So the Oceans are rising are they?

[Old Rocks]

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)

 

[wirebender]

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

No actual rebuttal? I have done quite a bit of looking at the responses you and yours make to polar bear and have yet to see an on topic rebuttal supported by credible materials. Are you claiming that his assessment that the American Institute of Physics is no more than a place where high schoolers who are having trouble with the hard sciences go for tutoring is incorrect? It is all right there on the site. Try reading it for yourself.

You have proved over and over that you don't actually read the crap you post and whether or not it is credible doesn't even enter into the equation with you.

How about you actually respond to what he is saying once. How about any of you hand wringing hysterics actually respond to what he is saying once. Demonstrate that you have even a tenuous grasp of the science by responding to the scientific content of his posts, on topic, in your own words and back your claims up with some credible material. Or, just admit that he is talking so far over your head that an impotent ad hominem is really the best you can do and ask him to explain what he is saying in terms you can understand.

And before you claim that you do understand what he is saying, I challenge you to explain, and demonstrate any scientific error he has made in just his past two posts on this thread and do it in your own words.

My bet is that you can't do it.

As with most warmists rocks, it is only your abject ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed entirely off this forum. If you only knew enough to be able to see how bad you look in comparison, your humiliation would be epic.

Now feel free to insult me because I have taken the trouble to expose the fact that you can't answer polar bear in a rational intelligent manner. Personally, I love the mewling tone of your insults. Exposes you for who you really are.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy?

And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered?

Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica.
Larger Image

Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Melting Accelerating, Satellites Report, But Data Flow May Cease - ScienceInsider

Data published yesterday by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, and colleagues revealed that Earth's ice sheets are melting at a rate that could mean more than 32 centimeters of global sea level rise by 2050. But scientists say their ability to continue to collect and analyze such data is threatened by the commercial sale of the some data, and the possible failure of a key satellite.

The paper, in Geophysical Research Letters, is seen as authoritative because it draws upon and compares two techniques for measuring ice mass. The first is the so-called mass-balance method. It utilizes measurements from satellite and airplane images along with data from computer models to calculate the comings and goings of ice and to produce a total flux. The second is the gravity method, which utilizes NASA's GRACE satellite pair to essentially weigh the ice sheets from space (it measures minute changes in their flight path due to the shifting gravity field of mass below).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PolarBear!!! Your posts should be stickys in the Environmental Section!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only..."

Settled Science?

Seriously?

 

[bripat9643]

That's some impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo. When I was in engineering school, I knew students who would pepper their papers with similar terms that they didn't really understand. They still ended up getting a C-

Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.

My, my;

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (February 6, 2010): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

And many, many more at this resource.

 

[polarbear]

PolarBear!!! Your posts should be stickys in the Environmental Section!!

Okay, Old Rocks...
I have read Your numerous responses...once I subtract the all too typical liberal rhetoric there are actually some quite sense cal residual words left...
like "I`m just a millwright, so I copy and post...etc"....what scientists publish..
#1, "Just a millwright"....leave the word "just" off in the future
being a millwright is quite respectable and You`ld have every right to be proud of it.
A lot of modern day engineers do rely on input from experienced millwrights.
Some are too arrogant and then design cars where you have to cut a hole in the fender to get at the spark plugs...
Others could give You tons of other examples here, ...
#2,....Millwrights, Electricians, Machinists, Mechanics, Plumbers, Carpenters...etc etc...all these "They are just"...this- or that- people in the words of arrogant "highly educated people" have to deal with the REAL WORLD and produce REAL THINGS, that ACTUALLY WORK....else they get fired...same thing applies to engineers of all sorts...!
#3, Please do take this advice...:
Next time You think about scientists, in Your mind`s eye rip off the white lab coat they all love to wear when posing for a public image.
Scientists, no matter if they are the Climatologists You admire or the other Scientists for which You already have great disdain all have this in common..:
Aside from producing publications, they don`t have to produce anything else..and as I`m sure You do know, paper is patient.
The main difference between the Climatologists and all the other "XYZ-ists" is, how they define peer review..
For example if a guy with a PhD in Bio-Chemistry or in Medicine writes a paper about harmful effects of Cholesterol, he has to defend his Thesis in a peer review which does not exclude everyone else who does not have a degree say in Medicine...
An scientist with a degree in Organic Chemistry can challenge this thesis any time and any place, if he noticed that the thesis neglected the fact that there are Cholesterol isomers possible, which have LLL,LDL,LDD,DDD,DDL,DLL stereo molecular configurations, and each of these isomers, although all being "Cholesterol" have a totally different metabolism..
I picked this Example, because that actually did happen and in Medicine it was an accepted "fact" that "Cholesterol" is bad news...
Every Newspaper, TV ...in short all the media world wide was quoting this crap for many years...
Till Chemists had enough and challenged this thesis...and since then every MD = the News media have to distinguish between "good Cholesterol" and "bad Cholesterol"....because the asymmetry of a Carbon atom inside a Molecule having 3 non-identical bonds and yield different polarized light rotations, is way over their head...unless of course they did study Chemistry...
So that`s how all the XYZ-non Climatology does a peer review...

And now take a look what happens to XYZ-scientists who are not "Climatologists" do a review of the physics, chemistry or the math a climatologist publishes...

"Mob tactics" doesn`t even begin to adequately put it into words how these bastards operate

#4
No matter if You are a "just" cook, a mechanic, a construction worker, etc etc..; you are what You are not for genetic reasons, but rather are a product of Your environment in which You grew up.
So if You think, that a cook or a construction worker is not intelligent enough to understand science, then You have made a huge judgement call error.
I have had a lot of fun during my working life talking a lot to "I`m just a cook." people...and noticed they have no trouble at all to understand anything in the main "hard" sciences, as long as it can be properly explained...
By EXPLAINING I don`t mean just quoting a book or a text as sadly enough almost all teachers and mentors do it;... I MEAN EXPLAINING...WHY IT IS LIKE THIS AND NOT LIKE THAT....
So, when You directed me to this "Physics Institute" about 2 dozens of Your posts ago...I went there and read it...
After having read the first layer of links on that web page , I said to myself...this is great stuff, there should be a college like that in every town in North America...
If there was, a cook would no longer say "I`m just a cook...and I don`t understand Science"
....because that`s all it would take...EXPLAIN IT, talk plain English and leave all the over bloated Latin term rhetoric buzzwords off for starters...

But when I started reading through the next layer of links posted on this web-page it became quite obvious, that sadly, that was not their mission or intent.

I`t a real shame with all the money we blew on "Climatology Research"...imagine how many "Science Institutes" like that could have been financed, that could do just that,...and explain hard science in plain no nonsense English...

Imagine how much further America`s technology would leave the rest of the world in the dust, if there was a "Science Institute" for all the "I am just a cook"...or I`m just a this or that people in every town throughout the United States of America.
P.S.:
I`ld never eat in a restaurant where a "Scientist" is the Chef, instead of "just" a cook


The best meals I ate, I got on Americas "RedNEX" back roads...
Every time the waitress asks me "What would You like...Sir...?"
I reply "I want You to leave off the "Sir", my first name is Bernhard...and I want to eat the same thing,what You or the cook here ate for lunch today...and prepared exactly the way You liked it done...and if there was a fly in the soup, then I want him to put a fly in my soup too...!"
I tell You that with no exception I got meals served, that were way above what any $100 ++ per plate fancy shmancy Hotel Restaurant meal serves to a "preferred customer" ...
And that`s why I like the movie "cable guy" and the "Rednex" video "Cotton Eyed Jo"...

 

[polarbear]

That's some impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo. When I was in engineering school, I knew students who would pepper their papers with similar terms that they didn't really understand. They still ended up getting a C-

Real science is done in Laboratories, ManMade Global Warming studies isn't.

My, my;

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (February 6, 2010): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

And many, many more at this resource.

I am an "old whore" on that block, and I recognize another one (like You) when I see one...!
So I can tell that You are a "been there done that" engineer with quite a few Years of experience under Your belt
What You just said there is soooo true...!
We have turned science into a publish or perish comedy...in which everyone quotes everyone else and there is a total lack of courage and originality in most of the modern day dissertations...
It has been trumpeted by the media, that China will soon overtake the U.S.A. in science & technology...it was based on U.N. findings...
So I got curious how the U.N. defines progress in Sci&tech...
Would`nt You know...!!! They base it on the number of "scientific papers" any nation publishes and how often said papers are quoted by other scientists...
So, China came out almost on top, trend = climbing steeply upwards...
But a lot of the Chinese "scientific publications" deals with stuff like how You might acquire a more "Tiger Like Attitude" if You eat raw Tiger liver,...bought from illegal poachers or how ground Rhino horn & Elephant tasks improves Your health...
So, I was not worried about the Chinese out-doing us any time soon.
But CNN etc left all that out..

I just want to touch on the subject of Math etc again, and what I mean by explaining why this is like that and not the other way around...

I still do some off time teaching whenever I fell like it in both the public sector and inside the Military...explaining this or that in plain no bullshit English...and I just remembered something...
I`ll quote what Wikipedia still says to this day about the Pythagoras theorem...
Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relation to proof

The notion of a theorem is deeply intertwined with the concept of proof. Indeed, theorems are true precisely in the sense that they possess proofs. Therefore, to establish a mathematical statement as a theorem, the existence of a line of reasoning from axioms in the system (and other, already established theorems) to the given statement must be demonstrated.
Although the proof is necessary to produce a theorem, it is not usually considered part of the theorem. And even though more than one proof may be known for a single theorem, only one proof is required to establish the theorem's validity. The Pythagorean theorem and the law of quadratic reciprocity are contenders for the title of theorem with the greatest number of distinct proofs.

So officially it`s still just a theorem and not a proven Math law..
Here is Wikipedia`s definition of "Theorem" & Pythagoras...:

Pythagorean theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the theorem can be written as an equation relating the lengths of the sides a, b and c, often called the Pythagorean equation:[1]

The Pythagorean theorem is named after the Greek mathematician Pythagoras, who by tradition is credited with its discovery and proof,[2][3] although it is often argued that knowledge of the theorem predates him. There is evidence that Babylonian mathematicians understood the formula, although there is little surviving evidence that they fitted it into a mathematical framework.[4][5]

The theorem is about both areas and lengths, or can be said to have both areal and metric interpretations.[6][7] Some proofs of the theorem are based on one interpretation, some upon the other, using both algebraic and geometric techniques.[8] The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.

Theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms. The derivation of a theorem is often interpreted as a proof of the truth of the resulting expression, but different deductive systems can yield other interpretations, depending on the meanings of the derivation rules. Theorems have two components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions. The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.[2]

That`s not how I teach that....I use what highly educated Liberals would call "RedNex" math...
Forgive me I was bit sloppy with my writing and drawing...but I just scanned and uploaded it...I`ll re-write a more legible text below after..:

If You don`t like drawing then all You have to do is take 2 sheets of paper and make a diagonal cut through each then label the sides and angles and arrange them like in the sketch I just made..

So now we have a large square where the diagonals of the cut paper forms the sides "c" and there is an area missing in the Middle I called "Z"..why not call it Z, but feel free to chose a different name..
The 4 triangles MUST form a square, because independent from Pythagoras we know that in any triangle all angles ALWAYS add up to 180...I mean all You have to do is drive a car following these lines and You will have done a 180 backtrack..
So then the middle piece has 4 sides which are all a-b long.
And the area of Z is then (a-b)^2= a^2 -2*a*b +b^2

And the actual area of all the paper we have laying on the table are 4 right angle triangles each being (a*b)/2 large for a total area of 2*a*b

C^2 = then a^2 +b^2 -2ab + 2ab,...which leaves us with c^2= a^2 + b^2

I did that in a "Hillbilly" Restaurant once using 2 napkins and not a single person in that "road-kill-caffee" had any problems with Pythagoras 5 minutes later.

That`s what I mean by EXPLAINING...
So "Old Rocks" which EXPLANATION do You prefer...my "bi-ploar" Red Neck math or all that swollen "academics- is-over-the-head-of-I`m-just-a-waitress-people" fucking arrogant typical Liberal talk...

You know I`m not coming here to score points, I just want to explain to some guys here who are in fact way more intelligent than they think they are, but heard nothing but this arrogant talk since they left school...
Had they had teachers in school that actually UNDERSTAND math, then they could have EXPLAINED math the way I do it all the time
And there would not be a single American waitress or Restaurant cook who would say "I`m just a waitress" or "I`m just a cook"..
I cracked way more complicated equations just for the fun of it with truck drivers, cooks, waitresses and even hitch-hikers I found on the Interstates + back roads

...even to this day to Military Engineer candidates in Mil-colleges or whichever base I was stationed for a tour of duty...then I did it in my time off..:

'Old Rocks"...You can call me whatever the fuck You like..."Bi-Polar" or "Nazi" or...or...
I really don`t give a shit...I have a shitload of friends in the REAL WORLD all over the U.S. and Canada...
I`m not that lonely and desperate that it would decimate me if You don`t wanna be the "cable guys`s" friend
But unlike the "cable guy" I don`t have to play "mortal combat" Internet video games with my friends in Vietnam"...I have REAL (good) friends in REAL Vietnam...

Like this Guy 2.nd over at the table with me..Dr.Kahi...blank last name.... from Vietnam who`s brother is one of the top Generals in today`s V.Armed Forces.. Khai is a PhD in Chemistry...the guy next to me has amongst other things a PhD in Physics.
Arnie, I masked his face is a well published Chem Professor and still active...often quoted on the Net...so I don`t think he`ld appreciate me posting him in a forum...But he doesn`t mind if my wife snaps photos of him having a good time @ our home...
The little Chinese kid next to Arnie...the Mom is from China proper and currently studies Physics in Canada
The Canadian Government often asked me if defectors from hostile countries could bunk at my house, because I`m easy to talk to...so the guy from Iran,(top picture with all the Government & immigration spooks) who was a Biologist with in the Iranian Military & defected to Canada was my house Guest for ~ 1 Year...The military gave me time off at home all that time because of Mostafa staying at my place...
Every one of them is still in every day contact with me...and I have a lot of very pleasant e-mail...which is where I`ll be...in the inbox at my [email protected] with my next mouse click...
I`m not the kind of coward who hides faceless, so feel free and download the picture and do whatever You want to let out Your frustrations..I don`t give a shit...
KLICK...bye bye and have some fun for a change

 

[polarbear]

LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy?

And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered?

Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

I`m going way out on a limb here and may regret that, but I `m a risk taker and "playing safe" bores the hell out of me..
By the way, after You referred to Yourself "I`m just a millwright...so I go by what other scientists say"...I started viewing You in an entirely different light...
You are not really the typical arrogant Liberal who`s guts I hate with a passion...so I may have made an error in judgement when I interpreted wrongly,what You wrote so far.
I just changed my ignore list, in case You care, not that You`ld have to...That "bi-polar" etc stuff never did bother me, it was all these quotes of these "sam-o" web pages that I wanted off my screen pages.

So I uploaded a short video just for You, who is "just" a Millwright
and actually does work for a living.
Millwrights are busy people, but now and then it`s Okay to have some fun.
This is just one example when I get bored and want to win some easy lunch money.
I go in the machine shop and make a sucker bet with the designated welder..
It`s all in the video @ YouTube...I titled it "gravity lock" because that`s the trick.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5qBZFCXnsI"]YouTube - Gravity Lock.wmv[/ame]

Engineers use that term a lot. For example at some Hydro Electric dams, the Power dam, Reservoir dams + the Spillway Gates etc are "just" gravity lock anchors and not "construction anchors"..
"Construction Anchor" means the dam is anchored with re-bars in deep holes drilled into the bed-rock and then You cast the concrete for the dam...so no way can it shift position, unless the concrete cracks first.
See, for a nuclear power plant You`ld never want to use a construction anchor. If a quake hits a "gravity lock" is way better than a rock solid connection with the underlying bed-rock.
I figured with a user-name like "Old Rocks" that bit of non-climatology technology might interest You...???
As a Liberal, You should be interested in how huge the ramifications can be later when that subtle difference in construction engineering comes into play when it matters.
Do You know what kind of anchor they used for the Nuke-PP`s in Japan?
I never even checked yet and suspect there is sfa- published about it on the net.

Anyways, Physics is not as boring as a lot of people think and You can have a lot of fun with it.
Of course I could not refrain from adding a sub-title @ the end yanking
Al Gore`s chain...it`s a duty of every true patriot to this that at least once a day. the word $$$udy in the subtitle is not a typo...it`s an acronym in German, You don`t want to know the details ....If I tell You that it ain`t exactly polite, will be good enough.
As a devote Liberal You must know their motto, never to cement your current position with a "construction anchor" which would make it impossible to change position,... a position which might at any time become totally indefensible.

 

[wirebender]

LOL. Well, Bender, answer what from BiPolar, the basketball scene from the cable guy?

Are you saying that you don't recognize the on topic science that is contained within his posts? If that is your claim, I am not surprised in the least.

And I am a millwright, not a scientist. So I answer by showing what the scientists that actually study this subject are observing and stating. As far as answering BiPolar, what in that spew of garbage should be answered?

So he is talking so far over your head that you don't recognize the information he is giving. In the "spew of garbage" as you call it that I challenged you to answer, he described, in quite basic terms first the fat that the institute of physics that you place so much trust in was little more than a tutorial business for high schoolers who are having problems with science, second, he showed you quite clearly that the scientific requirements for those you place so much trust in are not very impressive. He pointed out inarguable proof that climate science is an out for those who can not, or don't want to do the work required to become an actual scientist.

Then he went on to describe, explain, and demonstrate to you one of the fundamental errors to be found in most climate models upon which you place so much trust and you respond by admitting that the material is so far over your head that you don't even recognize it as pertinent information. Geez rocks, if you knew just a bit more, you really would be embarassed off the board.

Anybody that wants real answers on this subject should go to the real scientists that study the subject. Scientists from all over the world. And they are speaking with one voice. The ice is melting, and we are the primary cause because of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

The fact is, old rocks, that the real scientists (chemists and physicists) are coming out in droves against the piss poor hypothesis of CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change. There have been quite a few papers being published lately by physicists disproving the notion that CO2 drives the climate and to date, none of those you believe are scientists have made an adequate response to any of them. That is because the material they are posting is too far over your climate "scientist's" heads for them to understand. Instead, like you, they believe that if they ignore the material, it will somehow go away.

Judith Curry recently took on Claes Johnson regarding his work disproving the hypothesis of greenhouse gasses. She began with some bolster about college students being able to disprove his work. It didn't take long before it became clear that she was depending on college students because she certainly couldn't do it. Turned out that her college students couldn't do it either. You can read the exchanges between those who study climate science and those who are physicists and chemists and see the difference in the command of the science even if you are not a scientist yourself. The climate scientists proved themselves woefully inadequate to the task of actually proving their claims while the actual scientists (chemists and physicists) were never unable to prove their points.

You have made it brutally obvious that you don't understand any of the science and therefore hold a purely political position. You don't know whether the position is based on good or bad science or whether it is right or wrong. You hold it for entirely personal reasons and the correctness of the material you use to support your position does not even enter your equation. As such, you aren't even qualified to enter the discussion on any but the most rudimentary terms and you have proven beyond any doubt that if you knew any more, you would indeed be embarassed off the board. It is only your ignorance that allows you to remain here believing that you are relevant.

 

[konradv]

Clearly, that can only mean that the SUV is 20,000 years old

Obviously. It wouldn't be the stupidest thing I have heard warmists claim in an effort to support their theory. 20,000 year old SUVs is light fiction compared to the idea that the sun has nothing to do with climate.

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

 

[IanC]

Clearly, that can only mean that the SUV is 20,000 years old

Obviously. It wouldn't be the stupidest thing I have heard warmists claim in an effort to support their theory. 20,000 year old SUVs is light fiction compared to the idea that the sun has nothing to do with climate.

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?

 

[stephenwv]

Create Hysteria. On the Federal level: "Cut social security. Cut medicaid. Cut child services etc" on the state level: "Cut teachers. Cut police. Cut firemen etc" Create Hysteria to get the people to beg "OH NO! You can't do that! Please take more of our money! PLEASE!" Never do you hear them say: "Cut the duplication and waste in a bloated bureaucracy full of political hacks!" Create Hysteria.

Global Warming. We all know the successful hysteria created there. Billions paid in grants to "prove" man caused global warming is a problem. The people are begging for the government to take TRILLIONS of dollars from us for their "solutions." What the people do not realize is we do not have the trillions to do anything about it. We don't even have the few paltry trillions to pay off the debt let alone the hundreds of trillions they want to manufacture that will wind up in the hands of those at the top while the rest of us become "equal with all the people of the world." It won't matter whether you live in the US or Mexico or Africa. We will all have the same standard of living. Those at the top, then the rest of us.

Any studies that might prove otherwise are not paid for, are vilified, and the media refuses to bring even the peer reviewed ones to light. No one hears about them. If there was any real validity to all of this don't you think that when the Cancun Global Warming Convention met that they would have come out like gang busters? "The proof is here! the proof is here!" NOT. There was hardly a whisper.

Well that didn't work.

Hysteria. "Ocean Acidification! Ya Thats it! Ocean Acidification will keep the hysteria going." Billions spent on new ocean studies at NOAA for a huge fleet of expensive scientific ocean going monsters full of Phd's and greenies to prove the new hysteria of Ocean Acidification! You know, the ocean getting saltier, more basic on the Ph tests. Saltier means people float easier. Fewer drownings!

I have already seen the media hysteria begin with such things as "dead spots" in the Pacific. This is the natural circulation that takes 1000 years, of cold CO2 laden H2O rising from the ocean floor creating areas of high CO2 concentrations in the water as the rising warming water gives of CO2. Also coral dissolving is a natural chemical reaction when water warms and the aqueous CO2 combines with the coral. Incidentally, the little almost microscopic animal that creates coral can live for years in the ocean away from the coral environment it created. It stopped creating it as it looks for a new food source. Considering this has all happened in other interglacial warming cycles, what makes man think he can or should stop it this time? Of course that has nothing to do with it.

Truth is you never see credible sources mention "man caused" any more. It is only "global warming" which of course is a naturally occurring cycle.

So they have come up with the new hysteria of "ocean acidification" so for the next 20 years they can spend billions of our money funding studies to "prove" it is a problem. I have heard that they expect it to get so warm that no mile deep glacier will form over Washington DC. But fear not the next likely hysteria will likely be "The Glacier is coming! The Glacier is coming!" Create hysteria and we can get them to BEG us to take trillions from them. This is like a solution to herding cats!

 

[konradv]

Obviously. It wouldn't be the stupidest thing I have heard warmists claim in an effort to support their theory. 20,000 year old SUVs is light fiction compared to the idea that the sun has nothing to do with climate.

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?

Answer my question first. That's a lie in itself. You ignore my post message in order to turn it around and push your own agenda. The lies all come from the the skeptic side, IMO. What you call lies are either failures to understand or deliberate attempts to cloud the issues AGW believers present. Look what we have on this board. Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies. It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?

Answer my question first. That's a lie in itself. You ignore my post message in order to turn it around and push your own agenda. The lies all come from the the skeptic side, IMO. What you call lies are either failures to understand or deliberate attempts to cloud the issues AGW believers present. Look what we have on this board. Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies. It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

Do you even know what "Parts per million" means?

 

[westwall]

konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?

Answer my question first. That's a lie in itself. You ignore my post message in order to turn it around and push your own agenda. The lies all come from the the skeptic side, IMO. What you call lies are either failures to understand or deliberate attempts to cloud the issues AGW believers present. Look what we have on this board. Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies. It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

Do you even know what "Parts per million" means?

No, konrad is even more scientifically illiterate then olfraud or trolling blunder.

 

[wirebender]

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

Maybe you should take some time to read the proclamations of your priests. They routinely pshaw any statement that suggests that 20th century warming is mainly influenced by the sun. They, at most, give the sun a very minor role in the climate.