 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Apr 10 - 06:57 AM "Most of the research on global warming or climate change is objective." Now THAT's a hell of an objective judgement. I could ask - show me the money (just which results are objective and which are not - ALL of them).... but.. The Ozone hole, sea rise, etc... oh, what the hell, I'm going to bed... Well at least I seemed to have stopped the totally fuckwit "this example that I like (which is actually predicted by the Science) seems to disprove it from my misunderstanding of it, so that disproves it all" sort of non-scientific nonsensical garbage... for the moment... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Apr 10 - 04:05 PM Who claims that? The real experts are well aware of the variables. read this... (Google it). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 8350–8353, August 1997 Colloquium Paper This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled ''Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change,'' organized by Charles D. Keeling, held November 13–15, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Tree rings, carbon dioxide, and climatic change GORDON C. JACOBY* AND ROSANNE D. D'ARRIGO Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY 10964 Only the Dunning-Kroger effect crowd ever claims that anyone claims that. Those outside the science constantly think they have found the big flaw, the obvious thing that the experts overlooked. They think this only because they are so darn far behind in the science that they don't know how much they don't know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM "...when confronted with several tree ring data sets, a "researcher" chose the set that reinforces the existence of global warming rather than average them all out or rejecting the extremes." That seems to be true, but it is more complicated. The assumption is that tree rings are wider in warmers years and narrower in colder ones. Actually, the tree growth (as reflected by growth ring size), can change due to rainfall, nutrient availability, temperature, and probably CO2 level plants take in as part of the cycle of photosynthesis. Claiming that it is solely an indicator of global temperature is not science, it is politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Apr 10 - 10:20 AM "Foolestroupe has a valid point. His posting is in the form of a discussion as opposed to personal attacks. Bravo. "Inductive: Attempts to discover 'new' things." I believe this is called a hypothesis. When a hypothesis is formed an attempt is made to prove or disprove it. However it could be subjective research or objective research. Most of the research on global warming or climate change is objective. The research is to prove global warming or climate change exists rather that to find out if it does or does not exist. For example, when confronted with several tree ring data sets, a "researcher" chose the set that reinforces the existence of global warming rather than average them all out or rejecting the extremes. Therefore his research was subjective rather than objective like GWBs WMD research that ignored any evidence that there were no WMDs. To further obfuscate the issue, the researcher blocked access to the data and methods he used for 10 years. Why would an objective scientist do that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:40 PM "a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming]" There are so many different techniques, each intended for particular purposes. I'm no expert in that field, but IF the effect you are tracing IS accelerating, then THAT technique HAS ALWAYS been recommended to analyse it BECAUSE IT BRINGS OUT THE CHANGE. Doh! SO - anyone criticising use of that technique is already prejudiced that the effect is NOT speeding up ... Doh! Now ""It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the report concluded." Now THAT is a rational statement.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 15 Apr 10 - 09:26 AM Global warming graph attacked by study By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51 A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as "exaggerated" on Wednesday by the UK's leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years. Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using "inappropriate" methods. "It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming]," he said. The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the "Climategate" e-mail scandal had behaved "honestly and fairly" and showed "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice". The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data. Although Wednesday's report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK's prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit's scientists, it criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics. "It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the report concluded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM Amos, Apologies accepted. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM Bruce: Apologies for not looking closer when you first posted it, you old grump. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:02 PM Ah Amos.... The problem with those who have made little effort/progress in Science is - as I said just recently, it uses Inductive Reasoning [not indisputable 'facts' whispered in their ear by some personal magical invisible sky fairy, and from which all further 'facts' are generated by Deductive Reasoning], which is just a bunch of best guesses and subsequent tests, and it always keeps moving on. Since even those at the cutting edge in an area of Science need to run flat out just to keep up with the pack, what can you expect from those with little or no training in the specific fields who get most of their obsolete info from people who are out of touch and don't understand things, and often are driven by primal fear or may even have a financial motive to make sure that no one else understands either. Consider Galileo - the Church won at the time by bully tactics, but someone finally realised that they were now 600 years behind the times. Of course it did begin to be a little bizarre when the Pope was asking the world to pray for the three guys in danger in a damaged capsule in space, when what they were doing was based on the very idea that the Church had spent 600 years fighting... :-) I'm not making this up you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:32 PM Seems to me, as a matter of general reason, that there are large fundamental shifts that may have defined the ranges of global temperature in epochs; but as far as I know the only epochal event we have going on in the last 2,000 years or so is the explosion of mankind and his expanding influence over all other life forms and environmental forces. But I am no expert on epochal factors, that's for sure! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:08 PM sorry- no cookie Amos, "Your argument appears to have some merit. This graph for example has a trend that is consistent with the planetary temperature trends I have linked to elsewhere." Hmm. That is one of the graph's I pointed out a year or so ago, that you stated had no bearing on the GW issue. As it shows, solar OUTPUT is now greater than the Medieval Maximum- with occurred at the start of the Little Ice Age that caused the failure of the Greenland colonies. If you look at the other charts I pointed out back then, you will see that the last 20,000 years have been anomolous compared to earlier times- Going to blame THAT of human effect as well? To expand, the period of the Ice Ages were a LOW TEMPERTURE period of severl hundred thoudand years- compared to a HIGHER TEMPERTURE period of several hundred MILLION years. Which would you call the norm for the Earth, and why are you complaining about the CLIMATE going back to what it was for the vast majority of time- HOTTER than the LAST 130 years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:33 PM Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors by Dr. Sallie Baliunas September 17, 1996 The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth. --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics The possible outcomes resulting from the predicted rapid and dramatic rise in global temperature deserve serious thought. What are the scientific facts in support of the claim that human-made global warming will be significant (i.e., larger than the natural fluctuations of climate) and even possibly catastrophic? How is it known that computer simulations of the climate, forecast 100 years into the future, are accurate? One starts by testing the computer simulations against the record of temperature change of the last 100 years. In the last 100 years, the global average surface temperature of the earth has risen about 0.5 C. Also during that interval the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere. The increase in concentration is roughly equivalent to a 50% buildup in carbon dioxide alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test the computer simulations of climate change due to greenhouse gases from human actions. That is, by studying the temperature response to the 50% increase over the last 100 years the computer simulations can be tested against the actual response of the climate. The computer simulations say that the global temperature should have risen in the last 100 years by roughly 0.5 - 1.5 C (aerosols, whose theoretical effect is included in that range, will be discussed below).While the magnitude of the rise, as post-predicted by the computer simulations, seems to agree with the observed temperature rise of 0.5 C, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming. The record of global temperature (Chart 1) shows that most of the warming of the last 100 years occurred before 1940. But most of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere after 1940. Human-made greenhouse gases cannot cause a warming that took place before they existed in the atmosphere. Therefore, most of the 0.5 C rise must be natural. Only a small part of the 0.5 C rise -- no more than a few tenths degree -- could have been caused by human-made greenhouse gases. In other words, the 0.5 - 1.5 C warming predicted by the computer simulations exaggerates the greenhouse effect produced by the equivalent 50% buildup of carbon dioxide. The solar influence If the anthropogenic greenhouse gases did not cause most of the warming early in the century, then what did? One possibility is that the total energy output of the sun changes, thereby causing some warming and cooling. The evidence for this is in two parts: first, the sun has been observed by NASA satellites to vary in total energy output in step with the 11-year sunspot cycle of magnetic changes in the sun. Although the satellite records only began in the late 1970s, which is too short a time to obtain information on century-long climate variations, the association of brightness changes with surface magnetic changes allows us to obtain information on the sun's brightness changes going back several centuries, because records of the sun's magnetism are available over that long period. The length of the sunspot cycle is a particularly interesting proxy for changes in the sun's brightness. Chart 2 compares the sunspot cycle length with surface temperatures going back to 17501. The correlation is nearly perfect. The second part of the evidence for a solar influence on the climate is as follows. The sun's magnetic record can be converted to estimated brightness changes, using data from the sun and other sunlike stars, and input to a climate simulation. The results for the sun's changes are shown in Chart 3 for the years 1880-19932. If the sun has changed brightness in the way the magnetic records have indicated, then changes in sun explain more than half of the variance of the temperature record from 1880-1993. The results for the sun suggest that its brightness changes have had a significant impact on climate change. A brighter sun may be the explanation for a substantial part of, and possibly most of, the 0.5 C global warming observed in the last 100 years. Aerosols Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide complicate predictions of global climate change. Aerosols form a haze that absorbs or reflects sunlight causing a cooling that offsets some of the predicted greenhouse warming. Aerosols may also alter cloud properties. Studies3,4of the response of climate change to aerosols are based on computer simulations. The theoretical effect of aerosols has been to cool the climate forecasts (Chart 4)3, both for the present and the future, and bring the computer forecasts more in line with the recent global temperatures. (However, allowing for the theoretical cooling effect of aerosols cannot explain the observed warming prior to 1940.) The modeled effect of aerosols does not change the conclusion that the computer simulations of climate are greatly exaggerating the size of the greenhouse warming. Regional results and the "fingerprint" studies -- "Pattern" studies3,4 of anthropogenic greenhouse gases with the added effect of aerosols are considered in ensemble, region by region, and with height. They form the basis for the claim that the anthropogenic effect on climate has been detected5. But checking the forecasts in specific regions shows instead that the simulations fail to agree with observations. For example, two regions where the aerosol effect should be verified are heavily-industrialized Europe and North America (Chart 4) 3. There the aerosol effect worsens agreement of the computer simulations with the temperature observations. Moreover, the combined greenhouse plus aerosol model can be tested with data from the region where the computer simulations predict the most warming, namely the troposphere over the southern oceans6. That test (Chart 5) shows no net rise in temperature from 1958 to the present. Satellite temperature measurements NOAA satellites have been measuring the temperature at a height of a few kilometers in the atmosphere essentially over the entire earth since 1979. 7 These records have smaller systematic errors than the surface records, which, unlike the satellite records, come from a variety of instruments, techniques and measurement histories, and whose coverage is sparse over large areas like the southern ocean. The very precise satellite record shows no net warming over the last 17 years -- contrary to the forecasts calculating the effect of the recent rapid increase in human-made greenhouse gases. Temperature in the Arctic Most computer simulations also post-predict a major, rapid warming in the Arctic, especially in the winter. The temperature record in the Arctic is thus a very sensitive test of the computer simulations. But over the last 50 years no net warming of the surface has been observed. The simulations also post-predict that the Arctic should have warmed by a degree or so in the last 17 years, the period during which satellites have made precise readings of the Arctic. Over the periods under study, the average temperature of the Arctic has not warmed. In the test of the Arctic records the computer forecasts exaggerate, by a very large amount, the warming that should have occurred. Error budget and uncertainties in the computer simulations Apart from the possible uncertainty of a significant solar variability effect in global climate change, there are other major uncertainties in the computer simulations. These uncertainties are demonstrated by the fact that simulations of the present-day climate differ from one another by 5 C in the tropics (and nearly 20 C in the polar regions).8 Water vapor feedback-- The computer simulations rely on water vapor, responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect, to amplify the small warming directly resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases 9 However, this assumption has been challenged.10 After considering the water vapor feedback, Lindzen gives a preliminary estimate of 0.3 C for the global temperature response of an effective doubling of carbon dioxide (without any offsetting cooling by aerosols considered). Without a substantial, positive water vapor feedback, other feedback mechanisms are much less effective in amplifying the effect of increases in the minor greenhouse gases. Magnitude of other uncertainties -- Chart 6 11 shows some of the uncertainties in the climate simulations. Compared to the 4 W m-2 radiative input to the atmosphere for an effective doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide, the uncertainty in the effect of humidity alone is about 20 W m-2. An additional uncertainty of roughly 25 W m-2 stems from calculating the heat flow from the equator to the polar regions12. This gives rise, finally, to area-by-area "flux adjustments" of up 100 W m-2 in some areas of the coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations. (Additional uncertainties in cloud physics are not discussed here). Summary No evidence can be found in the observations of the global temperature for a dangerous warming derived from human actions. The computer simulations of climate, which estimate a warming of roughly 1 C over the last 100 years, have overestimated the warming that has actually occurred by a factor of three or more. The same computer simulations projecting for the next 100 years (the time frame cited for the equivalent of a doubling of carbon dioxide) must be corrected for these overestimates of past warming. When corrected, the forecasted warming for the next 100 years is a few tenths C. That warming, spread over a century, will be negligible compared to the natural fluctuations in climate. Furthermore, delaying the onset of drastic emission reductions by as much as 25 years results in a penalty of only 0.2 C in added temperature by 210013, according to the current computer forecasts which are known be exaggerating the warming. Investing in and waiting for better climate science would be appropriate, considering that the IPCC-forecasted warming has dropped by nearly a factor of two just in the last six years. Notes 1 S. Baliunas and W. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical J., 450, 896. 2 W. Soon, E. Posmentier and S. Baliunas, 1996, Astrophysical J., in press, December 1. 3 J.F.B. Mitchell et al. 1995, Nature, 376, 50. 4 B.D. Santer et al. 1995, Climate Dyn., 12, 79. 1996, Nature, 382, 39. 5 "Increasing confidence in the identification of a human-induced effect 6 on climate comes primarily from such pattern-based work." (IPCC, 1996, p. 37, Sec. E.4). 7 P.J. Michaels, P.C. Knappenberger, R.E. Davis and D. Legates, 1996, submitted to AGU Fall 1996 meeting. The most rapid warming is predicted for 30-60o S latitude, at a pressure height of 850-300 mb. 8 J.R. Christy, 1992, Global Climate Change: Implications, Challenges and Mitigation Measures, ed. S.K. Majumdar et al. (Pennsylvania Acad. Sci.), p. 165; J.R. Christy 1995, Climatic Change, 31, 455. 9 IPCC, 1996, Sec.5.2.3.1 10 "This feedback operates in all the climate models used in global warming and other studies." IPCC, p. 200, 4.2.1. However, note: "...[I]ntuitive arguments for [the feedback] to apply to water vapour in the upper troposphere are weak; observational analyses and process studies are needed to establish its existence and strength there." (p. 200, 4.2.1). Also: "Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models." (p. 201) 11 R. S. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech, 26, 353; NAS R. Revelle Memorial Volume, 1966, in press. 12 Adapted from R. Lindzen, private communication. 13 12 "...[W]ithout knowing the dynamical heat fluxes, it is clear...that one cannot even calculate the mean temperature of the earth." (Lindzen 1996, ref. 10) 14 13 T.M.L. Wigley et al. 1996, Nature, 379, 240. Testimony presented on September 17, 1996 to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 02:06 PM The United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), found that in 2009: * global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record as +0.56°C (+1.01°F) above the twentieth century average * the 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average, * ocean surface temperatures (through December) tied with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest on record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average, and * and surface temperatures through December tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Greg F. Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:37 PM Keep it up, PeeDee- anything you say three times is true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:30 PM There is absolutely no correlation between solar flares, solar wind or sunspots, and the total energy output of our Sun. There is absolutely no correlation between CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and the Earth's ambient air temperature a few feet above land. There is absolutely no correlation between the tiny 1o F rise in ambient temperature seen since the Great Irish Potato Famine and 1995, with anything the Man has done. There is absolutely no correlation between the volume of pro-GW propaganda and science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM Sawz: The word "global" has two distinct meanings which you should differentiate between. One means referring to the globe. The other means throughout an entire system or frame of reference. Bruce: Your argument appears to have some merit. This graph for example has a trend that is consistent with the planetary temperature trends I have linked to elsewhere. It is not as closely correlated as the CO2 graphs I have also linked to but it does align with the general trend. I don't think we have all the data though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 12:33 PM Dear Bruce: If no-one felt there was such a hypothesis it seems odd anyone would bother making a story of its refutation, no? Additionally, are you saying that the sun's output is independent of solar flares and sunspots? Doesn't it strike you they would be coupled? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM (sorry- previous was really me) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beRDEDBRUCE Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:35 AM Amos, Repeating your erroneous posts will only force us to remind you that you havew already been challanged, and failed to substantiate your post. Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM Amos, You miss the entire point. IT IS NOT SOLAR FLARES. NO-ONE CLAIMS IT IS SOLAR FLARES. The claim put forward to negate human causation of global warming is that the sun's OUTPUT ( since it is a variable star) has increased, as demonstrated by the larger (observed) melting of the Martian icecaps, and the significant change ( after over 300 years of observation) to the charecteristics of the Red Spot on Jupiter ( as well as global warming on Earth). When you find information relating to this ( solar output variance cycles of greater than 300 years, please post them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:23 AM Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature April 7, 2010 By Lisa Zyga (PhysOrg.com) In contrast to a previous analysis, a new study has shown that the distributions of (a) the global temperature anomaly by month since 1880 and (b) the solar flare index by day over a few solar cycles are fundamentally different. One feature the detrended data do have in common is self-similarity: the probability density functions are the same on different time scales, which means that neither can be described as Lévy walks. The field of climate science is nothing if not complex, where a host of variables interact with each other in intricate ways to produce various changes. Just like any other area of science, climate science is far from being fully understood. As an example, a new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth's global temperature. The new study points out a few errors in the previous analysis, and concludes that the solar and climate records have very different properties that do not support the hypothesis of a sun-climate complexity linking. In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. Solar flares, which are large explosions in the sun's atmosphere that are powered by magnetic energy, vary in time from a few per month to several per day. Although solar flares occur near sunspots, their frequency variation occurs on a much shorter time scale than the 11-year sunspot cycle. In their studies, the researchers' results seemed to show that data from solar flare activity correlates with changes in the global temperature on a short time scale. Specifically, their analysis showed that the two time records can both be characterized by the same Lévy walk process. However, in the new study, which is also published in Physical Review Letters, Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. For instance, the solar cycle has its 11-year periodic trend, where periods of lots of sunspots cause larger numbers of solar flares. Likewise, the global temperature anomaly has numerous other factors (a "multi-decadal, polynomial trend") that impacts global temperature fluctuations. By not detrending this data, the analysis resulted in abnormally high values of certain variables that pointed to Lévy walk processes. By estimating the untrended data, Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:39 PM Yes, but let's not Leave out the natural cycles! Foolestroupe, I've been 'awake' about the shenanigans of our political 'representatives' for a lot longer than you are aware. Let's not assume and project your late awakening on to everyone else! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:16 AM Have pity Snail - you want him never to come back? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:09 AM Here's a bit of light reading for you, Sawzaw - Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Come back when you've read and understood it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:43 AM "You'd think that if the world was getting hotter, and Australia being an island/continent, you'd think it should be getting more humid" Another proof of your ignorant foolishness. It's called "El Nino" - Google is your friend - and has been incorporated in the full Climate Change Theory. As we Aussies are seriously impacted by it (unlike Yanks!), we learn about it... (unlike Yanks)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:18 AM OK a few typos, I'm tird - if you cannot make proper sense out of it, I'll repost with the obvious corrections and ask the mods to delete the previous post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:15 AM "Up here we have crackpot politicians who are using the issue for their personal gain..which is not cool....some people get 'hot' about it." Which is why Aussies refer to 'arrogant ignorant Yanks' rather interrogatively... BTW, when some people were breaking bones and teeth and spilling blood in the 1960's saying "American Govt and Politicians are lying to the world and manipulating US citizens for profit", where were you? Saying those protesters should have their heads kicked in, that'll teach em!!!! :-) So now you have finally woken up and jumped on the bandwagon of distrusting EVERYBODY, you pick one topic that the deniers like you will kill us all with. :-) And, you are being manipulted, as you acknowledge, but by profit makers who will lose money if we do not change our ways. :-) Many posters here are either deliberately trying to confuse - as their puppet masters have decreed, or they CAN NOT understand SCIENCE - or do not want to. :-) I'll explain it once.... Science is based on Mathematics - some of it so advanced and obscure to the layman that even I strain to cope with some of it - and if you know stats - I was tested at age 40 as being 5 standard deviations above average IQ - that is 3 in 100,000 - that's not my fault, that's the way I was born. So if I understand some things that you do not, that's not your fault either. Maths is based on Logic. There are two types of Logic systems - look things up if really want to learn, I'll brief. Deductive Logic and Inductive Logic. Deductive: Works on Absolute facts, such as ... All X are Y, All Y are Z thus All X are Z. All X are Y, some Y are Z, thuse only SOME X are Z. It can only keep reducing the field of discussion, you cannot learn anything 'new'. but things like this do not work Some X are Y, some Y are Z thus All X are Z u.s.w. Inductive: Attempts to discover 'new' things. Science is based partly on this. So we 'make a guess' about things we have not yet proved, and THEN WE TRY TO TEST. We design experiments in whic we try to keep as many variables as we know about fixed, while changing one, and record what happens. If we made a good guess, the results will be in line without prediction. If, not, the results disprove our guess. The THEORY of Global Warming made some guesses, and lo - THE TEMPERATURE WAS NOT RISING EVERYWHERE! (But just because you guys found ONE interesting fact that is RIGHT, that DOES NOT NEGATE THE WHOLE THEORY!) which is why I am not going to be nice anymore about your ignorant babbling! So Science moved on and the Mathematicians said, Ha! as the total energy of the system increases, TURBULENCE increases, making some spots hotter and some spots colder! This is in line with the theory, and ignoramuses like you are NOT DISPROVING the theorey, by finding something the theorey ACTUALLY predicted! :-O You of course are locked into the ignorant past when you THINK that GW/CC means that everywhere shows rising temperatures - which is why, logically you are fools. Endlessly repeating scientific nonsense does not make it true - that's called insanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Apr 10 - 04:40 AM Foolstroup: "Your babbling that misuses terms and smears meanings with whatever YOU want at any moment to prove your point of the moment, is also proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science! People HAVE tried - but you are so clever that you keep denying... you also believe that the Moon Landings are a faked Conspiracy too, doubtless..." Apply that to yourself, because your losing it, pal....calm down. Certain parts are warming, as I pointed out, (1500 miles west of South America), and some are not. Australia, according to you, is. Sawzaw shows different for North America...No need to get nasty and bitchy about it! Up here we have crackpot politicians who are using the issue for their personal gain..which is not cool....some people get 'hot' about it. Up here, we are going through a waking up period for some, for whom some are FINALLY 'getting it'...on how much we have a lot of crooked politicians, who have exploited the 'Global Warming' issue for their personal self-aggrandizement. Along the way, they have deceived a whole lot of people, to gain their support. Gore is just one. Now is you calm down, perhaps re-read some of the posts, you will not find others are half as belligerent as yourself. Look into what is being said, instead of re-acting like you are the only one with an 'inside track' on what is going on. Perhaps, Australia IS going through a hot dry spell. A bit of Fosters should remedy that!...for the time being. You'd think that if the world was getting hotter, and Australia being an island/continent, you'd think it should be getting more humid............unless....... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:46 AM "I think that global warming or climate change was supposed to mean that temperatures all over the world have risen" Proof that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE ANNOYING US WITH! Science moves on, incorporating new discoveries that the research into the predictions reveal do not work, so new ideas must be thought of, which feeds back into new theories - DISCARDING THE OLD ONES!!!!!. You have now revealed that you are out of touch with Science, and just a stupid fool babbling old outdated ideas which 'The Science' has moved past. And as I said, this reeks of Insanity - one diagnosis of which comes from refusing to accept reality, but insisting that your own stupid irrational ideas - which once MAY have been thought correct are now wrong. You want to keep bullying us that your outdated nonsense is the way that EVERYONE ELSE should think! Science once believed in a magic substance that took part in combustion, now combustion is understood to have nothing to do with that, it involves the process of 'oxidation' (look it up!) - now anyone who tries to seriously bullshit about the old theory 'being true' may just get locked up! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:34 AM "You criticize those, such as Sawzaw, because you say he is only reflecting his views, based on the FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures, and you say it is localized to him, not globally .........then you turn around and say that because it is warmer to you, in Australia, that is IS global...when it is not..just to you!" The SCIENCE says that localised parts of the world will reflect greater sensitivity - one part SERIOUSLY affected IS Australia! Your babbling that misuses terms and smears meanings with whatever YOU want at any moment to prove your point of the moment, is also proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science! People HAVE tried - but you are so clever that you keep denying... you also believe that the Moon Landings are a faked Conspiracy too, doubtless... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:29 AM "If you look at the chart you will see that in my area " Proof positive that you are an ignorant loud mouth W*anker who CANNOT (and WILL NOT TRY TO) understand the Science! Q.E.D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Apr 10 - 11:22 PM "The FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures," If you look at the chart you will see that in my area there has been no increase in the overall yearly average temperature since 1871. I think that global warming or climate change was supposed to mean that temperatures all over the world have risen because of more CO2 in the atmosphere and will continue to rise until everybody is dead unless money is poured into fixes that may or may not work and stand to monetarily benefit the same "humanitarians" that are spreading this dire warning. Even though this chart is only one weather station, it should show any global warming of the earth. This seems to irritate some people and they feel the need to destroy anyone that disagrees with their views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Apr 10 - 10:09 PM Not really...insisting on something that isn't true, over and over again and and doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is, though........ You criticize those, such as Sawzaw, because you say he is only reflecting his views, based on the FACT that in North America, it has been cooler, than usual temperatures, and you say it is localized to him, not globally .........then you turn around and say that because it is warmer to you, in Australia, that is IS global...when it is not..just to you! 1500 miles east of South America the ocean floor has been heating up, and causing 'unusual' weather patterns, which the call 'El Nino' (pronounced: Ell Neenyo), are you going to claim that to is man made??? These are cycles beyond our control. They affect different places at different times. They should not be treated as a platform for political trickery(read: Al Gore's fraudulent nonsense), to promote his or any political agenda, for their profit!...such as Gore, and others. Frankly, he should be in prison, for the fraudulent crap, he has foisted on us all. Furthermore, he should be made to RETURN the $500,000,000 he received as a result of his criminal behavior. It has been PROVEN that he has based his claims on phony 'science'....that was known to be phony, when he did it!!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM Hey Mr elitist Foolestroupe: You never gave an answer either time. The title of this thread is where is the global warming? You keep parroting something about a farmer. Are you stuck in an elitist groove or something? Inflated with yourself? Rather than answer a simple question, you ridicule the question and make ad hominem attacks on the person that asked the question. Perhaps you can demonstrate your superior intelligence by answering these questions: Which country in the world produces the most CO2? Which country produces the most CO2 per capita? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:07 AM Insanity: asking the same question over and over again and expecting different answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Apr 10 - 03:05 AM "Hey Mr. elitist Foolestroupe: Where is the Global Warming in this chart?" Sadly, you only reveal that you are left behind (perhaps intentionally on your part just so you can have fun ridiculing 'the true believers' - those who are not opportunistic sceptics like yourself). Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change" which emphasises that the EXTREMES are increasing - even the *** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' *** nowadays has recognised that the world has changed, and makes serious plans to grow different types of crops (including changing animal types) more suited to the changing climate in Australia. *** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' *** Aussie Folk lore - The old farmer won the big one - $30 million dollars. When asked what he planned to do with the money he replied "Keep farming till it's all gone!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 Apr 10 - 01:02 AM kendall: "Too many people confuse climate with weather." GfS: "Too many people confuse politics with science."..........when its convenient for their agenda! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM Which country in the world produces the highest total CO2? Which country produces the most CO2 per capita? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:40 PM Too many people confuse bullshit with truth. Global means everywhere on the globe. I suppose this is the only spot on earth that has not seen an average temperature rise since 1871. Not too many cars spewing CO2 back in 1871 and it is supposed to be CO2 that has caused a global temperature spike. Alarmists look at the chart and it shows no rise so their reaction is to heap verbal abuse on anyone that might see it as an indication that Global warming might be hyped. They think they have a civic duty to be nasty to anyone that disagrees with them with ad hominem attacks. Good job on the arrogant nasty comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: kendall Date: 08 Apr 10 - 08:22 PM Too many people confuse climate with weather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:53 PM The chart Sawzall linked to has temperature records for one geographic location. That chart shows a slight (2+ degrees F) rise in average temperature between 1929 and 1949. Back to "normal" now. Many sources report that the warmest period in the last 150 years was between WWI and the end of WW II, a similar observation. To get graphs that perport to show a sharp rise in the period from 1995 to date, the phoney "scientists" at East Anglia spliced data from different location! Totally bogus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:16 PM "Where is the Global Warming in this chart?" Unless it is a *Global* chart, that's a dumb question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Apr 10 - 11:50 AM "Kendall - it's idiots like hime that will be crying for forward thinkers like us to pull them out when the shit hits the fan.... I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-)" Turn off the fan!!!!......It's using electricity...maybe that's your problem!!!! "Anyone who denies global warming is either blind or retarded." "Some people see what thy want to see"...by looking at something else! Oh, and about "I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-)" ......My MY MY!!...How the 'Peace/Love liberal way of thinking has evolved into that!!.....maybe you've been running down the wrong alley!.....You must have gotten wrong directions, by someone who sounded 'logical', and you bought into it!,,,,(Speaking of being,..ummm "either blind or retarded.".....Consider the source! Waving to ya' Peace! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 08 Apr 10 - 11:36 AM Australia experienced its 14th warmest year on record in 2008 following its 6th warmest year on record in 2007. The annual average temperature for 2008 in Australia was 0.410C above the 1961 to 1990 average. Australia's annual average (mean) temperatures have increased by approximately 0.90C since 1910 . (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 4613.0 - Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends, January 2010) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Apr 10 - 10:53 AM Hey Mr. elitist Foolestroupe: Where is the Global Warming in this chart? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: kendall Date: 08 Apr 10 - 07:45 AM Let me know what caliber you want. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:28 AM Kendall - it's idiots like hime that will be crying for forward thinkers like us to pull them out when the shit hits the fan.... I'm seriously thinking of buying a gun to keep them away.... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Apr 10 - 06:10 AM "I suspect the Aussie farmers are dealing with a cycle, if even that" Haha! and you wonder why Aussies ridicule ignorant uneducated loudmouth Yanks like you (you always demand evidence from others - where is your evidence (you don't even LIVE here!) of such a 'cycle'?) who do not even KNOW where many countries in the world are - like their President... We Aussies have lived with drought cycles longer than you personally have. And we have the hard experience in South Australia where a botanist said that north of a certain line should ever not be settled because the average rainfall would not support farms - he looked at the plants, but dickhead profiteering politicians 'opened up the land' in a cycle of higher than average rainfall - all the farmers went broke a couple of years later. The derelict stone farmhouses are now part of the tourist itinerary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,kendall Date: 08 Apr 10 - 04:15 AM The dust bowl was caused by idiotic farming methods that plowed under all the prairie grasses that used to hold the soil. Then the rains didn't come...disaster. Global warming? When I look at my garden and see daffodils, tulips and Lilacs that will bloom before Memorial Day, then I see Cardinals, the state bird of NC, plus Possums, I see global warming! The glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by the end of this decade. Anyone who denies global warming is either blind or retarded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:45 AM Was the Great Dust Bowl 'Climate Change"?...or just a cycle we went through? It lasted about seven years. I suspect the Aussie farmers are dealing with a cycle, if even that....but if you want to believe in 'Climate Change', go right ahead. Hey, instead of voting for or making policy changes for everyone to pay for a new tax or fee, or whatever, why don't you promote you and your friends to make donations..I mean if you REALLY care about your fellow citizens, and their financial well-being,and want to keep them happy, while doing 'good'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:31 AM "GfS: The 'Global Warming' Fad ran out of steam.....but a rose by any other name is still a rose....and that plant is being grown by economists, not scientists, for consumption of the gullible whiners... who think its hip to be full of shit!" Ah! another gullible brainwashed uneducated ignoramus! Aussie farmers in our areas most sensitive to Climate Change gave up taht brainwashed bullshit several years ago - and adopted modern farming techniques that DEPEND on the real Science behind Climate Change :-) |
