So the Oceans are rising are they?

[skookerasbil]

Only the k00ks get a bullseye EVERY shot!!!!



Hmmm............

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Polar..........you link in your sig gave me an idea...............

We should waterboard the climate scientist assholes


End this hoax inside of 30 minutes.

 

[polarbear]

Hey Polar..........you link in your sig gave me an idea...............

We should waterboard the climate scientist assholes


End this hoax inside of 30 minutes.

I`ll try.
But I only have degrees in "right wing" Math, Physics and Chemistry", and every law in these sciences has a "right wing bias"

I don`t have a degree like Al Gore etc.....so I guess that disqualifies me....

Experts: Much bigger sea level rise likely...

Sea levels could rise by 2-3 feet more, Arctic experts say
5/3/2011 - Report on melting ice, warmer sea temps issued for U.S., other Arctic Council nations

The Arctic is melting faster than expected and could contribute 2-3 feet more in global sea levels by 2100 than earlier thought, experts state in a report being presented to international officials on Wednesday. The report shatters predictions made four years ago by the authoritative U.N. climate change panel.

Melting Arctic glaciers and ice caps are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches by 2100, the program's scientists stated.


"In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 meters (35 inches) to 1.6 meters (63 inches) by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution," it said. The rises were projected from 1990 levels. "Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet contributed over 40 percent of the global sea level rise of around 3 mm per year observed between 2003 and 2008," it said.

>>>>>
The Following User Says Thank You to waltky For This Useful Post: RollingThunder (Yesterday)

>>>>>>>

rdean

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

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

The best way to decide which scientists are correct is to become one.

Of course, that takes years of study and hard work. Then there's the mocking derision from the right wing of anyone with an education. You could become an "expert". Like the other two Republican scientists.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


See, I`m not a "climatology grand-u ate-it all-up graduate", and "educated" like this and the other morons here,like "OldRocks", Thunderfuckhead etc etc ..I only have a RIGHT "(wing-biased)" education...but I did read all of this the WRONG (wing) education..
It takes less than the 30 minute time limit You asked for
All You have to do is throw out very "right wing biased" physics law and do this..:

... For the case of a change in solar irradiance, the radiative forcing is the change in the solar constant divided by 4 and multiplied by 0.7 to take into account the geometry of the sphere and the amount of reflected sunlight.

S why bother with curvatures, log functions and all these other right wing biased laws, just divide a solar constant by 4 and multiply 0.7 and that takes care of everything from Kepler`s laws all the way past every Schroedinger Equation, including these pesty reductions which are cosine functions of the latitude where the 1 m^2 "Climate Science" might be,...You know, the one which is always at the same constant Temperature and barometric Pressure and has no clouds. And don`t forget...the sun must remain constant also...else Modtran & all the other "Climate Computer models" will go TILT

All I have is "right wing biased ", non-climatolgy Physics & Math which is apparently all based on delusions of Max Planck, Schroedinger, Sir Isac Newton,etc etc etc who wrote books full of right wing biased Math & Physics...
And observations, like the delusional snow storm we had here a few days ago, and that video I filmed @ uploaded showing "Climatology non-modeled therefore "delusional" Blizzard of bullshit..as
Rollintheshit calls it.
So let`s get on with it and discuss another "right wing delusion" that every engineer who designed and built the Panama Canal had...
the Panama Canal...which of course has the same sea level elevation on both sides in Climate science, has in our "delusional world" Ocean a whooping 20 cm higher seal level on the pacific side than on the Atlantic side of the Isthmus.

There must be a **** of a lot more global warming going on just a few miles west of the narrow Panama Isthmus than on the other side of it, if you wanna stick with the Al Gorakle "science" that tells You ocean levels are pegged to Your SUV exhaust and all the ice that is melting.

In these right wing delusions the ocean world looks like this...:

One other delusion "right wing" Physics teaches is that water flows downhill, Sir Isac Newton also succumbed to this "delusion" and a lot of "right wing biased" science is based on that...
I`m not sure in which direction water flows when You run it through an Al-Gore-rithm "Climate Computer Model" algorithm...but in the delusional ocean world ships have to navigate through right wing delusional currents generated by what delusional Sir Isac Newton`s laws have to say about a 20 cm height difference. All that "right wing delusional" water has to flow from the warmer Pacific Ocean to the colder Atlantic around the either the Strait of Magellan or Cape Horn at the southernmost tip of South America. ...by the antarctic ice sheet ...and OH MY GOD dissolve SOME OF IT FROM UNDERNEATH

That`s why icebergs roll over Duh!


I guess if we throw away our car keys then water will quit flowing down hill...?

It`s no different on top in the arctic...we don`t live on a flat world, but on a right wing delusional globe...so You have to connect the arrow head of the top right arrow to the arrow tail on the top left..

Too bad they don`t show you more where the East Greenland Current comes from...You know the one where "Global Warming Science" keeps showing all this "CO2 melted ice"..

But all You have to do is follow these arrows and imagine a right wing delusional round planet..as opposed to flat earth "Climate Science"..
So warm Gulf stream water changes the name to 'North Atlantic Drift"...then the same warm water is called "the "Norwegian Current" and does the loop and comes back south again as the "East Greenland Current" .... .and OH MY GOD DISSOLVE SOME OF IT FROM UNDERNEATH
again, That`s why "melting" icebergs roll over...ice mass that MELTS from the top down, does not roll over...!


The Nares Strait, from which I already posted pictures which I brought with me from there...You know, the ones with the tree Stumps...is supplied by the same warm water and that`s why there never has been any summer ice in there and ships could navigate all the way to Fort Conger way back in 1870..
Because at that time, cow farts and stuff like that must have been "melting the ice" before we had SUV`s and MAN MADE CO2..

I kept posting the energy equations what it would take to "melt' the ice-mass difference between arctic summer/winter in that short time with air from the top, ...Greenland would have to be so hot that You could fry eggs on the rocks...

But the AlGorerithms in "Climate science computer models" insist the ice in the arctic is melted from the top down by CO2 "feedback effect heated air" we "un- educated right wing " people have been making ...

What can I say, like I said I don`t have a degree in "Climate Science"...
I only studied right wing biased Math and Physics

You could become an "expert". Like the other two Republican scientists

So I guess I`l oblige him now, in true "right wing" fashion, to conform with his stereo-typical shit for brains idiotology, and I have every right wing right to do so, because I did study up on Al Gorakle "Science" just as soon as this crap backed up out of the sewer pipes...:

And from now on we won`t waste any more time with Baroclinic vectors, Sverdrup balance and so on and on and on...to give Sub-Skippers the data they need,...actual data under the ocean surface,...or actual data for air-force pilots for what`s going on above in the wild blue yonder...we`ll just get the Mauna Lua CO2 ppm and put it into "Modtran", like "Climate Science" does it...

With "we" I mean what we all have been doing all these years at CFS Alert and Thule Air Base...we don`t just collect data for the Air Force...we also collect all the Data for "Sub-drivers" who have to know what`s under the ice @ under the Arctic Ocean surface as well..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NUk4UIw8M]YouTube - Thule Greenland Video 2005-2006[/ame]

"rdean" & his "expert scientist" friends say it`s Okay to throw all these "right wing biased" equations out the window..:

Corporate Author : NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA

Personal Author(s) : Addison, Victor C., Jr

Report Date : DEC 1987

Pagination or Media Count : 110

Abstract : A dense network of conductivity-temperature-depth measurements was conducted from Baffin Bay northward to 82 deg 09 min N at the entrance to the Lincoln Sea, in the most comprehensive physical oceanographic survey ever performed in the northern Baffin Bay-Nares Strait region. These data indicate Nares Strait Atlantic Intermediate Water and Arctic Basin Polar Water to be derived from Arctic Basin waters via the Canadian Archipelago, whereas the West Greenland Current (WGC) is the source of the comparatively dilute West Greenland Current Atlantic Intermediate Water and West Greenland Current Polar Water fractions. Baffin Bay Surface Water is found seasonally throughout northern Baffin Bay. Recurvature of component branches of the WGC, which attains a maximum baroclinic transport of 0.7 Sv, occurs primarily in Melville Bay (0.2 Sv), south of the Carey Islands (0.1 Sv) and ultimately in Smith Sound (0.2 Sv). The Baffin Current originates as an ice-edge jet in Smith Sound and is augmented by net outflow from Smith, Jones and Lancaster Sounds at rates of 0.3 Sv, 0.3 Sv and 1.1 Sv, respectively. Circulation in Smith, Jones and Lancaster Sounds can be described in terms of the Geostrophic Estuarine Circulation Model. The North Water is caused by the combined influences of near-surface layer enthalpy and mechanical ice removal. KeywordsL Sea water temperature; Oceanographic data; Straits; Sounds(Waterways); Ocean currents.
In fluid dynamics, the baroclinity (sometimes called baroclinicity) of a stratified fluid is a measure of how misaligned the gradient of pressure is from the gradient of density in a fluid[1] [2]. In meteorology a baroclinic atmosphere is one for which the density depends on both the temperature and the pressure; contrast this with barotropic atmosphere, for which the density depends only on the pressure. In atmospheric terms, the barotropic zones of the Earth are generally found in the central latitudes, or tropics, whereas the baroclinic areas are generally found in the mid-latitude/polar regions.

Baroclinity is proportional to

which is proportional to sine of the angle between surfaces of constant pressure and surfaces of constant density. Thus, in a barotropic fluid (which is defined by zero baroclinity), these surfaces are parallel.

Areas of high atmospheric baroclinity are characterized by the frequent formation of cyclones.

Baroclinic vector

Beginning with the equation of motion for a fluid (say, the Euler equations or the Navier-Stokes equations) and taking the curl, one arrives at the equation of motion for the curl of the fluid velocity, that is to say, the vorticity.

In a fluid that is not all of the same density, a source term appears in the vorticity equation whenever surfaces of constant density (isopycnic surfaces) and surfaces of constant pressure (isobaric surfaces) are not aligned. The material derivative of the local vorticity is given by

where \vec V is the velocity and \vec \omega is the vorticity, p is pressure, and &#961; is density). The baroclinic contribution is the vector

Sverdrup balance

&#946; is the rate of change of the Coriolis parameter, f, with meridional distance;
V is the vertically integrated meridional mass transport;
k is the unit vector in the z (vertical) direction;
&#964; is the wind stress vector.

 

[Old Rocks]

Circumpolar nations have some worries.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English

As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland - prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting. The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought.



The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

Gordon Hamilton is a leading glaciologist and professor at the University of Maine Climate Change Institute. He says the new assessment updates the U.N.&#8217;s Climate Change Panel&#8217;s 2007 report with data on Arctic conditions over the past five years.

"And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate for sea level rise from 18 to 59 centimeters is a very large underestimate and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.

 

[wirebender]

The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

So 1998 is now out of the top 6? What sort of changes to the historical temperature record is that going to require hansen et al to perform?

"And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate for sea level rise from 18 to 59 centimeters is a very large underestimate and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.

Does this bit of information come from the same report that described the ramped up predictions as "HIGHLY UNCERTAIN"?

Tell me rocks, do you refuse to actually think because it gives you a headache or are you just that damned lazy?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Real dumb ass statement, Frank. You think that Strata Smith, Lyell, and Hutton did their observations in a laboratory?

 

[Old Rocks]

The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

So 1998 is now out of the top 6? What sort of changes to the historical temperature record is that going to require hansen et al to perform?

"And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate for sea level rise from 18 to 59 centimeters is a very large underestimate and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.

Does this bit of information come from the same report that described the ramped up predictions as "HIGHLY UNCERTAIN"?

Tell me rocks, do you refuse to actually think because it gives you a headache or are you just that damned lazy?

Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the world.

Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey BiPolar, these people have far more degrees than you do, and they say that you are a screwball.

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

 

[wirebender]

Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.

Interesting. You and yours claim that the ice is melting faster than ever but the US Navy PIPs2 data shows that since 2008, the area of 2.5+ meter thick ice has nearly doubled. NSIDC also shows that the amount of multi year ice has increased substnatially since 2008.

I guess your numbers are, once again, the result of computer models as opposed to actual observations.

By the way, 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick in Chicago. What do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt?

The conditions in the Arctic are well within the norm for the past 5000 years. You can relax, the sky is not falling. Just remember, for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at one or both of the poles. On earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Real dumb ass statement, Frank. You think that Strata Smith, Lyell, and Hutton did their observations in a laboratory?

Your, well, I can't even call it a theory -- your hunch, your conjecture is that 200PPM increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature....Show me!

Show the class how that happens, Timmy.

Take a control tank with earth atmosphere.

Add 200PPM CO2 to the second tank.

Measure the non-existent increase in temperature in the second tank.

That's science.

That's why there is not a single shred of real scientific evidence behind AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.

Interesting. You and yours claim that the ice is melting faster than ever but the US Navy PIPs2 data shows that since 2008, the area of 2.5+ meter thick ice has nearly doubled. NSIDC also shows that the amount of multi year ice has increased substnatially since 2008.

I guess your numbers are, once again, the result of computer models as opposed to actual observations.

By the way, 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick in Chicago. What do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt?

The conditions in the Arctic are well within the norm for the past 5000 years. You can relax, the sky is not falling. Just remember, for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at one or both of the poles. On earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.

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

 

[wirebender]

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

My, my;

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

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

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

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

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm&#8722;1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

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

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

And many, many more at this resource.

 

[wirebender]

Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the world.

Sorry guy, no comprehension problem here. You, however have a serious shortcoming in your knowledge base. Here, chew on some actual published, peer reviewed science. The present warming is miniscule compared to the not so distant past.

Arctic vs. Global Air Temperature Change

Temperatures of the Past Six Millennia in Alaska

Arctic Warming "Then and Now"

A Brief History of Climate Change in the Arctic

 

[IanC]

U of Colorado finally put up their new website.

while they made a passing reference to the decreased rising levels they added a new 'adjustment'

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

hmmm.....adding 10-25% seems reasonable when things arent working out to plan. rightttttttttttt

 

[wirebender]

My, my;

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

I see that you forgot to mention that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is then immediately emitted and none of those papers prove otherwise. No one has argued that CO2 can absorb energy rocks. The problem lies in your belief that the molecule then, somehow, holds on to the energy or "traps" it in some way. The emission spectrum proves beyond question that this does not happen.

Do feel free, if you believe I am wrong, to read all that science that you don't understand, and point out where one suggests that the emission spectra of a CO2 molecule is not precisely the opposite of its absorption spectra. Each and every one of those experiments that suppose to prove that CO2 drives the climate are still rooted in the faith based beleif that downward emitted radiation can warm the earth beyond the energy it recieves from the sun.

 

[skookerasbil]

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

My, my;

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

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

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

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

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm&#8722;1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

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

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

And many, many more at this resource.

see post #274......................which makes your contributions =

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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&#8217;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&#8211;7000 cm&#8722;1 &#8211; Toth et al. (2008) &#8220;A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm&#8722;1&#8230;&#8221;

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence &#8211; Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) &#8220;Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.&#8221; [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment &#8211; Miller et al. (2005) &#8220;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.&#8221;

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions &#8211; Miller & Brown (2004) &#8220;High-resolution near-infrared (4000&#8211;9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath&#8211;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. &#8230; 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].&#8221; [Full text]

And many, many more at this resource.

It's the Squid Ink Defense, you've cut and paste many abstracts that mention "CO2", none of them on point, but it looks like you actually did some work.

And for "Settled science" you think the Warmers would have something better than, the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only "In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only..."

In any event, NONE OF THE PAPERS LISTED SHOW THAT A 200PPM INCREASE (I'm being generous since the Warmer are contending that smaller increases are actually responsible for the temperature increases) IN CO2 RAISES TEMPERATURE

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKLYEAC4F2U]YouTube - Wonka says "So You Get Nothing, You Lose! Good Day SIr!" forwards and reversed[/ame]

 

[polarbear]

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


And many, many more at this resource.

It's the Squid Ink Defense, you've cut and paste many abstracts that mention "CO2", none of them on point, but it looks like you actually did some work.

And for "Settled science" you think the Warmers would have something better than, the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only "In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only..."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKLYEAC4F2U"]YouTube - Wonka says "So You Get Nothing, You Lose! Good Day SIr!" forwards and reversed[/ame]

Real problem with reading comprehension there, Bender old boy. Note the red. Just as the warmest year for the US was in the dirty thirties, the warmest years for the Artic have been the recent years. The Artic was not as affected by the strong El Nino of 1998 as the rest of the world.

Sorry guy, no comprehension problem here. You, however have a serious shortcoming in your knowledge base. Here, chew on some actual published, peer reviewed science. The present warming is miniscule compared to the not so distant past.

Arctic vs. Global Air Temperature Change

Temperatures of the Past Six Millennia in Alaska

Arctic Warming "Then and Now"

A Brief History of Climate Change in the Arctic

Wirebender, You can`t bend things that are completely inflexible, like Rocks no matter if they are young rocks or Old Rocks...as if this guy would actually read physics...it`s not "REAL CLIMATE Science"...
But I `m bending...from laughing. I came here and before the US-Message board reloaded my browser page with their stored ignore idiots list I got a few second glimpses what he wrote ...again and again...It was a few pages long...
I just ran the mouse over it and pasted it into Notepad.
Her are the highlights...it`s all from "Old Rocks" spread out over half a dozen "contributions":

As government officials from eight Arctic nations

Gordon Hamilton is a leading glaciologist and professor at the University of Maine Climate Change Institute. He says

"And so with our new understanding on how ice sheets are behaving and how they are responding to climate change we can say that the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] estimate
.....and we are looking at something probably double the upper end of the estimate. So we are expecting one meter of sea level rise by 2100," said Gordon Hamilton.

Hey BiPolar, these people have far more degrees than you do, and they say that you are a screwball.
[http://www.aip.org/]

So I got curious what he was so excited about and clicked on that link, I`m always interested in "Advanced moron climax science"...could be they know something we don`t..
Saying it was funny would be the understatement of the year.
Old Rocks never ever reads past the first 3 lines of any web page he copy/pastes in here. Maybe he doesn`t have tables and chairs in his Fred Flintstone cave and has to lay on his belly to read past line #4...somebody should tell him what a scroll bar on a browser window is...

Any way here are the "Scientists" from the "Institute of advanced Physics" that impressed him to no end..:

This is basically in "Institute for Physics" for high school kids who have trouble understanding Physics...!

Here is the head honcho, top "Scientist..."

"IUPAP`s" working group on women in Physics, she addressed, so I got even more curious...and read the pdflile this was linked to...
It`s pages and pages and pages of more of the same as this..:

At that point, I began admiring them, because that would be a good thing to do something just like what she appeared to be doing at first glance.
I`ts not that the kids aren`t intelligent enough to understand Math, Physics & Chemistry...it`s the teachers that are crap...they can`t explain it that`s the problem..
So I decided to read the whole shae-bang this web page is publishing and then I quit laughing...:

Mission

Support the highest quality science education for all students.

• To provide student services and support programs within the broad physics community that will identify, promote, and enhance high-quality, student-centered, and societal-relevant educational practices and initiatives that positively impact students and their learning of physics, astronomy, and allied sciences and technology.

2. Develop, support, and implement programs, often partnering with AIP Member Societies, that enhance physics education, improve the science preparation of future teachers, increase the effectiveness of Physics and Science Departments in colleges and universities, and promote pre-college science education.

But so far so good...only once You keep on reading, then You realize that the only "research " they do is to collect "Global warming scientists say...that...blah blah blah"....and distribute these Internet garbage collections to schools and school teachers...

This is augmented by "case studies" they did, ....:
They link the Highschool teachers to a shitload of these...:

Case study: Rosalind WestIn my third year I did a course on Climate Physics...

I'm currently working on a DPhil in the Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics department at Oxford, in conjunction with the Hadley Centre at the Met Office. I work in the Climate Processes group and use both computerised climate models...

...and add that "climatology" is the easiest "science" to get a "science degree"...if You can`t hack the kind of Math etc You`l need in Physics, Math or Chemistry to qualify for a degree...they also advise the schools, that the pay scale in "climate science" is by far better than the established and more difficult to qualify for science degrees...

After I read that I got curious just what does it take for a masters degree or Doctorate in "Climatology"...:

PhD in Climatology

• Admission

a. Minimum degree and publication list requirements:
- A master degree in climatology or in an appropriate specialty close to climatology.
- Applicants hold a master degree in different field and hold an undergraduate degree in climatology or in an appropriate specialty close to climatology. In this case, applicants have to take examination as a non-master-degree holder and are required to have at least one published paper in scientific journals or scientific conference proceedings prior to the application time.
- Applicants hold an undergraduate degree in climatology or relevant specialty, with at least good grade and at least one published paper in scientific journals or scientific conference proceedings prior to the application time.
- Applicants hold an undergraduate degree in climatology or relevant specialty, with at least above-average grade and at least two published papers in scientific journals or scientific conference proceedings prior to the application time.
The content of the above papers must be consistent with the applied research direction.

• Examination Subjects

a. For undergraduate degree holders
- Fundamental subject: Advanced Mathematics 1
- Basic subject: General Meteorology
- Specialized subject: Physical Meteorology
- Language: C level, one among five languages: English, French, Russian, German, Chinese

And that`s all folks...to become a highly respected "Climate Scientist" with a Dr. Title...
Mathematics 1...
I`ll show You what Math 1 is by American definition and International Standards...:

I Europe the same thing is called "Math-A"...:

The History of A Level 1951-2000

Between 1918 and 1951 the main qualification for school leavers was the Higher School Certificate. This qualification required students to study for a range of subjects. By 1951 it had become apparent that some students were failing a broad qualification because of weakness in a single area and so the decision was taken to develop examinations that assessed students in single subjects. Thus was born the A Level (Advanced Level) exam which could be taken on a subject by subject basis, according to the strengths and interests of the student.
The A Level at first was graded as simply pass or fail (although students were given an indication of their marks, to the nearest 5%) but by 1963 rising numbers of students taking the exam made it clear that there needed to be more differentiation of achievement. Letters were therefore introduced to award specific grades of pass to students. The grades were determined by simply awarding the top grade to the top 10% of students and the next grade to the next 15%, as follows:
A-10% B-15% C-10% D-15% E-20% O (Ordinary Level) 20% Fail &#8211; 10%

Then too many students started failing, so the made "Math-1" or "Math-A", whichever name You prefer easier...after 1980.

Grade inflation

There most common criticism of the A-level system is an accusation of grade inflation. The steady rise in average grades for 27 consecutive years suggests that A-levels are becoming consistently easier.

It`s all here...:
GCE Advanced Level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the North American definition of "Math-1"...:

Math 010. High School Algebra. (4-0) F.S.SS.For students who do not have adequate facility with topics from high school algebra or do not meet the algebra admission requirement. The course is divided into tracks of one- and two-semester lengths.

And every University I checked has no requirements going higher than "Math-A" or "math-1" to get a Masters or even PhD. in "climate science"...

No wonder they all NEED computer models, they actually don`t know how to do the math...!

You can go up to whatever Math level You want to, but You don`t have to!

Take a look what it takes to go for a junior degree in Chemical Engineering...
Absolute minimum entry level requirement...:

Math 301. Abstract Algebra I. (3-0) Cr. 3. F.S.Prereq: 166 or 166H, 307 or 317, and 201. Theory of groups. Homomorphisms. Quotient groups. Introduction to rings. Emphasis on writing proofs. Nonmajor graduate credit.
Math 302. Abstract Algebra II. (3-0) Cr. 3. S.Prereq: 301. Theory of rings and fields. Introduction to Galois theory. Emphasis on writing proofs. Nonmajor graduate credit.
Math 304. Introductory Combinatorics. (3-0) Cr. 3. F.Prereq: 166 or 166H; 201 or experience with proofs. Permutations, combinations, binomial coefficients, inclusion-exclusion principle, recurrence relations, generating functions. Additional topics selected from probability, random walks, and Markov chains. Nonmajor graduate credit.
Math 307. Matrices and Linear Algebra. (3-0) Cr. 3. F.S.SS.Prereq: 2 semesters of calculus. Systems of linear equations, determinants, vector spaces, linear transformations, orthogonality, least-squares methods, eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Emphasis on methods and techniques. Only one of Math 307, 317 may be counted toward graduation. Nonmajor graduate credit.
Math 365. Complex Variables with Applications. (3-0) Cr. 3. S.Prereq: 265. Functions of a complex variable, including differentiation, integration and series expansions, residues, evaluation of integrals, conformal mapping. Nonmajor graduate credit.
Math 373. Introduction to Scientific Computation. (3-0) Cr. 3. S.Prereq: 265. Vector, matrix and graphics programming in MATLAB for scientific applications. Algorithms for interpolation, systems of linear equations, least squares, nonlinear equations and optimization in one and several variables. Additional topics may include ordinary differential equations, symbolic calculation and the Fast Fourier Transform. Emphasis on effective use of mathematical software, and understanding of its strengths and limitations. Nonmajor graduate credit.

+ You must be able to write Computer Programs in at least one major Programming language, like say C++ or related code.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~popovici/S2011-Math266.html

Department of Mathematics - North Dakota State University
Math 266 Introduction to Differential Equations
Spring 2011

That`s just so You can even enroll...never-mind GRADUATE in a REAL SCIENCE

http://math.stanford.edu/~dlevy/classes/266/index.html

[SIZE=+4][SIZE=+3]Math 266
Computational Signal Processing and Wavelets[/SIZE][/SIZE]

And that`s still way below what else it takes just for a BSc. in REAL SCIENCE...
But of course that` all just "right wing-red-neck-CO2- denial" with an Oil Lobby spin..

Okay.."Old Rocks"...
A lot of people have problems with math...that`s nothing to be ashamed about...shame on Your teacher...not shame on You


I`ll just run a few numbers by You so You can understand that there is a huge difference between a "computer model" and REALITY...
You don`t need a computer model, if You know the equations that govern a process..take for example the firing solutions computers plot for ICBM`s or already just for long range artillery...
They all use equations, which figure in air density, humidity, barometric pressure, right down to the directionally dependent Coriolis effect...
These are all equations, worked out by REAL SCIENTISTS, and the firing solution computers have been programmed by REAL SCIENTISTS...and these equations are so spot on, that they can rapid fire 3 rounds in short succession with 3 different pre-calculated charges and 3 pre-calculated gun barrel elevations, that drop after each shot...and 40 mile away, they can land all 3 rounds on a target no larger than a 6 foot circle and all 3 rounds arrive EXACTLY at the same time, for maximum effect...

That`s real science, using real equations...
There is no such thing as a climate equation...would we have such a thing, we would have at least a few hours warning if there will be a Tornado and EXACTLY WHEN AND WHERE it will touch down...
Even little kids watching movies about tornadoes know, that "climate scientists" don`t have these capabilities... and sure as shit not even a single equation that can forecast 60 minutes...but you keep posting "Climate scientists predict...."...what the oceans level will be in 100 years from now,...based on an average rise of 0.24 MILLIMETERS PER YEAR...for Christ`s sake did You not even look at the ruler scale picture I posted here ...?

So now let`s do some real easy math with numbers...
Let`s pretend we don`t know the equation for Y= Epsilon (1/x)...so like we add up 1/1 +1/2+1/3+1/4....and we`ll stop at 12, to make the analogy with the 12 months we have in a year...

So here is the Computer model...:

print"======================Log Function==============="
print"______________________Using Monthly increase-----------------"
e=0
for x=1 to 12
e=e+1/x:d=e/x:s=e-s1:s1=e
print x,e,s
next x
print "1 Year Average = ";d
print "100 Year projection using this average = ";100*d



print"______________________Now Using Weekly increase -------------------"




e=0:s1=0
for x=1 to 12 step .25
e=e+1/x:d1=e*.25/x:s=e-s1:s1=e
print x,e,s

next x
print"1 Year Average ";d1
print "100 Year projection using this average = ";100*d1



print"______________________-------------------"

print "True function = ln(12)==>"; log(12)
print" in 100 years with the true function the right result is ln(100) ";log(100)
print" and not "; d1*100; " or ";d*100

And here is the output...:


______________________Using Monthly increase-----------------
1 1 1
2 1.5 0.5
3 1.83333333 0.33333333
4 2.08333333 0.25
5 2.28333333 0.2
6 2.45 0.16666667
7 2.59285714 0.14285714
8 2.71785714 0.125
9 2.82896825 0.11111111
10 2.92896825 0.1
11 3.01987734 0.90909091e-1
12 3.10321068 0.83333333e-1
1 Year Average = 0.25860089
100 Year projection using this +1/x INCREASE average = 25.860089
______________________Now Using Weekly increase -------------------
1 1 1
1.25 1.8 0.8
1.5 2.46666667 0.66666667
1.75 3.03809524 0.57142857
2 3.53809524 0.5
2.25 3.98253968 0.44444444
2.5 4.38253968 0.4
2.75 4.74617605 0.36363636
3 5.07950938 0.33333333
3.25 5.38720169 0.30769231
3.5 5.67291597 0.28571429
3.75 5.93958264 0.26666667
4 6.18958264 0.25
4.25 6.42487676 0.23529412
4.5 6.64709898 0.22222222
4.75 6.8576253 0.21052632
5 7.0576253 0.2
5.25 7.24810149 0.19047619
5.5 7.42991967 0.18181818
5.75 7.60383271 0.17391304
6 7.77049938 0.16666667
6.25 7.93049938 0.16
6.5 8.08434553 0.15384615
6.75 8.23249368 0.14814815
7 8.37535082 0.14285714
7.25 8.51328186 0.13793103
7.5 8.64661519 0.13333333
7.75 8.77564745 0.12903226
8 8.90064745 0.125
8.25 9.02185957 0.12121212
8.5 9.13950663 0.11764706
8.75 9.25379234 0.11428571
9 9.36490345 0.11111111
9.25 9.47301156 0.10810811
9.5 9.57827472 0.10526316
9.75 9.68083882 0.1025641
10 9.78083882 0.1
10.25 9.8783998 0.97560976e-1
10.5 9.97363789 0.95238095e-1
10.75 10.0666611 0.93023256e-1
11 10.1575702 0.90909091e-1
11.25 10.2464591 0.88888889e-1
11.5 10.3334157 0.86956522e-1
11.75 10.418522 0.85106383e-1
12 10.5018554 0.83333333e-1
1 Year Average 0.21878865
100 Year projection using this +1/x INCREASE of the "average" = 21.8788653
______________________-------------------
True function = ln(12)==>2.48490665
in 100 years with the true function of the +1/x INCREASE the right result is ln(100)= 4.60517019
and not 21.8788653 or 25.860089

I showed You all that already before...: right here...they do EXACTLY the same "computer model" ****-up with CO2 & and the % Absorption CO2 actually does have,...**** I must have done THOUSANDS of IR-spectroscopy analysis over the span of my working life..I can spot fuckups like that in less than a heartbeat..

See how fucked up things get using an "average" and extrapolating...and 100 years ahead to boot...

Mind You if we did have a REAL climate EQUATION...it could compute it just as accurate as making 3 shells fired out of one barrel land all at EXACTLY the same time on a target way over the horizon.


Just be a little more careful, trying to impress me with your "REAL SCIENTISTS"...Okay !
I can speed read in 3 languages, taking page snapshots like Your PC takes screenshots and write down days later letter for letter what was on the pages ...so it`s no bother at all for me to read EVERYTHING you use a reference here...by the time Your brain registers what it said on a traffic sign I can read a page of fine print and translate it to 2 other languages as well..including NAZI German...the language which "was forbidden in Your home"...
You know while we had the liberals in Ottawa, they "created" tons of jobs for all kinds of Enviro wacko "bird counters" (..we called them) ******* up everything from logging to Oil exploration...sure it got a lot of dim-wits off the welfare recipient rolls with instant "science Enviro-quacko-degrees"...
This was their "Al-Gorakle"...ever heard of him..."Old Rocks"...You must read up..!...You absolutely will fall in love,...he`s gay too...it would be a match made...I won`t say in Heaven, because I`m a Nazi straight from hell...but You never heard of him...:

All he did study was how often Mosquitoes ****...that`s how he got his PhD...then he started mouthing off about CO2 spewing and ice melting cars + throwing climatology buzz words like "Planck`s + Schroedinger equations" around, yet had no ******* idea about Math, Physics or Chemistry...Suzuki Motorcycles considered changing their brand name, because they were so embarrassed, that this moron had the same name...
But he`s got "Enviro-science awards" to the kazoo...
It was all quite funny to watch...I did`nt give a shit because I was with the military...but assholes like him made welfare recipient out of a lot of highly educated people...and it` ain`t as if the world has no need for them...Engineers have it downright easy to go somewhere else...we get snapped up...I doubt the "glow-ball-warming" bird counters will find gainful employment anywhere on this planet once people start scrutinizing the kind of quack these assholes publish..
REAL SCIENCE does`nt run to CNN or newspapers when they get a break through...they keep it a secret and even in the patent description we are coy with the "minor details" that a copy cat would have to know...that`s in the public sector...You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA...what real scientists who work in the military sector do know...
We`ld get a minimum of 10 years in jail bragging to CNN.
Well, we dirty Oil-corrupted Canadian engineers have the last laugh...last week there was a total blow out in our federal elections...and the Liberal Party got wiped right off the political map...and our Prime Minister has won for the first time in modern History a Conservative Party (=right wing to U.S. demo-assholes)...MAJORITY governemnt and he is right from the heart of Alberta,...where the world`s second largest Oil fields are...
So, the update on the Kyoto accord in Canada can be summarized to.:

So from now on these gay NDP, Green Party and the Liberal Party can veto all they want...even if they do it as a block...they are shit out of luck...
Alberta Tar-sands is wide open for business now..and the pipe lines will run straight into the heart of Texas...
Get in the way, Oh baaah mama and You`ll experience a whole new meaning what "road kill" is...Texas & Alberta style,....!!!

 

[polarbear]

Well, yes, the predictions are highly uncertain, because, as the article stated, the ice continues to melt far faster than even the worst case scenerious presented by the scientists. And I think that they are underestimating the sea level rise by at least a meter. Quite possibly a lot more than that. We don't know all of the feedbacks that are in action yet.

Interesting. You and yours claim that the ice is melting faster than ever but the US Navy PIPs2 data shows that since 2008, the area of 2.5+ meter thick ice has nearly doubled. NSIDC also shows that the amount of multi year ice has increased substnatially since 2008.

I guess your numbers are, once again, the result of computer models as opposed to actual observations.

By the way, 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick in Chicago. What do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt?

The conditions in the Arctic are well within the norm for the past 5000 years. You can relax, the sky is not falling. Just remember, for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at one or both of the poles. On earth, ice is the anomoly, not the norm.

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

Every time I stick these pictures in his face he either shuts up & disappears, or he side steps it trying to make these typically wit-less liberal insults, which are supposed to bother me...

Show him what`s really on the ground on Greenland along the Nares Strait he sticks his head in his shit pile...
I have yet to see one "Climate Scientist" even acknowledge that Fort Conger exists...:

In 1876 ships that were not icebreakers could sail all the way up the Nares Strait and Fort Conger was their base camp for Polar exploration...:

If You Google for it they won`t tell You much about it, only garbage like that because of "global warming" the wood is decaying...

You read that and You`ld think that`s the only Wood along the Nares Strait, almost all the way up to Thule airbase along the Nares strait You keep tripping over huge Tree- trunks, when we dig them up, they still have the roots on them..:

And these Trees were HUGE...!!!!

Look how pitiful small the God`s of Climatology tree is in comparison...:

Where he claims tree growth-rates were way slower before we burned gas.

He could go up to Thule and get a sample of these trees from there any time he`d want to...but in the world of climate science there were never any forests just a few Chopper hours south of the North pole...

And I mean FORESTS...there are lots and lots of these trees and the left overs from Viking/Norsemen Camp sites..this one is just outside Thule:

We call them "Thule Rings"...The Vikings buried the Muscox they killed under "Old Rocks"... these were Fred Flintstone food staches...they are all over the entire area there...as close as ~ 500 mile from the pole...
Some still have skulls, bones and charred wood in these rings.

We really get around all over Greenland, out the ice sheet, to the pole etc etc...
it`s our job...we are sort of the "cable guys" for all the Mil-Sat relay links which run from there all the way to the Pentagon...:
well further south some is fiber optic, digital re- re and re- encrypted to the hilt...
But us "dumb bi-polar cable guys" have access to the raw data before we send it south

None of these "Climatologist Arctic Experts" have ever even been near these rings, or know about all these trees all along the Nares Strait...actually they can`t...the entire stretch is a no-go zone for civilians...because of our equipment, which is all over the place up there

Once in a while they do a quicky summer Tourism feet fly-over @ 10 000 with a NASA Passenger Jet and TV Camera Crews to film the "melting ice"....where wooden boats used to cruise for centuries...for ***** sake how ******* dumb and ignorant can people get...You don`t need a degree in Math or physics to go to a library and read a history book about the first arctic exploration missions...

Or they could have asked one of us "cable guys"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyZYhobvc4"]YouTube - The Cable Guy - The Future Is Now[/ame]


But that`s beneath them...they have a much higher "Liberal education"...a B.of A. degree how to talk English out the asshole , the Liberal refuge of last resort,..... lame attempts to ridicule or insult the "lesser" folks once these found out that Mr.Buzzword College Graduate is dumber than a fence post..again, "Old Rocks" bastards like You maybe can **** with the concierge, the waitress or the waiter ..
But try and **** with a "cable guy"....?
Even Oh bababaaaah mama know better...:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzt82V-xtfA"]YouTube - Jim "the Cable Guy" Carrey in the "Bathroom Beating" Scene[/ame]


Just as long as You keep just ******* around with the few mentally challenged folks who watch this kind of garbage on cable TV, us "cable guys" don`t really care..
If You can pull it off then these trees are no longer an issue...they vanish from reality and are a "right wing delusion"...they seize to exist in Your climate model retard video game...
If You bastards over do it though, ...Then it`ll start pissung us "cable guys" off...and that would not be a smart move..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A5cIr-8s7w"]YouTube - Cable Guy - Funny how you call when you NEED something.[/ame]


Look where I always got picked up...when my "preferred customer called, our cable is out !!...":
But it was doorstep to doorstep free transport,...although that kind of airline food, `s got to be the shittiest of all..

But aside from that....our "preferred customer" knew better than **** us around,....
don`t **** with the cable guy" Old Rocks"...:



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJR8ZNAnRoM&feature=related"]YouTube - Oh billy[/ame]


Are You really that naive, or just pretending...:....????

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6A5QnnQAUc&feature=related"]YouTube - illegal Cable !!!!! (Cable Guy scene)[/ame]


But if You wanna stick with the game plan and discuss the finer points of REAL science, then count me in..