israel, if I were Bundeskanzler he`d be the top candidate...
You never know, nobody back home dreamt that Arnold would some day be the Governor of California either!
....go run with that "OldRocks" in the head!


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I have to add this, else a lot of people that make their living in a non related Profession will under estimate this Reflection component.
> At the total reflection angle a surface regardless if pitch black or snow white will reflect 100 % of all the sun light.
> *That in no way means, that if that angle is different that now 100% of the sun`s radiation is absorbed!*
> 
> ...






Thanks for that PB.  You've actually made me want to dig out my old CRC.  I also have a couple of upper atmosphere physics books I need to dig out because i am sure they are nowhere on the web.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> *Also the facts I just quoted out of my physics books do not change, regardless if I am a conservative, or a communist, or a Nazi, or hate fags...these laws remain as they are, without regard to the character of the person that quoted them!*








> Thanks for that PB.  You've actually made me want to dig out my old CRC.  I also have a couple of upper atmosphere physics books I need to dig out because i am sure they are nowhere on the web.



No, don`t thank me! I am so happy You are doing this now!
By the way...with my funny military association I get a lot of vacation time to make up for the hardships of arctic postings.
So I spend that time ~6 Months stretches as a bush pilot or as a long haul trucker so I won`t get bored.





That Gorilla, that`s not me...he makes Arnold look like a whimp, because Bill is 7 foot 6...I liked taking him along, `cause he could fuel up a C-206 without using a stepladder!


As a "stupid" truck driver I really have no business to quote science...but I enjoyed seeing every nook and cranny of Your wonderful country...I seen almost every road in every state except Hawaii...but mostly I drove the same roads with these "ice road trucker" You see today on the "Discovery channel"...that`s why I always say, stupidity can carry the death penalty!
This picture is the racist`s native wife and kids...I mean everbody could bullshit and say he`s married to a Lakota Sioux...Thanks for trusting me on that one guys!...:





Again thank all of You guys for Your tolerance and sorry again about all my cussing here in this thread.
I will do a "razzia" through my book shelves, because there is a lot more stuff I vant to scan in and upload that belongs into this thread!
and now I want to chisel out my snow blower.
It will be easy today because over night we had one of our freak Canadian "Chinooks" and within just 6 hours the temp went from -30 to +6
Ahaa...I`m sure OldRocks will plaster our current temperature all over the other threads into which he "web crawls"  and make fresh worm holes!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

Here is what brings the food to Your table too, "OldRocks"...and yes we make "Carbon Foot prints", really BIG ONES, doing so...
Unless You want to drive Your bicycle to Alaska and get the king crabs yourself...or pesti cide free honey from the North West Territories...take a shot gun with You or You will be a snack for some REALLY big bears!

*I hope the moderator does not cut out this video link, because it has EVERYTHING to do with this Global Warming debate here in this thread!
*
*Here is what we evil carbon foot print makers really do:*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojEx3mtTWw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojEx3mtTWw[/ame]


People like "OldRocks" who bitch about "Greenhouse Gas" emissions want to eat fresh fruit/vegetables and Meat...and they want their news papers and they also want the Pharmacy to have the medicine in stock that his wife or kids might desperately need.
But these kind of people care nor how who has to see to it that all that stuff is there on time.
So I decided to show him in a video, as short as possible how it does get there.
I took a few splices out of my Camcorder videos and uploaded it to YouTube.
That`s far from how showing how urgent these "bandit runs" can be.
I did these, cause I always was a speed freak, who grew up where the home of Porsche,Audi & BMW is.*..and we don`t have speed limit.*
And also on these runs they care not how many fines You get or how much Diesel You
burn...they pay all that at the receiver end.
For example a news paper in an American city was down to the last few Yards of the paper rolls, cause the truck beforem had crashed...so they were looking for a driver that
was willing to risk his neck to deliver 56 Rolls from Northern Canada inside 24 hours
to the printing press in an American city.
Sometimes a medical supply depot had their logistic scerwed up and were running low on meds.
Our Canadian truck have the speed Governors bypassed and we also *use much larger
engines ` cause we also run the Alaska highways all Year.*
Less than 800 hp...You don`t really want to do with, because unlike American trucks we pull B-trains, Super-B`s and road trains up there...
So for a super speed run they usually call a driver who drives such a truck.
*Were it not for trucks & "greenhouse gasses" people like You "OldRocks" better get used to it to eat rotten Tomatoes!*

So Yeah I do have a larger than average "Carbon Footprint" than most people...
And if You see me coming in Your mirror get out of my way. I`m always in a hurry!.
The bugs come off @ a Flying J " truck wash...but the mini vans I have to scrape off my bumber with a spatula...they are annoying how sticky they are!

*And as for replacing the "big trucks" with rail transport...
I don`t think there is any country in the world that has a tighter rail-net than Germany...
Even we can`t do it without A LOT of "brummers" as we call them back home!
*


You will probably make fun out of everything I posted here and make fun out of
everyone who was reading science quotes which came from a stupid truck driver...
Yes I was one of these almost every time the Military gave me time off..
I also flew emergency medivacs form Northern Canada in the worst snow storms You can
imagine because one of the "Eskimos" You say I hate broke a leg and infections set in.
So call me what You want...the science I quoted does not care who I am or who I was.
But I am absolutely sure when You hear me saying that on my newspaper run I burned
*68 liters Diesel per 100 klicks...that`s nothing...*
You should see what the truck with the 950 hp souped up Cat engine burns pulling
Super b-trains up to Anchorage Alaska.
That truck I could get past 160 Kmh on a level road pulling 140 000 pound loads.
I hope You get a heart attack how much "Greenhouse Gas" this fag/Eskimo/Indian hating Nazi made so far...
But You also have no idea how much fuel tax we pay and what a pain in the neck it is to record the mileage for each state who has a different fuel tax...
You are driving an Office that should almost have 2 secretaries , when You drive a truck.
+on border crossings You have to do the exact same paper work a ship captain for
a freighter from the U.S. to Europe has to do!...we don`t just sit behind the wheel, hammer-lane it while we eat Greaseburgers You know! 
*and I`m still not done yet!...I like driving around the beautiful U.S and get paid*
50 cents per mile while I`m doing it!....and met a lot of  friends in Louisiana & Alabama.
They are MY KIND OF PEOPLE!...a barbarian Bavarian fits in there like a dirty shirt!
Although they always have a good laugh about the way I talk.
Sometimes when I stay away from German Literature or "Deutsche Well" long enough 
*my accent actually is not really all that bad ....? (@Westwall)
*


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 4, 2011)

Hey Polarbear,
Where's that global warming and why have you not fallen into the ocean yet?

Do you really think there is a correlation between Christianity and hating homosexuals and Nazism?

Can you be categorized as a left wing nutcase extremist?

Do you watch what's his name, the Hugh Hefnor wannabe? Oh, what is his name? The HBO attempting to pretend he has a talk show host??? Anyway, by your tenor I assume you have been summarily brainwashed and lack a mind/will of your own.


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> Hey Polarbear,
> Where's that global warming and why have you not fallen into the ocean yet?
> 
> Do you really think there is a correlation between Christianity and hating homosexuals and Nazism?
> ...






Actually, when it comes to being brainwashed I think you have that part covered....thank you.


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 4, 2011)

"*But now I have to go outside, remove the propane Tank from my BBQ and use a tiger torch to get out my snow-blower...it`s not just buried but frozen to the ground..
I can`t move it...it`s like it were encased in concrete...
And without that I cant` dig out my van so I can spew Greenhouse Gas on my way to the grocery store in town before it closes!*"

Talk about cursed...


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> "*But now I have to go outside, remove the propane Tank from my BBQ and use a tiger torch to get out my snow-blower...it`s not just buried but frozen to the ground..
> I can`t move it...it`s like it were encased in concrete...
> And without that I cant` dig out my van so I can spew Greenhouse Gas on my way to the grocery store in town before it closes!*"
> 
> Talk about cursed...



I better not ever see You while I`m making my carbon foot prints...Jerk! 
Wanna see some really criminal "carbon foot printing"...?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JjRvEw6GvA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JjRvEw6GvA[/ame]

That was 2 lbs Diesel per mile, through one of Your retarded "fuel conservation states" where cars can do 70 and we are supposed to crawl along at 50 and drive all day and night so that dumb fucks like You have fresh produce!
The worst pile ups I have seen were in states like that where lane where assholes like You start rear ending each other and we have to lock our brakes and see how we can bring 80 000 lbs to a stop so we don`t kill a whole batch of retards like You!
And idiots like You think all that evil greenhouse gas truck traffic can be x-fered to rail traffic...!





We can`t even do that with all the rails we have in Europe...shit for brains!





And Germany would fit several times inside Texas!...
Have You ever figured out what it would take to connect the entire U.S.A. so You don`t need "Carbon foot printers" any more?

Unless of  You are willing to fetch Your crap from a freight train stop with Your wheel barrow?
look around You and how much of what You got had been brought to You by Diesel power!  *FAG!*


----------



## FactFinder (Feb 4, 2011)

polarbear said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > "*But now I have to go outside, remove the propane Tank from my BBQ and use a tiger torch to get out my snow-blower...it`s not just buried but frozen to the ground..
> ...



Been there heard that. Haven't seen a bleeding heart who could stand yet. Maybe you will be a 1st...maybe not. 

In the meantime all your graphics are offensive, and lazy.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> Been there heard that. Haven't seen a bleeding heart who could stand yet. Maybe you will be a 1st...maybe not.
> 
> In the meantime all your graphics are offensive, and lazy.



You have heard???
Take the wax out of Your ears,...or do You live in a total information vacuum.
*This entire scam has busted WIDE OPEN in the entire E.U....!*
In almost every major Newspaper and on almost every Cable channel there is...You moron!
Forscherskandal: Heißer Krieg ums Klima - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft
*Forscherskandal*


> Wie stark erwärmt sich die Erde wirklich? Klimaforscher sollen Ergebnisse dramatisiert haben - tatsächlich tappten sie eher der Industrielobby in die Falle



Here is the translation:
*Climate "researcher scandal"
*
Results have been dramatized, and "climatologists" have been caught in a trap set by the Industry lobby.







> Noch immer klaffen erhebliche Wissenslücken in der Klimforschung: Die Simulation von Wolken ist bislang kaum möglich.


Translation:
*Huge gaps in climate research, cloud effect had not been possible to be included in the trend analysis simulation





*


> Wetterstation in der Schweiz: Forscher streiten auch über die Zuverlässigkeit von Temperaturmessungen.


Translation:
*Researches started fighting over the reliability of the Temperature data which was gathered*







> Stephen McIntyre: Er gilt unter Klimaforscher als Nervensäge Nummer eins. Das Problem: Der Mann kann rechnen.


Translation
*Climatology`s enemy #1, Main Problem, the man knows his math!*

Klimawandel - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten


> Initiator des Treffens war Jerome Ravetz, ein Wissenschaftsphilosoph von der University of Oxford. "Die Fronten im Kampf um die Klimaforschung sind vollkommen verhärtet", lautete Ravetz' Diagnose. "Das Resultat ist ein gewaltiges Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem."
> Abwesend war etwa Gavin Schmidt, ein US-Klimatologe und Mastermind des Klimawarner-Blogs " Realclimate.org". Er war eingeladen und sagte ab, was wohl auch daran gelegen haben mag, dass Steve McIntyre seine Anwesenheit zugesagt hatte.
> 
> Klimaforscher müssen genauso wie Investmentbanker dazu verpflichtet sein, Informationen zu veröffentlichen, die ihren Prognosen zuwiderlaufen", sagte McIntyre in Lissabon. Andernfalls, so forderte er, müssten sie mit Sanktionen rechnen. "Die Manager von Enron sind ja auch nicht dafür in den Knast gegangen, dass sie Milliarden in den Sand gesetzt haben, sondern dass sie die Anleger mit dem Zurückhalten von Informationen getäuscht haben."


Translation:
*Oxford University Professor"The result of the most recent investigations leave a huge credibility Problem!"*

Further more:
*Gavin Schmidt, U.S. Climatologist and Mastermind of  " Realclimate.org" changed his mind to attend and be questioned after he was notified that Steve McIntyre (the man who knows his math!) would be present at the Science conference*

This also:
*climatologists have refused to show source temperature data and should be forced by law to publish these.
Enron managers were not jailed because they had squandered huge sums of money, but because they have withheld crucial information from Investors...the panel concludes..
*

So, You asshole I think soon we will hear no more about man made "Global warming"
As if I` sit here and translate every word and hand it to a fag like You on a silver platter.
Go Google the British Press, BBC,the Swedish Press/TV I`m pretty sure they have reports of that in English...
Unless of course You prefer to stay stupid and wait till CNN has that also...
They won`t be able to avoid reporting it much longer...
I mean how long can You hold Your breath!
*Fuck You from Canada! *


----------



## westwall (Feb 4, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...







If you had actually bothered to READ polarbears missives, instead of trying to be cute, you would have noticed that polarbear is very much on the sceptical side.  Furthermore he is uniquely placed to shed light on the various prevarications wrought by the alarmists.

You should get out more.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> * various prevarications wrought by the alarmists.
> *
> You should get out more.



*You could have not picked a more perfect time to post Your remark!*

There is way too much spilling out all at once for me to keep up translating and typing...it would fill page after page here and Your mouse wheel would start smoking trying to srcoll to the end I am not kidding!
Take a look at this:



> 3. Teil: Wie Klimaforscher mit Interessensverbänden kungelten
> 
> Schon vor der Uno-Klimakonferenz in Kyoto 1997 hatten Umweltverbände und führende Klimaforscher an einem Strang gezogen, um Druck auf Industrie und Politiker auszuüben. Greenpeace sendete im August 1997 im Namen britischer Forscher einen appellativen Leserbrief an die britische Zeitung "The Times" - die Klimatologen hatten nur noch unterschreiben müssen. Im Namen des Umweltvereins WWF riefen andere Klimaforscher im Oktober 1997 anlässlich der Kyoto-Konferenz Hunderte Kollegen per E-Mail zur Unterzeichnung eines Appells an die Politiker auf.
> 
> ...



*I was after all really just Propaganda and not science!*

British and Australian Researchers have been asked by the WWF to *submit "somewhat  amplified" data
*
*and have done so!*

So had the Max Planck Institute and others by request to do so.

*The findings included also that data showing that the Data sets which showed that GW effects had for the larger part of the world  totally insignificant values have been sequestered

*


It goes on and on what`s coming out into the light of day...too much too fast I can`t keep up! Wait a couple of days and I`ll try to make a summary meanwhile!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 5, 2011)

From what I have been reading so far, this "Science" rift started out as a tiny "fracture" in 2009, ,....some climatologists have actually switched sides and started to publish pretty damning stuff:....and now we have a delayed action which for "climatology" is going totally out of control!
It started here 2009...and nobody really paid any attention, what followed...at least not the main stream media..
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?


> According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
> 
> The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/


> and later by* Roger Harrabin, is very small, just 0.05C, and according to the Met Office the difference between the forecast and the actual temperature is within its own stated margins of error.
> *
> *But it would be normal to expect a random scatter of errors either side of the central forecast temperature, rather than for the error to be always on the warm side, as is the case here*.



.*as they do now VERY SUDDENLY i*n 20 page long articles at the "green head quarters" with Climatology Queen Merkel,....I think this will be the end of her Political career unless she switches sides REAL FAST!


----------



## polarbear (Feb 5, 2011)

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


> Das Lagerdenken unter den Forschern wurde immer feindseliger. Sie debattierten darüber, wem vertraut werden könne, wer zum eigenen "Team" gehöre - und wer womöglich ein heimlicher Skeptiker sei. Wer zwischen die Fronten geriet, gar lagerübergreifende Kontakte pflegte, machte sich verdächtig.


Short translation:
The Bunkermentality amongs theCliamtologists bceame increasingly paranoid, who could be trusted, and was part of "The team" and who had been turned into a sceptic.



> Studien müssen vor der Veröffentlichung von anonymen Kollegen, den Gutachtern, geprüft werden. Mann - ein gefragter Gutachter - habe bei Magazinen als "Türsteher"


Every publication had to be "cleared" first by an anonymous "Doorkeeper" ex-climatologists report.




> Gute Beziehungen zu Fachblättern hatte das "Hockey-Team", wie sich die Gruppe um Mann und Jones mitunter nannte, zweifellos. Untereinander sprachen sich die Kollegen bei der Begutachtung ab: "Habe zwei Studien abgelehnt von Leuten, die sagen, CRU läge falsch mit Sibirien", schrieb CRU-Chef Jones im März 2004 an Mann. Dabei ging es offenbar um Baumdaten aus Sibirien, eine Grundlage der Klimakurven. Später sollte sich herausstellen, dass Jones' CRU-Gruppe die Sibirien-Daten wohl tatsächlich falsch gedeutet hatte. Die Autoren der von Jones abgelehnten Studie vom März 2004 lagen demnach richtig.



All other data than that of the "hockey stick team" were rejected by this "doorkeeper".
The hockey stick team then was promoted to the best news outlets.

Der Spiegel has now analysed and sorted all hacked e-mail and also just published this update:


> Mann entdeckte, dass ein Herausgeber einst an derselben Universität wie der gefürchtete Klimaskeptiker Patrick Michaels arbeitete - und stellte eine Verbindung her: "Ich glaube, nun wissen wir", schrieb er am 20. Januar 2005, wie diverse Skeptikerstudien "in GRL publiziert werden konnten". Sogleich wurde diskutiert, wie man den GRL-Herausgeber - es handelte sich um den Klimaforscher James Saiers - loswerden könnte. Tatsächlich gab Saiers ein Jahr später sein Amt auf, angeblich freiwillig. "Es scheint, das GRL-Leck wurde gestopft", schrieb Mann in einer E-Mail erleichtert ans Hockey-Team.



It was discovered (during the paranoia and distrust that took hold) that one publisher of climatology data, James Saiers  worked many years ago at the same University the most feared Climate sceptic Patrick Michaelsand, James Saiers was sacked because of this "connection"...and Mann wrote an E-mail "The leak has been plugged"...regarding James Saiers.

*It goes on and on and on...
Shit what kind of "science" was this?....What choice did You have other than "97% of climatologists agree that...blah blah..."
Read on and see what happened if You did not agree...
This is way way worse than the Spanish inquisition ever was!
*




I never even suspected it was that crooked..*.I thought stupidity and ignorance was the main ingredient, but not stuff like this.*


> Der Wissenschaftsphilosoph Silvio Funtovicz hat das Dilemma bereits 1990 vorausgesehen: Die Klimaforschung gehöre zu den "postnormalen Wissenschaften". Aufgrund ihrer Komplexität unterliege sie großen Unsicherheiten, behandle jedoch gleichzeitig ein hohes Gefahrenpotential.



Silvio Funtovicz had stated 1990 that "Climatology" is a "post normal science" and is subject to thee most uncertainties (what is factand what is not)...would be the proper meaning of the translation.....and he goes on "and yet it *wants to deal* with high *danger* potential *predictions*" 

The titel of that page was:


> 7. Teil: *Wie Wissenschaftler ein Dogma errichteten - und darüber stürzten*



Translation 
*How sciencists created a dogma which is crushing them now*

And there is way way more...I gotta take a break here!
Just before I do, some readers might wonder what is "Der Spiegel" Magazine...it is by far the most influential Magazine, If der Spiege shoots You down Your political hopes in Germany are over!' It is neither right nor left wing, lately leans more left than straight up and this is why these articles are stunning ewvery Politician who currently hold office! Here is what wiki says about "Der Spiegel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel



> With Stefan Aust taking over in 1994, the magazine's political stance is said[who?] to have drifted towards the right. Some[who?] argue its position had changed from being critical, but supportive towards the* red-Green government to a "neo-liberal*", "Thatcherist" stance. Others[who?] reply that Der Spiegel always used to be critical of those momentarily in power&#8212;be it the right or the left. In fact, politicians of all stripes who had to deal with the magazine's attention often voiced their disaffection for it.



This is why these articles are stunning Germany...Der Spiegel was a mouth piece for man made GW and praised Merkel`s Greenhouse Gas legislation, ...I mean You do know that our "Green Party" is way worse than the "Sierra club"...they`l like ti string You up if You don`t give up You gas burner..



> *Der Spiegel often produces well-researched feature-length articles about the problems affecting Germany (such as demographic trends, the gridlock of the federal system, or the difficulties of the education system), and describes the current thoughts and options on how they might be resolve*



*So Okay, now You know I am not just quoting some "right wing blog fly by night " publication, this is as major as it gets in Europe.*
This is already causing political tremors in Europe.
*I think it`s all over now....Shit that`s  how sudden and without warning the Berlin Wall came down too*
*Just look at how ridiculous this "science was":
*http://carnegiescience.edu/news/termites_foretell_climate_change_africa%E2%80%99s_savannas


> *Carnegie Institution for Science*
> Termites Foretell Climate Change in Africa&#8217;s Savannas
> Tuesday, September 7, 2010
> 
> Palo Alto, CA&#8212;*Using sophisticated *airborne imaging and structural analysis, scientists at the Carnegie Institution&#8217;s Department of Global Ecology mapped more than 40,000 termite mounds over 192 square miles in the African savanna. They found that their size and distribution is linked to vegetation and landscape patterns associated with annual rainfall. The results reveal how the savanna terrain has evolved and show *how termite mounds* can be used to predict ecological shifts from *climate change*. The research is published in the September 7, 2010, advanced online edition of Nature Communications.



Fuck how can * so many people* be *so stupid* andfall for these fruitcakes...*the alarming thing is they have voting rights* May God help us!

*This Bud is for You "OldRocks"*


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> From what I have been reading so far, this "Science" rift started out as a tiny "fracture" in 2009, ,....some climatologists have actually switched sides and started to publish pretty damning stuff:....and now we have a delayed action which for "climatology" is going totally out of control!
> It started here 2009...and nobody really paid any attention, what followed...at least not the main stream media..
> BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?
> 
> ...











.*as they do now VERY SUDDENLY i*n 20 page long articles at the "green head quarters" with Climatology Queen Merkel,....I think this will be the end of her Political career unless she switches sides REAL FAST![/QUOTE]

Actually I hope she stays for the fall.  It will make what she has done that much more obvious.  I must confess I have never liked the woman but the revelations you have provided, along with stuff I have found on my own, make me despise her even more.  She needs to be brought down hard and imprisoned for life.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> Actually I hope she stays for the fall.  It will make what she has done that much more obvious.  I must confess I have never liked the woman but the revelations you have provided, along with stuff I have found on my own, make me despise her even more.  She needs to be brought down hard and imprisoned for life.


That BITCH ! I don`t even know where to start..She is a classic "Mole" case..and the entire Spiel how "The Wall" came down,...Soviets never had an intention to invade West Germany using military force, it was intended  to be by stealth ...in retrospect it was a brilliant move. The entire western alliance was jubilant when it happened, but *not even the CIA knew it would be happening*, *they were totally taken by surprise, when the Stasi opened the border!*

Reagan who got daily briefings was taken by surprise...he had to emergency scramble Air Force 1 because he wanted to smash that abomination personally!





The logistics were a security nightmare..but he did it!

And all the while the Stasi was shredding their files for a whole week prior to this day.
Because these files had hundreds of names of key people who had already been implanted in the BRD...as we later found out as the shredded paper in 100 of sacks was painstakenly pieced together by the BStU:
Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But that took decades...by then even that process had been sabotaged, by implants in that very same Organization. When that fact was discovered it was too late, because Merkel who was a Soviet Propaganda and Agitation Academy TOP GRADUATE was already in Power...and when our version of the FBI notified her she said, that unlike the SS, the Stasi had never been declared a criminal organization...and ex Stasi member were put in charge of the Archive...it was a COMEDY!
Wikileaks has the entire correspondence, because our BGS was so pissed of they gave it to Wikileaks and made no bones about it...but nothing could stop that bitch any more.
She lost several elections and simply formed a coalition with the communist/socialist and the :Green Party"...this fucking "enviro freak" movement which was a wing of the communist Party....and stayed in power!
Even Wikipedia has it published that she was a Soviet Darling and that her and her father had a luxury car when everyone else was on a 10 year waiting list for these soap box cars they had in East Germany...and the DDR/Soviets let them travel with that freely to West Germany, while everyone else was shot just for trying.
Now all that is left in the BStU, is that Merkel is the daughter of an east German Pastor...and every BGS member (our FBI) who was not sacked by her KNOWS who she really is..!! The first thing she did when she usurped her way up, using the female block sympathy vote, AND the ENVIRONMENT votes, was back-stab each and every person who had supported her on her way up..unless she feared no challenge from a particular individual. Then she dismantled the old an prosperous Germany piece by piece...starting with the middle class and small business. Then she opened the floodgate to the east for dirt cheap labor, after that came huge tax hikes   + the Greenhouse Gas laws and crippling energy taxes. Then she began dismantling the energy sector...
Every "Wessie" we call the original West German will tell You today that the sudden collapse of the wall was a Trojan horse. Had the Stasi and the communist Military worn their Uniforms an shouldered their weapons to invade across the border they would have not had a chance...So they simply "quit" the Stasi + Army and invaded in civilan cloths...and that`s how simple that was, and the results were equally if not more decimating as had they done it armed an in Uniform while the west was asleep at the wheel..the Wall smashing...hey they did not care about shitty concrete they had their eyes on the prize on the other side of the wall and now they have it!
I have no idea why this bitch and her communist Party in disguise had and still has support from the U.S. She had been since Youth on a first name basis with Putin, when that creep was still KGB chief...shit EVERYBODY knows that...how come they are playing dumb in the White House..The Janitor at the White house probably knows too!
I don`t think she can be removed by conventional methods like a lost election...she already had lost these...and then for the strangest reason the top echelon of either left or right wing offers a power sharing coalition, in which that whore stays as the boss...
That gives You an idea how deep and thorough the communists have infiltrated...
They could mascarade as Neo Nazis if need be, no problem, CDU, CSU, SPD no Problem...they are not offended by any name, as long as they have the wheel!
And I tell You if this "climatology" is not smashed till the last bone is broken You will go down the same way, and with the same methods!
ALL OF EUROPE ALREADY HAS...Spain, Greece, France no matter they can`t go fo shit unless she clears it!...That`s how tight this strangle hold is,...and commies can rely on almost all the female population vote, as long as their chosen figure head is a bitch like this one..You know even today it`s still Okay to point out that it was the female vote that put Adolf Hitler over the top...right after he promised equal rights..
But try say publicly that women`s votes keep a women in power...the press will make road kill out of you!
And that`s the way that is done...primitive but bloody effective...The west should have invaded Afghanistan the same way...it would have been dirt cheap and not a single bomb would have gone off...It`s the old Herr Dr.Joseph Goebbles frog soup recipe...works EVERY time!


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 8, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Hmm.......   So we are in a major cold spell. But the arctic ice is still well below normal.*
> ...


So, you're still hanging onto the GISS data.  Tell me, what good is an average arctic temperature that eliminates data it doesn't like and replaces SST's with gridded in surface air temps?  The data is being manipulated, it is no good.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 8, 2011)

BenNatuf said:


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




It maybe wrong...we need better data and more temperature stations...Why not a few thousand remote sensors unmanned that can take the temperature every hour of the day through out the arctic, antarctic and Greenland? We can use the satellite data for the oceans and refine the information with the ship, buoy data that we do  have, which would give us a stronger record of our temperature. Since co2 is not a green house gas of any respectability on earth then some natural cycle must be causing any warming outside of what we understand to be the bonds of the natural cycles that we understand..


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

We have the Aqua and other satellites recording Arctic data. And that is just our satellites. The Arctic is rapidly warming, the evidence is simply unavoidable.


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We have the Aqua and other satellites recording Arctic data. And that is just our satellites. The Arctic is rapidly warming, the evidence is simply unavoidable.







Maybe, but probably not.  Satellite data doesn't support that contention.  Only temp averaging by Hansen and Co. records an increase amazingly enough where there are no surface weather stations to confirm his "modelling".  What we do know however is the Arctic ice has rebounded 26% over the last three years.  That is unarguable.

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


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2011)

has anyone heard why the RSS adjusted the temp data down? but only for post 1999 years?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Bullshit site. Here are the real figures;

Arctic poised to see record low sea ice volume this year « Climate Progress

Sign in to read: Arctic ice: Less than meets the eye - environment - 31 August 2010 - New Scientist


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Bullshit site. Here are the real figures;
> 
> Arctic poised to see record low sea ice volume this year « Climate Progress
> 
> Sign in to read: Arctic ice: Less than meets the eye - environment - 31 August 2010 - New Scientist



thats not very nice of you to call an official US Navy site a bunch of BS.


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit site. Here are the real figures;
> ...







It's all he's got.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Matthew said:


> BenNatuf said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


I am not opposed to science, I am opposed to bad science.  The point is they've already ELLIMINATED about half of the stations we do have, whats more there is a pattern to what they eliminate, so more stations is not neccessarily the answer.  The answer is for them to STOP manipulating the data.  When the logorythm designed to adjust for Urban heatIslands adjusts the surronding rural areas UP instead of the heat Island down there's a problem that goes beyond the data, the problem is with the PEOPLE who manipulate it to support an agenda.





> We can use the satellite data for the oceans and refine the information with the ship, buoy data that we do  have, which would give us a stronger record of our temperature.


we already do that, and one of the problems is the "adjustments" which ALWAYS seem to adjust the lower one toward the upper.  In Situ data is used to callibrate satalite data, but when the in situ data is lower than the satelite... the y adjust the temperature upward.  Why is that?  In situ data on an ocean bouy is about as accurate as you can get.





> Since co2 is not a green house gas of any respectability on earth then some natural cycle must be causing any warming outside of what we understand to be the bonds of the natural cycles that we understand..


That much is mostly true, the problem is we do understand what caused most of the warming of the 90's, and we do understand why there hjasn't been any more warming since then.  But try to tell that to the AGW accolites.  The EPA administrator was just testifying in the house today and declared the "science is settled and there is no need for argument"  The followers of this mythos won't even acknowledge the huge problems with their creed.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We have the Aqua and other satellites recording Arctic data. And that is just our satellites. The Arctic is rapidly warming, the evidence is simply unavoidable.


The evedence is simply fixed to make sure that it shows what the agendists want it to show.  Have you though of a good reason why they would grid in land surface temeratures over open water where they already have in situ data to use yet?


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We have the Aqua and other satellites recording Arctic data. And that is just our satellites. The Arctic is rapidly warming, the evidence is simply unavoidable.
> ...


They dio have surface stations, in situ data is obtained from ocean bouys, which they throw out in favor of gridding in land surface temperatures... its a fraud.


----------



## BenNatuf (Feb 9, 2011)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit site. Here are the real figures;
> ...


While hanging his hat on some progressive AGW advocacy propoganda site.


----------

