Another Arctic positive feedback

No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.

So you admit you are not anything like a scientist eh rocky boy?
Then how can you distinguish between real science and sham fakery?
Answer - you can't, you just have taken, as an article of FAITH that the Earth is warming. And like any good religious fanatic you push your FAITH on others.
Others who happen to know far more science than you.

The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570. And I worked for three years for the US Forest Service in Soils Engineering. Making near minimum wage salary. When the 1972 price spiral happened, went back to my tools as a millwright and tripled my wages.

How to determine what is sham and fakery? Easily. When some dumb bastard writes an article on the Nisqually Glacier and states that it is rapidly growing, I know that silly ass is lying. For the year that was done by one of the Canadian yahoos at the Canadian Free Press, I had visited that glacier for the third time in five years, and it had melted back a long way from my first visit. Therefore, that source is well into sham and fakery.

http://jisao.washington.edu/print/n... State'sShrinkingGlaciers_ GoingGoingGone.pdf

State's shrinking glaciers: Going ... going ...
gone?

By Warren Cornwall
Seattle Times staff reporter

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK — Like tiny doctors on the belly of
a sleeping giant, three National Park Service workers trudged up the middle
of the Nisqually Glacier, stepping over tiny creeks and peering down a
dizzying chute where water from the melting glacier wormed into the
300-foot-thick slab of ice.

Nearby, a tall plastic pole arced from the ice into the sky. Park scientist
Rebecca Doyle knelt at its base, whipped out a tape measure, and began
jotting down numbers.

The pole is 41 feet long. Six months ago, in April, it was totally buried in
snow and ice. On this recent sunny October day, so much snow had melted
that only a few inches of the pole remained buried.

"Wow, that's a lot," exclaimed Paul Kennard, a park service
geomorphologist, as he stood holding the pole.

Like Kennard and Doyle here on Mount Rainier, scientists on mountains all
over Washington, the most glacier-covered state in the Lower 48, are trying
to determine how glaciers are changing. What they are finding here and
elsewhere is worrisome: Many of them, such as the South Cascade Glacier
in the remote North Cascades, are shrinking quickly — and some are on the
verge of disappearing.

Unlike people like yourself, I have actually walked where the glaciers are, in the Cascades and Rockies, and seen the retreat. And read the denial of that retreat from charlatans like Monkton.

And I have read the reports from geologists, paleo-climatoligists, and climatologists. People that are actually studying the problem, not denying and lying about it.
 
No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.
So, Mill Rat. Now that the Earth is cooling, I'm confused. Why do we need cap and trade or any CO2 limiters or a global totalitarian oligarchy.

The earth is cooling. LOL. Come on, show some data from real scientists that support that ridiculous statement.

I mean, what IS the ideal temperature for this planet? A universal 72 degrees and mostly sunny?

Why don't you just keep repeating that stupid mantra until you choke? Silly ass, we are talking about a great deal more than temperature here. Weather patterns that determine how successful the agriculture we depend on is.

What does SCIENCE!!!!! say about that and our ability to achieve it? Can the Garden of Eden be powered on Ethanol, Solar power and Windmills?

Where do you expect to go, if given your druthers?

Not my druthers, I will be in Eastern Oregon as soon as I retire.

We have the capability to power our civilization with solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear right now. Drop the subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal, use them for the introduction of clean tech, and we can have clean energy in a decade.

Ethanol has some uses, but the ICE should be history in a generation. Electrics are coming on line, and if GM, Chrysler, or Ford is incapable of delivering them, BYD of China, Renault of France, and the German car companies will deliver them.
 
Unlike people like yourself, I have actually walked where the glaciers are, in the Cascades and Rockies, and seen the retreat.

So the only thing you actually know about is your scenic glacial parks are not so pretty anymore, and that is from anecdotal observation. Sorry, but your science fails.
SCIENCE is about repeatable verifiable experiments which can test hypotheses.
Religion and cults are about anecdotes and belief.
You believe in warming. Like a good cultist of the Lord Gore.
 
Unlike people like yourself, I have actually walked where the glaciers are, in the Cascades and Rockies, and seen the retreat.

So the only thing you actually know about is your scenic glacial parks are not so pretty anymore, and that is from anecdotal observation.

Are you trying to prove your stupidity? the area of the glaciers are readily apparent from satellite photos.

Sorry, but your science fails.

So you yap. Without siting any evidence for that at all. Come on, Fritz, are you afraid to use your compute?

SCIENCE is about repeatable verifiable experiments which can test hypotheses.

Yep. And if you had the slightest knowledge of geological history, you would know that nature has performed those experiment repeatedly. With negative results for the species that lived a the time.

Religion and cults are about anecdotes and belief.

And you have proved yourself an ignorant fool. You make silly charges, with absolutely no knowledge.

You believe in warming.

I accept the overwhelming evidence that the warming is occuring. You present not on item of evidence that it is not.

Like a good cultist of the Lord Gore.


And your fucking willful ignorance and stupidity is once again on full display. Care to show me where I have quoted Al Gore? The vast majority of the items I have posted are based on articles from scientists published in Nature, Science, and Geophysical Letters Review. With some from the National Academy of Sciences.

Why don't you provide some articles from reputable sources that show that the warming is not occuring?
 
No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.

So you admit you are not anything like a scientist eh rocky boy?
Then how can you distinguish between real science and sham fakery?
Answer - you can't, you just have taken, as an article of FAITH that the Earth is warming. And like any good religious fanatic you push your FAITH on others.
Others who happen to know far more science than you.

Of course others know far more science than I do. But damned few of them are on this board, and, for damned sure, you are not one of them.
 
Wow Mill Rat. Need a Rabies shot or something? Haven't seen that much froth and foam since an espresso machine exploded at the local Starbucks.

But this is what happens when the zealot of a false religion meets reality.

The boy's not even into denial yet. He's just hit shock.
 
Why don't you provide some articles from reputable sources that show that the warming is not occuring?

As you have stated before. You only trust liars like Hansen, Jones and Mann and their associates, confederates, conspirators and supporters. There is nothing in your mind that will countermand that mankind is responsible for global warming.
 
Unlike people like yourself, I have actually walked where the glaciers are, in the Cascades and Rockies, and seen the retreat.

So the only thing you actually know about is your scenic glacial parks are not so pretty anymore, and that is from anecdotal observation.

Are you trying to prove your stupidity? the area of the glaciers are readily apparent from satellite photos.

Sorry, but your science fails.

So you yap. Without siting any evidence for that at all. Come on, Fritz, are you afraid to use your compute?

SCIENCE is about repeatable verifiable experiments which can test hypotheses.

Yep. And if you had the slightest knowledge of geological history, you would know that nature has performed those experiment repeatedly. With negative results for the species that lived a the time.

Religion and cults are about anecdotes and belief.

And you have proved yourself an ignorant fool. You make silly charges, with absolutely no knowledge.

You believe in warming.

I accept the overwhelming evidence that the warming is occuring. You present not on item of evidence that it is not.

Like a good cultist of the Lord Gore.


And your fucking willful ignorance and stupidity is once again on full display. Care to show me where I have quoted Al Gore? The vast majority of the items I have posted are based on articles from scientists published in Nature, Science, and Geophysical Letters Review. With some from the National Academy of Sciences.

Why don't you provide some articles from reputable sources that show that the warming is not occuring?


Does "Hide the decline" count?
 
Wow Mill Rat. Need a Rabies shot or something? Haven't seen that much froth and foam since an espresso machine exploded at the local Starbucks.

But this is what happens when the zealot of a false religion meets reality.

The boy's not even into denial yet. He's just hit shock.

When dealing with people, address them in a language they can understand.
 
Wow Mill Rat. Need a Rabies shot or something? Haven't seen that much froth and foam since an espresso machine exploded at the local Starbucks.

But this is what happens when the zealot of a false religion meets reality.

The boy's not even into denial yet. He's just hit shock.

When dealing with people, address them in a language they can understand.
Ahh! A Dale Carnegie graduate? no... You're neither successfully making friends or influencing anyone.

Oh yes... that'd be one of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. tut tut tut.
 
It appears that the persons of these articles may have some ties to those who have a stake in selling the new climate change taxes proposed.
New predictions of meltdown

Arctic sea ice gone by 2015? A challenge to David Barber. Climate Sanity
Now along comes David Barber from the University of Manitoba, who estimates that the Arctic Basin will be ice free by the summer of 2015. The Star Phoenix reports:

The ice that has covered the Arctic basin for a million years will be gone in little more than six years because of global warming, a University of Manitoba geoscientist said. And David Barber said that once the sea ice is gone, more humans will be attracted to the Arctic, bringing with them even more ill effects…He said he estimates the Arctic sea should see its first ice-free summer around 2015…Barber has said before the Arctic basin would be free of summer sea ice some time between 2013 and 2030. But their research about recent changes in the Arctic has allowed them to pinpoint the date even closer.


Rebecca A. Woodgate. Alfred-Wegener-Institute-

European Geo Sciences awards..Luc Rainville, Lehigh University contributors list 2009..cute logo too





Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 11:51 AM
At the kickoff to hearings last week on the massive climate bill, Myron Ebell, climate and energy policy director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers, “The authors of the draft bill have invited the beneficiaries of what could turn out to be the biggest transfer of wealth from consumers to special interests in American history to write the rules for this legalized plunder.”



I'd like to be the mouse in the corner at this one.
Breakout Sessions

Follow the money trail back....http://web.mac.com/barber1818/iWeb/D.G.Barber/Welcome_files/Barber_CV_3pages.pdf


From: University of Manitoba: U of M - Faculty of Environment - Environment and Geography - Dr. David Barber

Dr. Barber raised over $38M in research funding over the past 5 years.

complete text (before they pull it out from the web, as usual)
Dr. David Barber

Professor

Canada Research Chair Tier I
Arctic System Science.
Associate Dean (Research)
Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources
Director, Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS)
Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources

476 Wallace
474-6981
Email
Website
Courses Offered:

Climate Change
GEOG 4670 Winter Term
GEOG 7440 Winter Term Research Interests

Dr. Barber obtained his Bachelors (1981) and Masters (1987) from the University of Manitoba, and his Ph.D. (1992) in Arctic Climatology from the University of Waterloo, Ontario. He was appointed to a faculty position at the University of Manitoba in 1993 and received a Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science in 2002. He is currently Director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS), and Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Environment, the University of Manitoba. Dr. Barber has extensive experience in the examination of the Arctic marine environment as a ‘system’, and the effect climate change has on this system. His first Arctic field experience was in 1981 and he has conducted field experiments annually since then. His early work, with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, examined Arctic Marine Mammal habitat detection and change. His later work focused on the geophysics of snow and sea ice and in particular the response of the snow/ice system to oceanic and atmospheric forcing.. His research group has a special interest in the coupling between physical and biological marine systems in the Arctic and in the use of Earth Observation technologies in the study of ocean-sea ice-atmosphere (OSA) processes.

Dr. Barber has published over 100 articles in the peer reviewed literature pertaining to sea ice, climate change and physical-biological coupling in the Arctic marine system. He leads the largest International Polar Year (IPY) project in the world, known as the Circumpolar Flaw Lead (CFL) system study (IPY-CFL). He is recognized internationally through scientific leadership in large network programs (e.g., NOW, CASES, ArcticNet, the Amundsen, and CFL), as an invited member of several Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) national committees (e.g., NSERC GSC 09; NSERC IPY, NSERC northern supplements, etc), international committees (GEWEX, IAPP, CNC-SCOR, IARC, etc) and invitations to national and international science meetings (e.g., American Geophysical Union (AGU), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), American Society for Limnology and Oceanography (Spain), IMPACTS (Russia), European Space Agency (ESA, Italy), Arctic Frontiers (Norway), etc). Dr. Barber supervised to completion: 5 honours theses; 10 MSc theses; 9 PhD dissertations and 6 postdoctoral fellows. He currently supervises 7 MSc students; 11 PhD students, 4 post doctoral fellows and 9 full time research staff. Dr. Barber raised over $38M in research funding over the past 5 years.

Major Research Projects

In addition to his university teaching and administrative commitments, Dr Barber has established the Community Based Monitoring Program (CBM) which links several Inuit communities to measurement and monitoring of sea ice and climate change related variables in the Western High Arctic and Hudson Bay. He was also instrumental in establishing the ‘Schools on Board’ program, which outreaches Arctic Marine science to high school students and teachers aboard the Canadian Research Icebreaker Amundsen. In recognition of his commitment to environmental research and education he received the RH award in Physical Sciences from the University of Manitoba and has been nominated for the NSERC Steacie Award. Dr. Barber is regularly asked to present to media (TV, radio and print), to policy bodies (Senate committee hearings, policy workshops, Canadian Arctic Sovereignty, ADM committees, etc.) and industry (oil companies, hydroelectric utilities, marine shipping) regarding climate change and the Arctic.

Recent Publications

Galley, R, B.J. Hwang. D. Barber, E. Key and J.K. Ehn. 2007. On the spatial and Temporal variability of Sea Ice in the CASES Study Region: 1980 – 2004. Journal of Geophysical Research. In Press (March’08).

Ehn, J.K. T. N. Papakyriakou, D. G. Barber. Inference of optical properties from radiation profiles within melting sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research. In Press (Jan’08).

Langlois, A., T. Fisico, D. G. Barber and T.N. Papakyriakou. The response of snow thermophysical processes to the passage of a polar low-pressure system and it’s impact on in situ passive microwave radiometry: A case study. Journal of Geophysical Research. 113, C03S04, doi:10.1029/2007JC004197.

Trembley, J.E, K.Simpson, J. Martin, L. Miller, Y. Gratton, D. Barber and N. Price. Vertical stability and the annual dynamics of nutrients and chlorophyll fluorescence in the coastal, southeast Beaufort Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research. VOL. 113, C07S90, doi:10.1029/2007JC004547

Hwang, B. J., and D. G. Barber, 2008. On the impact of ice emissivity on ice temperature retrieval using passive microwave radiance data. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 5(3):doi:10.1109/LGRS.2008.917266

Langlois, A. and D. G. Barber. Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Seasonal Snow Covered Sea Ice. Progress in Physical Geography. 31(6), 539-573, doi: 10.1177/0309133307087082

Jin, X., J. Hanesiak and D. Barber. Time series of daily-averaged cloud fractions over landfast first year sea ice from multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI: 10.1175/2007JAMC1472.1. vol (46)1818-1827.
 
So you admit you are not anything like a scientist eh rocky boy?

Of course others know far more science than I do. But damned few of them are on this board, and, for damned sure, you are not one of them.
So you’re a better scientist than I am.
Prove it.
Not with some claim of having taken an engineering class decades ago, but with an answer to a real question.
One actually related to abating human CO2 production.

CO2, as you should be aware, is produced when humans combust various carbon compounds to create usable energy. Two methods which might reduce CO2 production are change human behavior, or increase the amount of usable energy from combustion. Dr Mike Stickney of MCI has been working with British Oil on a method of chemical synthesis using a combustion shock tube. British Oil’s research interest is obtaining a less expensive method of reducing CO emissions, but the data from Stickney’s research is still of interest to the serious physicist.

The combustion shock tube consists of a long tube filled with combustible gas which when ignited produced a supersonic shock wave which accelerates down the tube. Dr. Stickney used CO and H2O to obtain CO2 and H2. Unlike the previous research, done back in the mid 20th century, Stickney used a closed tube with a precise mix of gasses to provide complete combustion of the CO. Two items of interest were found; first the chemical potential energy was converted to mechanical energy at rates exceeding 85% efficiency, second the shock wave left a vacuum in its wake. The high efficiency is of interest to anyone trying to conserve resources or reduce CO2 emissions, but the vacuum is on interest to the physicist.

Ahh, the vacuum. Think for a moment; the tube is initially filled with gas at equilibrium. A spark is applied at one end. A shock wave forms and accelerates along the tube, leaving nothing behind. Thus if you observed the shock wave at one time, t, and a later time t+x, you would see the shock wave gained both mass and velocity in the interval, with nothing to balance the momentum change. Failure to conserve momentum violates one the fundamental laws of physics.

To solve the problem, go back to first principles. The shock wave is not a single object, but a collection of objects, in particular molecules. Examine then a single pair of gas molecules in a chemical reaction. For simplicity, take the endothermic example of H2 and CO2. For this gedanken experiment isolate two samples of gas, on of H2, the other of CO2, and chill to just above the point where the gas will transition to a different phase. Now accelerate the contained of H2, fast enough to provide the energy required for the reaction, and aim it at the CO2, then consider an isolated collision of H2 and CO2.

H2+CO2+Energy => CO+H2O
For this analysis we will hypothesize that chemical processes take time; this is a defensible assumption as chemists and chemical engineers regularly chart the length of time different reactions take under different conditions. No reaction to date has been instantaneous.
During the time that the reaction occurs several things take place; one Oxygen atom breaks its bonds with the Carbon atom, the two Hydrogen atoms break the bond holding them together, the Oxygen atom forms bonds with both Hydrogen atoms, and the whole continues moving through space. Plus kinetic energy is converted to chemical potential energy. Oops, that cannot happen, the molecules are stuck together until the process is finished, but the kinetic energy has to be forced into the new bond arrangement, which would slow the mass and violate conservation of momentum. But it does happen. It happens all the time.
Since the molecules will both leave the reaction going in the same direction, the puzzle of how the vacuum forms is obvious; all the molecules in the shockwave begin their combustion going the same direction and minimization means they won’t change direction to go back the other way. Because virtually all of the molecules combust there is almost nothing left behind the shockwave.

Where is the momentum going at the molecular level? Good question; either the curvature of timespace allows the molecules to interact with the mass of the Earth to exchange momentum, a problem which might be solved with general relativity, or string theory has the solution in the manipulation of data which the mass of the molecules represents.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it Mr. Rocks, is to solve this problem with your vaunted superior science skills and tell us which physics journal will showcase your solution.

I posted this on another thread where you claimed you knew more science than I and it shut you up pretty quick.

You are a fraud; ran a mill for decades? So you produced more pollution than the typical person does in 10 lifetimes and now, wealthy as a result of you polluting policies you want to feel better about yourself by pushing on others constraints you were unwilling to live with.
The word for you is Hypocrite
 
Give what up? Addressing asses that play red herring tricks?

You fellows are fools. You deny reality to claim 'things as they oughta be'.

Tyndal recorded the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in 1858. Has that somehow changed?

The acidification of the ocean is a straight forward measurement. And we can follow what happens when the oceans turn to acid for certain lifeforms at the base of the food chain from prior times of high GHGs.

The increase in the water vapor in the atmosphere has certain consequences, also. Such as larger precipitation events covering a larger area.

But mindless denial, without the slightest bit of evidence to back that denial, and mindless derision are the stock in trade of the fools on this board.
 
Charley, the word for you is stupid.

Where is YOUR science claim Rocky?
Can you refute anything in my post?
Or are you just another hypocrite who ignores inconvenient facts?

The subject is global warming asshole. I am not participating in your little red herring adventure.
In other words you know nothing of science but expect us to take your word on how well you understand scientific papers. About what I expect from a hypocrite.
 

Forum List

Back
Top