So the Oceans are rising are they?

[CrusaderFrank]

I like, Einstein + Frank = Einstein.

Day 22, still no theory, but tons of fake data to prove ManMade Global Warming.

Priceless

What kind of delusional nonsense are you babbling about now, CraaazyFrank?

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."

Another Warmer caught faking data to support the "ManMade Global Warming" Scam

 

[RollingThunder]

Day 22, still no theory, but tons of fake data to prove ManMade Global Warming.

Priceless

What kind of delusional nonsense are you babbling about now, CraaazyFrank?

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."

Another Warmer caught faking data to support the "ManMade Global Warming" Scam

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What kind of delusional nonsense are you babbling about now, CraaazyFrank?

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."

Another Warmer caught faking data to support the "ManMade Global Warming" Scam

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent."

What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group

Translation: We just made it up.

 

[RollingThunder]

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements..."

Another Warmer caught faking data to support the "ManMade Global Warming" Scam

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

Prove it. The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from the initiation of warming till there is an observed increase in CO2. The Medieval Warming Period was around 800 years ago. It is just as likely (if not more so based on the empirical data we do have) that the CO2 increase today is a product of the MWP.

But that would be science.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

Prove it. The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from the initiation of warming till there is an observed increase in CO2. The Medieval Warming Period was around 800 years ago. It is just as likely (if not more so based on the empirical data we do have) that the CO2 increase today is a product of the MWP.

But that would be science.

Things seem "just as likely" to you, walleyedretard, because you're so clueless and completely ignorant about the scientific facts. Isotope analysis shows that the source of the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels.

Isotopic Fingerprints

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

So what?

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that a 100PPM increase in CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Climate.

None.

Not one single experiment.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOLOLOL.....you really are very retarded, craaaazyfrank.

"Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said."

Is that clear enough for you, you silly moron? Actually probably not for you, come to think of it, since you've got your head jammed so far up your ass you can lick your own bellybutton from the inside.

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

Yo Thunder..........I heard that guys who are perpetually angst really like the big butted women.............

Here ya go s0n..............

 

[RollingThunder]

It's clear that you have plenty of tampered data to support your still unstated hypothesis that "almost imperceptible annual increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause cataclysmic disruptions in Earth's climate"

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

So what?

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that a 100PPM increase in CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Climate.

None.

Not one single experiment.

That's your retarded delusion, CraaaaazyFrank, but it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[westwall]

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

Prove it. The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from the initiation of warming till there is an observed increase in CO2. The Medieval Warming Period was around 800 years ago. It is just as likely (if not more so based on the empirical data we do have) that the CO2 increase today is a product of the MWP.

But that would be science.

Things seem "just as likely" to you, walleyedretard, because you're so clueless and completely ignorant about the scientific facts. Isotope analysis shows that the source of the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels.

Isotopic Fingerprints

All that site tells us is the predominant CO2 is carbon 12 or 13 and not 14. It makes the claim that man is the source yet has no data to support it. Mans yearly contribution to the entire planets CO2 budget is less then 5%. What evidence do they use to support their contention?

 

[westwall]

It is clear that you have plenty of brain damage supporting your crackpot delusions. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over preindustrial levels, you flaming moron, which is already causing major disruptions in the Earth's climate.

So what?

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that a 100PPM increase in CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Climate.

None.

Not one single experiment.

That's your retarded delusion, CraaaaazyFrank, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Please show us then, the peer reviewed experiment where a 200ppm increase in the atmosphere will cause the temp increase claimed. Not a computer model, but a real empirical experiment.

 

[RollingThunder]

So what?
There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that a 100PPM increase in CO2 has any effect whatsoever on Climate.
None.
Not one single experiment.

That's your retarded delusion, CraaaaazyFrank, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Please show us then, the peer reviewed experiment where a 200ppm increase in the atmosphere will cause the temp increase claimed. Not a computer model, but a real empirical experiment.

OK, retards, here you go.

Here's one that a teacher designed that you can do yourselves with fairly simple and inexpensive equipment. Since you're both idiots and don't trust actual scientists, your only real 'peers' would be other idiots like yourselves, so do it yourselves.

"I ended up designing a very simple experiment that I’ve used in my astronomy labs since then. Using two 2-liter bottles and a couple of cans of Coca-Cola, I create two environments in the bottles. In one bottle, I pour the Coke in and agitate it within the bottle. In the other case, I agitate the Coke and remove the carbonation before pouring it in. This creates two environments that are identical with the exception that one has nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, and the other has a carbon-dioxide atmosphere. Then, you stopper them and put the two bottles in the sunlight with a thermometer in the stopper to measure the rise in temperature. My classes have consistently obtained results that show the carbon dioxide atmosphere goes up a couple of degrees higher than the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere."

Assuming (good bet) that you're far too retarded to actually do this experiment, here's some other experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

A TEST OF THE EFFECT OF INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE ON THE THERMAL PROPERTIES OF AIR
Department of Geology - Centenary College of Louisiana


The Greenhouse Effect
Practical Chemistry


Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect


Creating a greenhouse gas

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo]YouTube - ‪CO2 experiment‬‏[/ame]

 

[westwall]

That's your retarded delusion, CraaaaazyFrank, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Please show us then, the peer reviewed experiment where a 200ppm increase in the atmosphere will cause the temp increase claimed. Not a computer model, but a real empirical experiment.

OK, retards, here you go.

Here's one that a teacher designed that you can do yourselves with fairly simple and inexpensive equipment. Since you're both idiots and don't trust actual scientists, your only real 'peers' would be other idiots like yourselves, so do it yourselves.

"I ended up designing a very simple experiment that I’ve used in my astronomy labs since then. Using two 2-liter bottles and a couple of cans of Coca-Cola, I create two environments in the bottles. In one bottle, I pour the Coke in and agitate it within the bottle. In the other case, I agitate the Coke and remove the carbonation before pouring it in. This creates two environments that are identical with the exception that one has nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, and the other has a carbon-dioxide atmosphere. Then, you stopper them and put the two bottles in the sunlight with a thermometer in the stopper to measure the rise in temperature. My classes have consistently obtained results that show the carbon dioxide atmosphere goes up a couple of degrees higher than the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere."

Assuming (good bet) that you're far too retarded to actually do this experiment, here's some other experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

A TEST OF THE EFFECT OF INCREASED CARBON DIOXIDE ON THE THERMAL PROPERTIES OF AIR
Department of Geology - Centenary College of Louisiana


The Greenhouse Effect
Practical Chemistry


Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect


Creating a greenhouse gas

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo]YouTube - ‪CO2 experiment‬‏[/ame]

Read what I requested again. You clearly don't understand what I asked. i want to see an experiment that shows a 200ppm increase in global CO2 will do what you all claim. I don't need yet another example of the Ideal Gas Laws in action (which is what these people are doing). Maybe you need to take a chemistry class to figure out exactly what they are doing?

 

[IanC]

I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?

anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?

 

[westwall]

I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?

anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?

Certainly makes sense.

 

[IanC]

still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.

 

[westwall]

still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.

It's all they've got Ian. Even the US Supreme court has figured that out now. The Supremes ruling is the beginning of the end for this crap.

 

[RWatt]

I wonder what the real world experiment of comparing areas with similar latitudes and altitudes but with significant differences in humidity would show in average temperature? CO2 and water vapor are supposed to trap heat so you would think the more humid spot would be hotter, right?

anybody willing to make a prediction? or better yet, find a few examples?

On average I would expect more humid spots to be hotter yes

 

[Old Rocks]

still no predictions on whether similar, close sites that differ in humidity will be warmer or cooler?

surely that is a more realistic and functionable experiment than pop bottles with CO2 concentrations orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.

not even a wishy-washy 'the drier areas will have higher highs and lower lows but its hard to say what the average will be'? or 'the temps will be the same but the higher humidity will make it feel hotter'.

I think it would make a great post-doc paper. perhaps its already been done. if it was done would it get published if the results werent 'right'? I guess we woundnt know, would we?

lots of questions in climate science but all we seem to get are climate model doomsday scenarios and more Mann hockey sticks.

Shit. Even this old millwright knows the answer to that one.

The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation

The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation
The vaporization curves of most liquids have similar shape. The vapour pressure steadily increase as the temperature increases. A good approach is to find a mathematical model for the pressure increase as a function of temperature. Experiments showed that the pressure P, enthalpy of vaporization, DHvap, and temperature T are related,
P = A exp (- DHvap / R T)
where R (= 8.3145 J mol-1 K-1) and A are the gas constant and unknown constant. This is known as the Clausius- Clapeyron equation. If P1 and P2 are the pressures at two temperatures T1 and T2, the equation has the form:
P1 DHvap 1 1
ln (---) = ---- (--- - ---)
P2 R T2 T1

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation allows us to estimate the vapor pressure at another temperature, if the vapor pressure is known at some temperature, and if the enthalpy of vaporization is known.

About 7% more water vapor can be held for every 1 degree C. That is why even in the bone dry desert where the air has a humidity in the single digits in the daytime, at night the temperture drops, and there is dew on the ground in the morning.