Arctic ice thins dramatically

[skookerasbil]

the first 20PPM of CO2 have more effect on the climate than all the rest combined.

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres comprised of mostly CO2 but Mars has a very thin one. Venus has a thick atmosphere but it does not have a resevoir of a substance like water that changes from liquid to gas which takes latent (phase change) heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. Earth has a stable temperature because water via evaporation and clouds has a mechanism to shed or conserve heat depending on conditions. that is why the earth had liquid water billions of years ago when the sun's output was 4 percent less than today.

The first 20 ppm is more important? That contradicts your own statement that effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Given a CO2 of 380 ppm today, that means the next 360 was TWICE as important as the first 20. Do the math!!!

konrad, you need to go to a university and have one of the math profs teach you about logarithims. Really you do.

Advice comes a bit late West..........he's already enrolled in the University of Mars.

 

[skookerasbil]

computer models are gay...........

Skookerasbil is gay.

Awwww c'mon Rocks..........you're just pissed that I blew up another one of your lame threads ( SEE BERKLEY ).

As Ive said many times in the past, Rocks has the political IQ of a small soap dish, so once he started talking politics on one of these threads, it was like setting up a big old pumpkin on a baseball tee for me!!! ( He thinks a couple of million voting people are responsible for Cap and Trade going belly up ).

 

[polarbear]

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

Obviously, he doesn't. I doubt that a definiton would help much either but it's worth a shot.

logarithm [Gr.,=relation number], number associated with a positive number, being the power to which a third number, called the base, must be raised in order to obtain the given positive number. For example, the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2, written log 10 100=2, since 10 2 =100. Logarithms of positive numbers using the number 10 as the base are called common logarithms; those using the number e (see separate article) as the base are called natural logarithms or Napierian logarithms (for John Napier). The natural logarithm of a number x is denoted by ln x or simply log x. Since logarithms are exponents, they satisfy all the usual rules of exponents. Consequently, tedious calculations such as multiplications and divisions can be replaced by the simpler processes of adding or subtracting the corresponding logarithms. Logarithmic tables are generally used for this purpose.

If that doesn't help, maybe he could visit logarithms for dummies

Logarithm Basics - For Dummies

By the way, that`s why "GW Infrared Specialists" use Absorbance instead of Absorption in the "positive feedback" computer model.
Because with any substance at the lowest concentration the ABSORBANCE (the log of ABSORPTION)
is a linear function and double the concentration gives You a twice the height of the Y-axis point on a graph.
In reality the actual ABSORPTION is sloping in a curve and the Y-axis increments get smaller and smaller as You go up in concentration on the X-axis.

ABSORBANCE is an entirely artificial value, the Instruments put out for the Operator`s convenience in quantitative Analysis.
Of course that`s what they chose in their virtual world of computer modeling the "positive feedback"
and start boiling ocean water any time soon...

I showed the graphs, Lambert Beers Laws, the Absorbance and Absorption curves in this forum ~ 3 times by now,...along comes yet another "OldRocks" moron and wants to critisize me...:

"Your refusal to debate this subject shows..."

......"that in his view he knows more about Infrared Absorption more than I do

It`s like trying to explain to cavemen what a solar eclipse is, and that it does not
work as their witch doctor claims, that the tribe committed a sin that causes the world to end.

 

[westwall]

do you understand the difference between logarithmic and exponential growth rates konradv?

Obviously, he doesn't. I doubt that a definiton would help much either but it's worth a shot.

logarithm [Gr.,=relation number], number associated with a positive number, being the power to which a third number, called the base, must be raised in order to obtain the given positive number. For example, the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2, written log 10 100=2, since 10 2 =100. Logarithms of positive numbers using the number 10 as the base are called common logarithms; those using the number e (see separate article) as the base are called natural logarithms or Napierian logarithms (for John Napier). The natural logarithm of a number x is denoted by ln x or simply log x. Since logarithms are exponents, they satisfy all the usual rules of exponents. Consequently, tedious calculations such as multiplications and divisions can be replaced by the simpler processes of adding or subtracting the corresponding logarithms. Logarithmic tables are generally used for this purpose.

If that doesn't help, maybe he could visit logarithms for dummies

Logarithm Basics - For Dummies

By the way, that`s why "GW Infrared Specialists" use Absorbance instead of Absorption in the "positive feedback" computer model.
Because with any substance at the lowest concentration the ABSORBANCE (the log of ABSORPTION)
is a linear function and double the concentration gives You a twice the height of the Y-axis point on a graph.
In reality the actual ABSORPTION is sloping in a curve and the Y-axis increments get smaller and smaller as You go up in concentration on the X-axis.

ABSORBANCE is an entirely artificial value, the Instruments put out for the Operator`s convenience in quantitative Analysis.
Of course that`s what they chose in their virtual world of computer modeling the "positive feedback"
and start boiling ocean water any time soon...

I showed the graphs, Lambert Beers Laws, the Absorbance and Absorption curves in this forum ~ 3 times by now,...along comes yet another "OldRocks" moron and wants to critisize me...:

"Your refusal to debate this subject shows..."

......"that in his view he knows more about Infrared Absorption more than I do

It`s like trying to explain to cavemen what a solar eclipse is, and that it does not
work as their witch doctor claims, that the tribe committed a sin that causes the world to end.

Actually, they are followers of some Mayan God. They had a big prayer for their God at the climate conference in Cancun.

 

[theHawk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arctic ice thinned dramatically between 2004 and 2008 | VANCOUVERITE

What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?

Our planet has had periods when it was much warmer than it is today. And yet our planet still had many ice age cycles since then.

Hell, there was a time when our planet was a lifeless rock, with no ogranic material. Yet everything came to be what it is today, so why all the doom and gloom?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?

The fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming is over. The priests are packing the gold onto the mules and heading for the city gates. The idiot acolytes are the only ones who haven't grasped the reality of the situation yet. Even as the Priests scurry off with their stolen loot, these fools continue to proclaim that "Doom is upon us, Gaia is angry and shall punish our carbon sin lest we sacrifice and give generously to Algore and the church of AGW..."

These are idiot, morons, fools.

 

[skookerasbil]

What exactly is the point of this thread, other than to continue more fear mongering about 'global warming'?

The fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming is over. The priests are packing the gold onto the mules and heading for the city gates. The idiot acolytes are the only ones who haven't grasped the reality of the situation yet. Even as the Priests scurry off with their stolen loot, these fools continue to proclaim that "Doom is upon us, Gaia is angry and shall punish our carbon sin lest we sacrifice and give generously to Algore and the church of AGW..."

These are idiot, morons, fools.

Im laughing..........been saying that for a couple of years on here but never in such Shakesperian manner!!! Uncensored......the k00ks in here have no clue that the science and the politics go hand in hand.

 

[polarbear]

Obviously, he doesn't. I doubt that a definiton would help much either but it's worth a shot.

logarithm [Gr.,=relation number], number associated with a positive number, being the power to which a third number, called the base, must be raised in order to obtain the given positive number. For example, the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2, written log 10 100=2, since 10 2 =100. Logarithms of positive numbers using the number 10 as the base are called common logarithms; those using the number e (see separate article) as the base are called natural logarithms or Napierian logarithms (for John Napier). The natural logarithm of a number x is denoted by ln x or simply log x. Since logarithms are exponents, they satisfy all the usual rules of exponents. Consequently, tedious calculations such as multiplications and divisions can be replaced by the simpler processes of adding or subtracting the corresponding logarithms. Logarithmic tables are generally used for this purpose.

If that doesn't help, maybe he could visit logarithms for dummies

Logarithm Basics - For Dummies

By the way, that`s why "GW Infrared Specialists" use Absorbance instead of Absorption in the "positive feedback" computer model.
Because with any substance at the lowest concentration the ABSORBANCE (the log of ABSORPTION)
is a linear function and double the concentration gives You a twice the height of the Y-axis point on a graph.
In reality the actual ABSORPTION is sloping in a curve and the Y-axis increments get smaller and smaller as You go up in concentration on the X-axis.

ABSORBANCE is an entirely artificial value, the Instruments put out for the Operator`s convenience in quantitative Analysis.
Of course that`s what they chose in their virtual world of computer modeling the "positive feedback"
and start boiling ocean water any time soon...

I showed the graphs, Lambert Beers Laws, the Absorbance and Absorption curves in this forum ~ 3 times by now,...along comes yet another "OldRocks" moron and wants to criticize me...:

"Your refusal to debate this subject shows..."

......"that in his view he knows more about Infrared Absorption more than I do

It`s like trying to explain to cavemen what a solar eclipse is, and that it does not
work as their witch doctor claims, that the tribe committed a sin that causes the world to end.

Actually, they are followers of some Mayan God. They had a big prayer for their God at the climate conference in Cancun.

You remeber how often that was explained in this forum, by now...must be ~ 2 dozend times we`ve been around this bend....You and almost everyone else understood it the first time around...
here it is once more...:

You know for some strange reason there is not a single absorption plot to be found on the Internet...!!!
So in the graph above You have to use the %T (=transmittance) which is the inverse of absorption...then You can see how % Absorption of light of ANY WAVELENGTH slopes off as the % Concentration goes up...

Even today`s Students of physics and Chemistry seem to be dumbstruck by this elementary part of Beer Lambert`s law...:

Absorption vs.Absorbance

Absorption vs.Absorbance
thedy
Regular Member
***

« on: April 04, 2010, 10:30:58 PM »

Is any difference between absorption and Absorbance in spectrophotometry?
I have found on net,that Mr.Beer found out independence between absorption and concentration of absorbent particles.And I don t understand that,because Beer-Lambert law says,that Absorbance IS dependent on concentration,isn it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
JGK
Chemist
Full Member
*****

Mole Snacks: +54/-16
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630



View Profile


Re: Absorption vs.Absorbance
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2010, 07:40:26 AM »

Absorbance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provides a description of the difference in the terms

See this is the price we pay when when microprocessor controlled instruments have a Computer doing the thinking for You...!
Now Students of the subject don`t even know any more, that any Spectroscope first measures how much energy was absorbed in % as in % ABSORPTION...
Used to be a Chemist had only % Absorption or the inverse % Transmittance to work with.
They all knew what happens when You up the concentration of what You want to measure...how quickly it slopes off, and that as the concentration is increased, the % ABSORPTION that is actually happening gets progressively SMALLER....and fast!

Then came the new instruments for dummies, that converted % Absorption into Absorbance...an entirely artificial value which is the (linear) log-value of %ABSORPTION or the inverse % Transmission...and since then "scientists" think that if You double CO2 that it will 'absorb" twice as much light...

Way back Professor Roentgen discovered this fact about CO2 .....
But it applies for any substance, not just for CO2...

and then along came "Global Warming Science" and founded their quack science on a guy named Tyndall, who was an oven stoker in England and who claimed that Beer Lambert`s laws which he knew absolutely nothing about, but claimed that what none of it can be applied to CO2 or less so with increasing altitude.

And that is still the same idiotic belief that these "GW scientists" have today...
"OldRocks" quoted Tyndal to me more often than Beer Lambert`s laws have been quoted here
I wonder how M.Mann or Al Gore would score in a Physics or Chemistry exam...

 

[westwall]

By the way, that`s why "GW Infrared Specialists" use Absorbance instead of Absorption in the "positive feedback" computer model.
Because with any substance at the lowest concentration the ABSORBANCE (the log of ABSORPTION)
is a linear function and double the concentration gives You a twice the height of the Y-axis point on a graph.
In reality the actual ABSORPTION is sloping in a curve and the Y-axis increments get smaller and smaller as You go up in concentration on the X-axis.

ABSORBANCE is an entirely artificial value, the Instruments put out for the Operator`s convenience in quantitative Analysis.
Of course that`s what they chose in their virtual world of computer modeling the "positive feedback"
and start boiling ocean water any time soon...

I showed the graphs, Lambert Beers Laws, the Absorbance and Absorption curves in this forum ~ 3 times by now,...along comes yet another "OldRocks" moron and wants to criticize me...:

......"that in his view he knows more about Infrared Absorption more than I do

It`s like trying to explain to cavemen what a solar eclipse is, and that it does not
work as their witch doctor claims, that the tribe committed a sin that causes the world to end.

Actually, they are followers of some Mayan God. They had a big prayer for their God at the climate conference in Cancun.

You remeber how often that was explained in this forum, by now...must be ~ 2 dozend times we`ve been around this bend....You and almost everyone else understood it the first time around...
here it is once more...:

You know for some strange reason there is not a single absorption plot to be found on the Internet...!!!
So in the graph above You have to use the %T (=transmittance) which is the inverse of absorption...then You can see how % Absorption of light of ANY WAVELENGTH slopes off as the % Concentration goes up...

Even today`s Students of physics and Chemistry seem to be dumbstruck by this elementary part of Beer Lambert`s law...:

Absorption vs.Absorbance

Absorption vs.Absorbance
thedy
Regular Member
***

« on: April 04, 2010, 10:30:58 PM »

Is any difference between absorption and Absorbance in spectrophotometry?
I have found on net,that Mr.Beer found out independence between absorption and concentration of absorbent particles.And I don t understand that,because Beer-Lambert law says,that Absorbance IS dependent on concentration,isn it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
JGK
Chemist
Full Member
*****

Mole Snacks: +54/-16
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630



View Profile


Re: Absorption vs.Absorbance
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2010, 07:40:26 AM »

Absorbance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provides a description of the difference in the terms

See this is the price we pay when when microprocessor controlled instruments have a Computer doing the thinking for You...!
Now Students of the subject don`t even know any more, that any Spectroscope first measures how much energy was absorbed in % as in % ABSORPTION...
Used to be a Chemist had only % Absorption or the inverse % Transmittance to work with.
They all knew what happens when You up the concentration of what You want to measure...how quickly it slopes off, and that as the concentration is increased, the % ABSORPTION that is actually happening gets progressively SMALLER....and fast!

Then came the new instruments for dummies, that converted % Absorption into Absorbance...an entirely artificial value which is the (linear) log-value of %ABSORPTION or the inverse % Transmission...and since then "scientists" think that if You double CO2 that it will 'absorb" twice as much light...

Way back Professor Roentgen discovered this fact about CO2 .....
But it applies for any substance, not just for CO2...

and then along came "Global Warming Science" and founded their quack science on a guy named Tyndall, who was an oven stoker in England and who claimed that Beer Lambert`s laws which he knew absolutely nothing about, but claimed that what none of it can be applied to CO2 or less so with increasing altitude.

And that is still the same idiotic belief that these "GW scientists" have today...
"OldRocks" quoted Tyndal to me more often than Beer Lambert`s laws have been quoted here
I wonder how M.Mann or Al Gore would score in a Physics or Chemistry exam...

Your comments are spot on. It is also indicitive of the low levels to which ALL education has sunk. Modern textbooks are quite simply horrible. I compared my old 1927 Los Angeles Unified School District High School Chemistry book vs a college textbook of today and the high school book is better. By a lot! My wife used to teach a graduate level class at Cal State Hayward and we were both amazed that incoming students had no idea what a Journal was! It took quite a while to convince them she wasn't talking about the Wall Street Journal! Sad. Every time I see a post by konrad I am reminded of that.

 

[polarbear]

Actually, they are followers of some Mayan God. They had a big prayer for their God at the climate conference in Cancun.

You remeber how often that was explained in this forum, by now...must be ~ 2 dozend times we`ve been around this bend....You and almost everyone else understood it the first time around...
here it is once more...:

You know for some strange reason there is not a single absorption plot to be found on the Internet...!!!
So in the graph above You have to use the %T (=transmittance) which is the inverse of absorption...then You can see how % Absorption of light of ANY WAVELENGTH slopes off as the % Concentration goes up...

Even today`s Students of physics and Chemistry seem to be dumbstruck by this elementary part of Beer Lambert`s law...:

Absorption vs.Absorbance

Absorption vs.Absorbance
thedy
Regular Member
***

« on: April 04, 2010, 10:30:58 PM »

Is any difference between absorption and Absorbance in spectrophotometry?
I have found on net,that Mr.Beer found out independence between absorption and concentration of absorbent particles.And I don t understand that,because Beer-Lambert law says,that Absorbance IS dependent on concentration,isn it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
JGK
Chemist
Full Member
*****

Mole Snacks: +54/-16
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630



View Profile


Re: Absorption vs.Absorbance
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2010, 07:40:26 AM »

Absorbance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provides a description of the difference in the terms

See this is the price we pay when when microprocessor controlled instruments have a Computer doing the thinking for You...!
Now Students of the subject don`t even know any more, that any Spectroscope first measures how much energy was absorbed in % as in % ABSORPTION...
Used to be a Chemist had only % Absorption or the inverse % Transmittance to work with.
They all knew what happens when You up the concentration of what You want to measure...how quickly it slopes off, and that as the concentration is increased, the % ABSORPTION that is actually happening gets progressively SMALLER....and fast!

Then came the new instruments for dummies, that converted % Absorption into Absorbance...an entirely artificial value which is the (linear) log-value of %ABSORPTION or the inverse % Transmission...and since then "scientists" think that if You double CO2 that it will 'absorb" twice as much light...

Way back Professor Roentgen discovered this fact about CO2 .....
But it applies for any substance, not just for CO2...

and then along came "Global Warming Science" and founded their quack science on a guy named Tyndall, who was an oven stoker in England and who claimed that Beer Lambert`s laws which he knew absolutely nothing about, but claimed that what none of it can be applied to CO2 or less so with increasing altitude.

And that is still the same idiotic belief that these "GW scientists" have today...
"OldRocks" quoted Tyndal to me more often than Beer Lambert`s laws have been quoted here
I wonder how M.Mann or Al Gore would score in a Physics or Chemistry exam...

Your comments are spot on. It is also indicitive of the low levels to which ALL education has sunk. Modern textbooks are quite simply horrible. I compared my old 1927 Los Angeles Unified School District High School Chemistry book vs a college textbook of today and the high school book is better. By a lot! My wife used to teach a graduate level class at Cal State Hayward and we were both amazed that incoming students had no idea what a Journal was! It took quite a while to convince them she wasn't talking about the Wall Street Journal! Sad. Every time I see a post by konrad I am reminded of that.

Yeah it`s like that across the board. Since the internet became a free for all shoutbox like CB Radio was once it`s been downhill all the way. high quality printed publications are being destroyed by this medium and "wikipedia" is supposed to be the substitute..???

In the field of Chemistry it`s probably worse than in any other field, order an older edition textbook and You run the risk of becoming a terrorist suspect.
Same thing, I was trying to buy a half decent Chemistry set for one of my kids and these are down to baking soda and vinegar "experiments"...
With the new textbooks it`s just as bad. Worst of all at many Universities the best Professors are in retirement and the replacements are a product of the time.

Its almost at the level of watching Sesame street...

Even the exams are a joke. We never had exams where You chose from a.) b.) or c.) for an answer, with this driver`s license type of exam far too many people make the grade that should not. Or this 75% thingy that is a passing grade...!!! My God no wonder there are so many fuck-ups these days, ....Chemical engineers are out there that may very well be totally ignorant about 25 % of Chemistry...all it takes is one miscalculation and you have an accident like in Bhopal...which claimed more lives than Chernobyl..!!
In our times You failed when You had more than 5% errors and 5% was rated as "mangelhaft" (insufficient) meaning You passed into the next semester, but had to do another exam later to stay there.
I still look into the curriculum and notice how much less Physics would be Chemists have to take today and vice-versa Physics Students don`t even have to take any more Chemistry at all at some Universities. They can take some goofy courses for the extra credits they need to pass...or being an indispensable quarterback or something like that compensates for utter stupidity
It`s equality for all at the price of excellence for none, right from the Grade school level and up into the academics.
Have You ever looked into how scientific progress is rated today..? I came across some articles from the U.N. stating that China will soon overtake the U.S. in science & technology.

So I wanted to see how the U.N. quantifies "scientific progress".
It turns out they rate it by the number of publications generated by any nation and how often these are quoted in other publications.
...and the subject matter of the publications has no bearing whatsoever on the rating

Pretty well the same way Google rates web-pages.

So "cell phone radiation will kill You" comes out on top...

It was Stalin that said, there is a certain quality in quantity...and applied it in both propaganda and other manufacture... and my God the man was right it seems...

it`s a throw away consumer item world, with cheap plastic bushings instead of roller bearings and last not least the same principle quantity substituting for quality has now become a measure for "scientific progress"...
and as we all know, M.Mann, Al Gore etc apply this new "standard" to the fullest
Makes You wonder how many ex-Nobelariates are puking in disgust

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, BiPolar, your posts are a bit more lucid today. Run out of torpedo juice?

 

[polarbear]

I would like to make an appeal to forum members who might be interested in gathering data for a global CO2 consumption computer model.

What we need is data to get an acceptable estimate of this planet`s annual plant bio mass production. Everything...even the grass and the weeds that grow in Your yard count...

You can help by monitoring a few sqmeters in Your Yard, harvesting it, weighing it, then dry the sample-...re-weigh to subtract the moisture content...and posting the results here in this forum.

Agricultural data is easy to come by, so is forestry data...
A lot of people are not aware that any plant not just trees consume CO2, grass & weeds do so at an even higher rate.
Plant-fiber is a Carbohydrate, much like Amylose...:

The only difference is that the Cellulose Polymer link is stereoscopically a "beta" instead of an "alpha" link...:

You can make Glucose out of both...but stochiometricly both are the same C(6)H(12)O(6)
The term "Carbohydrate" is a bit misleading, because the photosynthesis does not hydrate Carbon as the term would suggest to most, but proceeds like this, as You all should know..:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy C6H12O6 + 6O2 .

Yes, weeds, grass, shrubs, crops of any kind do it the same way as trees do it...
and just using estimated forest coverage satellite pictures do not give an accurate data set regardless who`s computer model You want to use.

Mauna Lua cheats BIG TIME with their CO2 levels, even more so than the Hockey Stick temp graph...it`s just not as easy to spot unless You have done CO2 trace analysis YOURSELF...and I have, not @ Mauna Lua, but at the "Astro Labs" in the arctic....and I was the guy that more often than not calibrated the Gaschromathographs

They cheat not just with the way the levels are reported, but also how the air sampling is timed.
The timing cheat is that they never ever take samples if there was any major precipitation in the air-mass coming at the Astro Labs.
...because the CO2 is knocked WAY DOWN then..

The reporting cheat works like this ...ppm CO2 is reported as "Molar moisture corrected ppm CO2 content"...
And aside from the people who actually do the analysis nobody seems to be able to spot this outrageous fraud...
That is VIRTUAL and not REAL AIR..!!!
Just imagine what happens in the real world if You suck out all the Volume taken up by water vapor in REAL AIR...how massive the loss of volume is...well Hurricanes and Tornadoes give testimony to that...
Any NORMAL SCIENCE would report CO2 either as ppm Volume per Volume or as ppm weight per Volume or as ppm weight per weight...and in each case the volume or the weight or water vapor which is ALWAYS PRESENT IN REAL AIR stays in the equation...:

ppm CO2 = [dim=milligrams or millilters] CO2 DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL [dim=kilograms or liters]
and not divided by (air MINUS moisture..as in water vapor)

After that they express it in Molar format, using ASTM standard pressure & temperature to hide this massive cheat...and it`s a simple Microsoft Spread SHIT program that does it all for them


They feed in milliliters per Liter into the input field and out comes "molar moisture corrected ppm CO2"
They HAVE TO FEED INTO this MS spread the bullshit program milliliters per Liter, because the air sample is MEASURED in as LITERS and the SAMPLE IS INJECTED into the sampling port of the GC in MILLILITERS..!!!!

And that nifty trick was not dreamt up by climate "scientists" that has all the earmarks of a well seasoned Chemist who whored himself out for big buck$

The actual "climatology" technician at the Astro Labs are usually from European Universities, like the Max Planck institute or similar and NONE OF THEM is a Chemist...somehow Chemists are filtered out from these postings...and the poos slobs that are there
are totally unaware of the gigantic cheat performed by the equation which converts the GC readout to "molar moisture corrected ppm"



Cheats like that are all too common in political statistics, but in Science that is totally unacceptable

Thank You in advance

By the way, BiPolar, your posts are a bit more lucid today. Run out of torpedo juice?

"Torpedo juice"...???
At least I`ld know how to make any if I wanted to, which kind of Torpedo would You like up your asshole, a "quicky" with a bubbles trail, or you prefer a more stelthy one that has no trail..?....telling the tell tail trail or tale of the tail as it were, you fucking low life fag...
Since You are not a Chemist I`m pretty sure what fags like you call "Torpedo juice" ...it sure as hell ain`t Hydrazine and Peroxide
But I could also make "Torpedo Jews"....fuck I could even make soap out of Jews, why not "Torpedo Jews"...?
Fuck are You a fucking stupid moron, and a glutton for punishment

 

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2011 was 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the second-lowest March extent on record, after 2006.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[percysunshine]

I would like to make an appeal to forum members who might be interested in gathering data for a global CO2 consumption computer model.

What we need is data to get an acceptable estimate of this planet`s annual plant bio mass production. Everything...even the grass and the weeds that grow in Your yard count...

You can help by monitoring a few sqmeters in Your Yard, harvesting it, weighing it, then dry the sample-...re-weigh to subtract the moisture content...and posting the results here in this forum.

Agricultural data is easy to come by, so is forestry data...
A lot of people are not aware that any plant not just trees consume CO2, grass & weeds do so at an even higher rate.
Plant-fiber is a Carbohydrate, much like Amylose...:

The only difference is that the Cellulose Polymer link is stereoscopically a "beta" instead of an "alpha" link...:

You can make Glucose out of both...but stochiometricly both are the same C(6)H(12)O(6)
The term "Carbohydrate" is a bit misleading, because the photosynthesis does not hydrate Carbon as the term would suggest to most, but proceeds like this, as You all should know..:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy C6H12O6 + 6O2 .

Yes, weeds, grass, shrubs, crops of any kind do it the same way as trees do it...
and just using estimated forest coverage satellite pictures do not give an accurate data set regardless who`s computer model You want to use.

Mauna Lua cheats BIG TIME with their CO2 levels, even more so than the Hockey Stick temp graph...it`s just not as easy to spot unless You have done CO2 trace analysis YOURSELF...and I have, not @ Mauna Lua, but at the "Astro Labs" in the arctic....and I was the guy that more often than not calibrated the Gaschromathographs

They cheat not just with the way the levels are reported, but also how the air sampling is timed.
The timing cheat is that they never ever take samples if there was any major precipitation in the air-mass coming at the Astro Labs.
...because the CO2 is knocked WAY DOWN then..

The reporting cheat works like this ...ppm CO2 is reported as "Molar moisture corrected ppm CO2 content"...
And aside from the people who actually do the analysis nobody seems to be able to spot this outrageous fraud...
That is VIRTUAL and not REAL AIR..!!!
Just imagine what happens in the real world if You suck out all the Volume taken up by water vapor in REAL AIR...how massive the loss of volume is...well Hurricanes and Tornadoes give testimony to that...
Any NORMAL SCIENCE would report CO2 either as ppm Volume per Volume or as ppm weight per Volume or as ppm weight per weight...and in each case the volume or the weight or water vapor which is ALWAYS PRESENT IN REAL AIR stays in the equation...:

ppm CO2 = [dim=milligrams or millilters] CO2 DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL [dim=kilograms or liters]
and not divided by (air MINUS moisture..as in water vapor)

After that they express it in Molar format, using ASTM standard pressure & temperature to hide this massive cheat...and it`s a simple Microsoft Spread SHIT program that does it all for them


They feed in milliliters per Liter into the input field and out comes "molar moisture corrected ppm CO2"
They HAVE TO FEED INTO this MS spread the bullshit program milliliters per Liter, because the air sample is MEASURED in as LITERS and the SAMPLE IS INJECTED into the sampling port of the GC in MILLILITERS..!!!!

And that nifty trick was not dreamt up by climate "scientists" that has all the earmarks of a well seasoned Chemist who whored himself out for big buck$

The actual "climatology" technician at the Astro Labs are usually from European Universities, like the Max Planck institute or similar and NONE OF THEM is a Chemist...somehow Chemists are filtered out from these postings...and the poos slobs that are there
are totally unaware of the gigantic cheat performed by the equation which converts the GC readout to "molar moisture corrected ppm"



Cheats like that are all too common in political statistics, but in Science that is totally unacceptable

Thank You in advance

By the way, BiPolar, your posts are a bit more lucid today. Run out of torpedo juice?

"Torpedo juice"...???
At least I`ld know how to make any if I wanted to, which kind of Torpedo would You like up your asshole, a "quicky" with a bubbles trail, or you prefer a more stelthy one that has no trail..?....telling the tell tail trail or tale of the tail as it were, you fucking low life fag...
Since You are not a Chemist I`m pretty sure what fags like you call "Torpedo juice" ...it sure as hell ain`t Hydrazine and Peroxide
But I could also make "Torpedo Jews"....fuck I could even make soap out of Jews, why not "Torpedo Jews"...?
Fuck are You a fucking stupid moron, and a glutton for punishment

The earth is a closed chemical and biologic system. Gravity makes it that way. We get radiated by the sun, but other than that, evolution happens.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.

Three men apply to be controller of a company.

The first man to be interviewed sits down and the boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man is dumbfounded and the boss shows him to the door.

The next man is given the same question, he replies "well the basic accounting equation is assets = liabilities + stock holders equity. The assets are $12 million and the liabilities are $7.5 million so stock holders equity is $4.5 million." To his surprise, the boss shows HIM to the door as well.

The final man goes into the interview and boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man answers "Whatever you want it to be!" The boss says "You're hired and will go far."

Three physicists apply for a government grant.......

 

[percysunshine]

Ah, such wise men. Just because the physicists of the AIP, the geologists and climotologists of the AGU, and the chemists of the ACS say differantly doesn't make a bit of differance, does it.

Three men apply to be controller of a company.

The first man to be interviewed sits down and the boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man is dumbfounded and the boss shows him to the door.

The next man is given the same question, he replies "well the basic accounting equation is assets = liabilities + stock holders equity. The assets are $12 million and the liabilities are $7.5 million so stock holders equity is $4.5 million." To his surprise, the boss shows HIM to the door as well.

The final man goes into the interview and boss asks; "We have sales of $12 million and costs of $7.5 million, what is the stock holders equity?" The man answers "Whatever you want it to be!" The boss says "You're hired and will go far."

Three physicists apply for a government grant.......

Being both a physicist and an accountant...an odd combination...sales and costs in any given year are only obliquely related to assets, liabilities, and stock holder equity.

It was still funny...chuckle.

 

[polarbear]

Lets get a little more into the REAL Chemical/ Physics aspects versus "GW" Myths.
Before we close the chapter how Maun Lua & the arctic Astro Labs are cheating
with the "moisture corrected Molar CO2 ppm" I think its also necessary to
point out that none of these labs record the ACTUAL barometric pressure,
the ACTUAL temperature and the ACTUAL humidity for the air samples they took.
The MS Spreadsheet calculation simply plugs in a "standard atmosphere" of 20 deg C
etc in and then bloats up the actual ppm to "moisture corrected Molar ppm".

I need not say, that arctic air is cold and dense and in reality You sampled way more air
with 1 liter as You would have if You`ld draw air @ 20 C and >50% relative humidity.
Curiously the Mauna Lua calculation does correct for altitude pressure, after all
"GW" picks even the little scraps that work in their favor..
But even there the actual air temperature & RH of the sample is not recorded...
The "calculation" simply uses the same value for each sampling.

Now on to the "positive feedback effect".
GW with the minuscule amount of Infrared, that CO2 can absorb does not compute
without a "positive feedback"...it`s important to understand this.

Lets now examine how this Hollywood special effect is conjured up.
They quote the Clausius Clapeyron Equation to "substantiate" this "positive feedback"
and since they did have to acknowledge that water vapor IR absorption dwarfs
CO2 IR absorption into irrelevant oblivion, they parrot the CC equation and
the increased amount of water that an increase of atmospheric CO2 allegedly will
cause to happen.
First of all water evaporation has been monitored many decades before this CO2 fraud became
a political issue...and none of this is reflected in the world wide "pan evaporation" data
set. There was NO world wide INCREASE IN WATER EVAPORATION ....!

Furthermore the Clausius Clapeyron Equation says nothing of the kind as GW politics
would like to have you believe.
It`s a simplified equation Chemists use all the time if they don`t have
an actual vapor pressure versus temperature for a given substance at a
pressure and Temperature other than the value listed in the Merck or the "Rubber Index"
of physical data for all known substances.

(I got the entire set these cost ~ U$ 200 per book...it`s a job requirement for REAL SCIENTISTS to own these..)




So we use the CC equation to extrapolate for a best possible estimate.
But we are talking about water here, not some exotic substance and only someone
who wants to make a theatrical appearance would quote Clausius Clapeyron.
There are vapor pressure versus Temperature to the hilt for water...!!!
Throwing buzzwords around like that is strictly Wizard of Oz theatrics.

Furthermore the CC equation is for a CLOSED SYSTEM...!!!
It will give You the partial pressure any component will contribute to
the total pressure the closed system will be at the temperature You are
interested in, and that is all it will give you.
No way can you pretend that this equation states a "positive feedback"
with an increase in temperature
, unless of course you are sure that your audience `s eyes glazed over
when You mention something like the Clausius Clapeyron equation...
any Chemist would burst out laughing if You cite this equation while
you are talking about common water vapor .

And to apply this equation, chiefly designed for calculating expected
pressure inside an autoclave during a chemical reaction to our atmosphere
is beyond ridiculous.

Every man in the street knows, that when water evaporates and the
relative humidity increases, that contrary to Clauses Clapeyron the
barometric pressure is NOT GOING UP, but is falling.

But Clausius Clapeyron was never even intended for atmospheric
pressure changes due to the predicted increase in partial vapor pressure
of water as the temperature goes up, but it does so rather accurately for
a CLOSED SYSTEM like a vacuum distillation or the opposite
an autoclave for a high pressure environment that some chemical
reactions require.

But the most ridiculous part is citing this equation to "prove a positive
feedback"...

All things considered now, lets look again at this Hollywood "positive feedback" stunt...

1.) the temperature has to go up to begin with, so that the vapor pressure
of water increases...
2.) They say, because more water evaporated and water absorbs a lot of IR (which is true)
that...:
3.) The temperature will now climb more, .....and call it a "positive feedback"....


And no one accounts where the extra heat energy +temperature to raise the water vapor pressure
came from to begin with...!!!!!

What we have here is a typical Hollywood special effect which makes it
possible to pull up global temperature like a cartoon character pulls himself up by his own boot straps...



By the way, the term "positive feedback" comes from the field of electronics...
Differential Amplifiers are wired either in negative or positive feed back mode.
You feed a portion of the amplifier's output back to the input...

The "positive feedback" is when the input and the output are in phase, and
in a negative feedback mode input and output are 180 degrees out of phase

but the cruel reality is, that the extra energy to achieve the "positive feedback" result has to come from
a power supply...it`s not as if you could get an output increase just from
the tiny amount you were feeding back to the input side and thereby "boosted" the
energy with the tiny input...

Too bad, else we could have perpetual motion motors that power
our entire civilization...
Its also amazing how many people even today claim that its
only a question of time till "science" makes this final breakthrough


But Al Gore and "the positive feedback Globalwarming science " pulled his feat off in public
not in a laboratory but on a political stage ...and that`s why he got the
Nobel Peace Prize, instead of the Nobel Prize in Physics

look at this fraud artist posing as a "scientist"...:

He sat down for this Photo with his tree in front of a shelf with Erlenmeyer and Volumetric Flasks, a stack of Petri Dishes and some boxes of filter paper to appear as a "scientist"...

and would not even have a clue what any of that stuff behind him is for...as if You`l need to be in a Chem Lab to count tree rings!

 

[IanC]

but I thought when I tap on my barometer and it goes up....



good one PB

 

[Chris]