baraka

No graphs, no proof no nothing. Only words. Your full of air. You're willing to say just about anything no matter what. I guess your take is that this geologist is also incompetant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI Oh well. I guess we can all stay incompetant !

Here we go again... character assasination and defamation. Do you even know why oxygen and nitrogen cannot absorb infrared light known as heat other then by conduction and convection (direct contact). They are symmetrical molecules (O=O and N=N) which means they can’t be polarized. Therefore, no infrared absorption. The atmosphere is composed of 78.08% N2, 20.95% O2, 0.93% Argon, and 0.04% CO2. The rest is trace. Methane is 0.0002% and reacts with hydroxyl radicals (OH) at high altitudes to form water and CO2. So, not only is it insignificant in the atmosphere, it’s lifetime is limited. It’s a non starter for climate change. How can 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere be so miraculous as causing all this heat retention ? It’s a fantasy ! Ten times zero is still zero ! It’s the water vapor in the atmosphere that does the bulk of the heat retention job and the water vapor in the atmosphere is falling down all the time as precipitation. Water vapor does not stay indefinitely in the atmosphere, so, no climate change due to long time accumulation of water vapor isn't possible either. It’s also a myth. What's so hard to understand about that. Now if you are a math graduate then you know what correlation means, so answer the question !

20 cm in 300 years... http://c3headlines.t...33ac485d970c-pi You're just saying anything to distort everything. How about you answer the 2 questions ?

You're also circling the drain by not answering a specific question. You seemed so shure of yourself. Since it's not your job to search then go away. Let it be and stop posting.

So you admit to not being a peer-reviewer, just a forum poster and not being capable of answering the question. To sum it up... You're not a scientist. Thanks

You're still circling the drain not answering the questions ! You're going to end up falling in it. I want your scientific explanation since you are the scientific authority here, not the internet. So please answer the question. I beg of you !

I guess the same goes for you. You really are a real scientist since I’m a simpleton ! So… The European Space Agency has a satellite in orbit with a radar altimeter. So I guess that if they are capable of putting a satellite in orbit with a functioning radar altimeter they must be real good scientists. So Mr. Real Scientist, may I have your scientific expertise explaning these ice data collected over Greenland by the ESA’s satellite ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S_gXUF-nn5I/AAAAAAAABIo/Bwaw4dz1B2s/s1600/ScreenShot1824.jpg

I see that we still have people who can’t answer a 5th grade arithmetic question. All they can do is spread venom, lies, half truths, misinformation, propaganda, defamation, character assassination and ignorance. You say I’m not a real scientist. That tells me that you believe in science and real scientists. Otherwise, why bother calling me a bad scientist ? Since you seem to be in a position to evaluate me as not being a real scientist then that makes you the real scientist. So, Mr. Real Scientist, what are your explanations on these correlations and lack of ? Please answer this question ! http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif

So how can a big chunk of ice have the sea levels rise 50cm when in 300 years of medieval warm period, where temperatures were a full 1C degree higher, had them rise only 20cm ? Mistery ! Oh, answer the previous post question please. Shurely you passed your grade school maths. Otherwise you would not post here, right ?

I don't believe in chemtrails []. They are idioties. Just wanted to be polite to get him to invite someone to discuss solar activity. You dont ask someone something by insulting him. Is that so hard to understand ? []

Is there a moderator on this thread ? If not, I'm out ! I won't accept such misleading disinformation by such ignorant people who only try to destroy and never try to build. It's just not worth the while.

Keep reading lower []... Now look at this route map… https://www.united.c..._2015_10_01.pdf and it's only United Airline routes. All planes from one origin going to an other specific destination, take the same route. So, if any number of planes go north east and some others go north west and have their paths cross each other at some point, given enough planes, you will have a criss crossing of condensation trails. With the Wind displacing these trails, it will look like in your picture. Regards

Here,s my take on it and open to discution but not smear... OK. People are afraid that the glaciers from Greenland and the Antarctica are going to completely melt away and inundate the world and its coastal cities because of massive CO2 emissions. Lets start with this picture… http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif You can see that the Arctic temperatures are very closely related to the Arctic Geomagnetic field and have absolutely no correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, Mars and the moon dont have an atmosphere and are unbelievably cold. The earth has an atmosphere with less then 0,05% CO2 in it. Id say that our atmosphere is just about 99,95% oxygen and nitrogen and that the temperatures on earth are more then comfortable. So, Id say that its the oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere, that Mars and the moon dont have, that are the greenhouse effect gases here on earth (convection). Besides, whats so special about the CO2 molecular structure that would make it so greenhouse effect maniac at those concentrations ? Now that we have that CO2 fairy tale out of the way, lets see the bigger picture… From this graphic of the temperature records at the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, we know we had hot spells in the past. http://beyondthespin.weebly.com/uploads/7/6/4/6/7646862/4727068_orig.png In the Minoan period, 3300 years ago, temperatures shot up at some 28,7C. In the Roman period, 2000 years ago, they shot up at some 29,5C, and in the medieval period, they shot up at some 30,5C. During the little ice age, some 350 years ago, they were down at about 32,0C. So, approximately, the temperatures at the GISP2 core historically vary from 28C to 32C. So… If today we can get temperature records from 10000 years ago and beyond from those ice cores, then those glaciers never melted away, despite those hot spells. If the temperatures during those hot spells were in the region of 30C, then it would take a lot more then a mere 5C increase, which never happened since the last ice age, to melt them away and inundate everything. The summit of the GISP2 ice core is right smack in the middle of Greenland at an altitude of 3027m. It will never melt away unless temperatures rise some 30C degrees. Besides, all the global climate change fuss is about that little red line in the lower right hand corner of the graph. We are way below what it used to be ! The Greenland ice sheet is estimated at about 2 850 000 Km3. The total ocean surfaces of the earth is estimated at 361 900 000 Km2. This means that if all of the Greenland ice sheet would melt away, ocean levels would rise 7,9 meters around the world. Studies of sea levels during the medieval warm period indicate a rise of only about 20 cm (0,2m). http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015433ac485d970c-pi This means that the Greenland ice sheet only lost some 2,5% of its mass, it took more then 300 years and furthermore the temperatures were a full 1C degree higher back then ! I have not taken Antarctica into account yet ! Antarctica is somewhat more south then Greenland is north and is much colder. So, if Antarctica was affected by the warming then it might have been less so. Lets say, a conservative ball park figure, that Antarctica lost only 10% of what Greenland lost due to colder weather. Antarcticas ice sheet is estimated at 10 times the size of Greenlands (26 500 000 Km3). So, 10 times 10% is 1. This means that Antarctica lost at least as much water as Greenland did so that the Greenland ice sheet effectively lost only some 1,2% of its mass to have the seas rise 20cm. How can that be ? They show us gigantic iceberg chunks melt and break away from the glaciers. They say that these glaciers are melting faster then ever before because of the climate warming. It makes for a fantastic propaganda story for their global warming theory because those falling icebergs are so spectacular. What they omit to say is that global warming also makes for greater precipitations and that ice sheets dont just melt away, they also grow. Effectively, the glaciers might be loosing a lot of ice on their periphery at low altitudes (<1500m), but, satellite altimetry measurements show that those ice sheets have grown by more then 20 cm a year at higher altitudes (>1500m) since 2000. So, what the ice sheets lose on their periphery they gain in altitude. All in all, Id say that they are somewhat growing now. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S_gXUF-nn5I/AAAAAAAABIo/Bwaw4dz1B2s/s1600/ScreenShot1824.jpg Thats why Greenland lost only 1% of its ice sheet, in 300 years, during the medieval warm period, and its not going to be any worse this time around ! Did you notice in the graph above that the ice sheet elevation change since 1995 (red line) is rising, meaning more snow accumulation ? Well what do you know ? Right when the suns activity, as measured by sunspot numbers, started to diminish after 1991-1993… https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/image3.jpeg?w=614&h=418 And look whats in store for the near future according to the models… https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/image7.jpeg COLD !!! So… Enough of those catastrophic Halloween global warming hysteria stories ! The warming and cooling of the earth are cycles due to variations in the suns activity. Heres a smoothed out version of it… http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/wp-content/uploads/warming1.jpg This variation in the suns activity has been proven to be tides in the suns plasma caused, among other things, by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn, just like the moon creates tides in the earths oceans. There is nothing we can do about it ! They have and will always be there. Proof you say ? Here you go ! Correlation between temperature anomalies and sunspot numbers… http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0022.jpg In the graph above, the blue line is the observed temperature anomalies and the red line is the calculated temperature anomalies using a mathematical formula which takes into account only sunspot numbers. Pretty nice Huh ! Forget that CO2 hysteria ! Oh ! And notice how temperatures have started to come down since about 2009, just like the models say ! Oh ! I almost forgot ! Plants need that CO2 to live. The more the merrier. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that plants grow faster. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. More CO2 in the oceans means more plankton and therefore more food for fish and sea mammals. But hey ! Dont tell anyone ! So, please, let us stop all those nasty chemicals like sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, smoke, dust and other solid materials like plastics, just to name a few, from being released into our environment. They are really damaging. But, water vapor and CO2 coming out of industrial stacks are harmless. Let It Be ! Trying to eliminate or reduce CO2 wont change a thing for climate change is preordained like the models have proven. Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax Pierre Bernier M.Sc. Chemistry

And why am I not surprised, I Wonder ?

Why do I have that funny feeling that you are spewing out all that rage and hate because you are being payed by those same bankers ?

Oh my God, were spewing way too much CO2 in the atmosphere. The temperatures will rise to an intolerable height ! No they wont. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures only logarithmically, half of what it would normally be if linear. Yes but we are expelling more CO2 at an exponential rate. Isnt that going to make the temperatures go up linearly ? It would but we have sinks on earth that absorb both CO2 and heat exponentially. They are increased vegetation and oceans. So, the increase will still be logarithmic ! Yes but isnt that bad just the same ? Yes but anything real growing exponentially cant go on for ever. At some point they either plateau, like all economies, or they come crashing down before reaching infinity. But will that point in time come too late ? Not shure ! Is there anything we can do to stop it ? Yes ! Let all the governments make it so hard and costly to burn Carbon that all economies will have crashed. Then, nobody will burn carbon and everything will return to normal ! In case somebody did not notice... It's a satire !

I think I have done so more then once by expaining in full details the scientific thaught process. Accepted until proven false, no if's or but's, much like the statistitian's process.

Still you're swirling around the pot. I asked you a specific question and you still did not answer. Given that there is a strong correlation between arctic temperature anomalies and the arctic geomagnetic field, and none with the CO2 level in the atmosphere, what is you professional math graduate opinion on these correlations ?

Well, well, well, Another gratuitous comment ! As if it never went up quikly before. Geez. Please open up your eyes if not your mind !

Right you are. But let's not forget this... http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png From this graphic of the temperature records at the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, we know we had hot spells in the past. In the Minoan period, some 3300 years ago, temperatures shot up at some –28,7C. In the Roman period, 2000 years ago, they shot up at some –29,5C, and in the medieval period, they shot up at some –30,5C. During the little ice age, some 350 years ago, they were down at about –32,0C. So, approximately, the temperatures at the GISP2 core historically vary from –28C to –32C. So… If today we can get temperature records from 10000 years ago and beyond from those ice cores, then those glaciers never melted away, despite those hot spells. If the temperatures during those hot spells were in the region of –30C, then it would take a lot more then a mere 5C increase, which never happened since the last ice age, to melt them away and inundate everything. The summit of the GISP2 ice core is right smack in the middle of Greenland at an altitude of 3027m. It will never melt away unless temperatures rise some 30C degrees. Besides, all the global climate change fuss is about that little red line in the lower right hand corner of the graph. We are way below what it used to be, and we're not talking 65 million years ago ! Plus, that green downward sploping line seems to be a second order least square fit of the temperature data. We are going down. What a useless fuss !

Still you haven’t answered my questions. All you are doing is throwing around red herrings to distract everyone. I’ve explained the scientific process and that a non disproved model should be accepted until a better model can be found. Any statistics major will confirm that. Describing something with SINES and COSINES will work fine if what you are trying to model is circular and has constant radial speed. Unfortunately, that is not the case with our planets circling the sun (I’ll leave the explanations to astronomers). Nonetheless, let’s try… One of the simplest of simplest models out there is Vukcevic’s, using only Jupiter’s sideral and Jupiter/Saturn synodic periods… http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GrandMinima.gif You’ll notice that the highs don’t always fit exactly in height and intensity with the actual SSN. That is to be expected from a so simple model. But, what you can notice is that the time frame of the lows in the model match perfectly well with known cold spells this earth has known. They were so evident that people even gave them names ! Historians have written about them and here comes the good part… Carbon14 activity analysis (by chemists) prove that these cold spells have really existed… https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg And have a pretty good correlation with Vukcevic model. So, given that the correlation of the arctic temperatures have no correlation whatsoever with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (see previous post), that SSN seem to be related to temperature anomalies on earth (see previous post) and that a so simple planetary mathematical model can explain the periodic low SSNs and the cold spells our planet has known, I’ll accept the theory of the movement of the planets around our sun to be the cause of our temperature anomalies, until proven wrong of course. So… I ask you again… What is you take on all these correlations, in your professional math major opinion of course ? By the way... <if this hypothesis was able to recreate the historical record it would have been published by now.> It was in the carbon14 analysis.

You did not answer my question. So, lets start again. When you have a set of data and want to figure out what they are you start by elaborating a theory. From that theory you elaborate a mathematical formula from which you can generate data. If the generated data has no correlation with the observed data the theory is rejected as false. If the 2 sets of data has a high degree of correlation then you accept that the theory is right. Mind you I said accept, not proven. There is a difference between accepting a theory because you cant disprove it and saying that it is proven. Now, as for the correlation between SSN and temperature anomalies… TA= the predicted Temperature Anomaly Cos = the cosine in radians, * = multiplication, ^ = exponent operator, Σ = summation, a,b,c,d,e = constants TA= d*[Σcos(a*SN)-Σb*SN^c]+e From month 1 to the present. The calculation starts in January of 1880. The correlation was made using a non-linear time series least squares optimization over the entire data range from January of 1880 to February of 2013. The Proportion of variance explained (R^2) = 0.8212 (82.12%) The Parameters for the equation are: a= 148.425811533409 b= 0.00022670169089817989 c= 1.3299372454954419 e= -0.011857962851469542 f= -0.25878555224841393 The summations were made over 1598 data months therefore use all the digits in the constants to ensure the correlation is maintained over the data set. Now contrary to what has been said, this is not a fly in the wind 5th degree polynomial fit and it follows exactly what was said before, the scientific protocol. So I ask you again… As a math graduate, knowing the meaning of correlation, what is you professional take on these correlations ?

Ever red that before... You were rude to me in a Forum message in mid-November, stating I had no profile. At the time, I did not realize there was such a thing. I since have learned you are naturally rude and vulgar, so therefore I am not surprised by what you said. I had expected an apology, but only gentlemen do that. With sincerest wishes, I hope I never see your name again. Miranda Miles (Meliora2) And this... Remember the good old days, when *****tards like Al_U_Card and Lukewarm were isolated on AOL? It's in your profile !

I would not want to look pretencious indeed and the last thing I want is to insult anyone, which was done to me. So, if you and Helene are math graduates then surely you can appreciate what correllation and lack of correlation means... http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif No correlation with CO2. High correlation with geomagnetic field. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0022.jpg High correlation between sunspots and temperature anomalies. So, what is your conclusion in your humble opinion may I dare to ask Sir ?

You don't even know who I am ! So I take it that this is a hate post.