Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Chemistry Forum » Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?...

Page 2 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Author

Message

Tom M...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:25 pm

Guest

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e03be8b-7e71-4f27-a0be-927796b78c33 at (no spam) r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 8:17 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

Quote:

d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM

Where are you getting these figures from?

From the church of GW where AG preaches.

John M....

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:55 pm

Guest

On May 7, 9:13 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

On May 7, 11:34 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)
Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous.

It's unfortunate that "the people who really matter" are unable to
provide us a reference to their imagination.

Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall?

Yet not a single one of them can explicate the premise that CO2 can
cause atmospheric warming--not one!

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:05 pm

Guest

"Benj" <bjacoby at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote

Quote:

"Climate change" is a SEPARATE issue from CO2 "causing" AGW!

The issue is anthropogenic climate change. Principally resulting from the
billions of tonnes of CO2 that man is pumping into the earth's atmosphere.

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:18 pm

Guest

Quote:

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

"Cato" <catoni52 at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote

Quote:

hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)

The best curve fit to the data is the line shown. And it has a slope of
2'C per century.

The numerical method used is the standard method used in science. The
line chosen minimizes the square of the distances between the data points
and the line.

"Cato" <catoni52 at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote

Quote:

Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.

But again you are too stupid, or too corrupt to remain on topic.

The denialist claim is that the world is cooling. The data shows
otherwise, and shows them (you) to be liars.

"Cato" <catoni52 at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote

Quote:

Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little

Those are your words... Not mine... Shit Sack.

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:24 pm

Guest

Quote:

"Mike" <n00spam at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

Quote:

What are the odds that the climate models cited by those peer reviewed
papers are based on the invalid assumption of semi-infinite
atmospere?

Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of which
are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
finite thickness.

"Mike" <n00spam at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

Quote:

Oh, you were using a bandwagon appeal instead of the scientific method.
My apologies.

The peer reviewed journal articles provide the scientific method. The
power of science is that there is no need to recreate their method in order
to use their results.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:25 pm

Guest

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote

Quote:

Yet not a single one of them can explicate the premise that CO2 can
cause atmospheric warming--not one!

Well certainly none of them that you can understand.

Because you can't understand a single one. Not one.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:30 pm

Guest

"zdzis1" <zdzis1 at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote

Quote:

Residual standard error: 0.09039 on 8 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.293, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2047
F-statistic: 3.316 on 1 and 8 DF, p-value: 0.1061

which means that there is no evidence for linear trend

Ah you have the program but are too stupid to know how to use it.

A r-squared value of .29 indicated correlation that is not particularly
strong. But then what do you expect with such a small sample size?

Now Shit Sack. Take any line with a negative slope (claimed cooling) and
compute R**2, and the value will be far worse.

So the premise that the earth is cooling is disproved.

And the Denialists are thus proven to be liars..... Again.
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:35 pm

Guest

Quote:

"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote>

Quote:

Where are you getting these figures from?

Why do you need to ask the same questions hundreds of times after they
have been answered hundreds of times?

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

V-for-Vendicar...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:37 pm

Guest

"Tom M" <tmiller at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

Quote:

From the church of GW where AG preaches.

Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair."

Mike...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:14 pm

Guest

On May 7, 10:24 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

Quote:

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?- Hide quoted text -

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

What are the odds that the climate models cited by those peer reviewed
papers are based on the invalid assumption of semi-infinite
atmospere?

Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Ad hominem attack. Yawn.

Quote:

Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of which
are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
finite thickness.

Careful, you but betray your ignorance. Try getting educated. See,
for example,
http://books.google.com/books?id=f75C_GN9KZwC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=%22semi+infinite+atmosphere%22&source=web&ots=-PdXj22sj_&sig=cG91y9etaH6S_519vcElaRG-sl8&hl=en

To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
validity of the Eddington approximation.

The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.

The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
incorrect. The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
about 8%.

Your hand tuned models are junk.

--Mike Jr.

Quote:

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

Oh, you were using a bandwagon appeal instead of the scientific method.
My apologies.

The peer reviewed journal articles provide the scientific method. The
power of science is that there is no need to recreate their method in order
to use their results.

Um, what? Try responding to the actual comment.

Quote:

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN

Oh how my feeling are hurt. Sniff, sob. That will put me in place.
Get a clue.

Thomas Heger...

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:34 am

Guest

consider this -- it remains an alarmist imperative to

Quote:

disassociate falling global temperatures and speculation of a possible
impending "little ice age" with the yellow dwarf star we orbit in
general and the late start of Solar Cycle 24 specifically. For
indeed, if we are moving into another solar minimum cycle and global
temperatures continue to plummet while atmospheric CO2 levels continue
to rise, attendance at Al Gore's Scare-Story-Slide-Shows would quickly
drop to close friends and family only. And with boat loads of very
bad wealth-redistribution "climate change" legislation to pass in
coming the years, a sympathetically alarmed press and populace remain
essential during that time.

I'm trying something with GR and quaternions. From that model follows a
very strange relation to climatic models:
there is a periodic of climatic changes that is related to the movement
of the north pole. That is not the reason but the indicator.
It's quite difficult to explain, but try to imagine a very big tumbling
disk. The day we reach this, its like reaching a horizon and the pole
would flip as we dive onto the other side. That is related to
thermodynamics, so with this process it gets suddenly cold.

Thomas Heger

Whata Fool...

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:41 am

Guest

"John M." <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

==

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)
Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently

People who really matter huh, who are they, never heard of them.

Quote:

- you (and I) are superfluous. Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

Do you mean that Algore should fly to a few more places far and
wide and burn a few more hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel?

Quote:

Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?

There is no science in computers predicting warmer temperatures,
even if there was it will be as warm as it was in what, 1932? WOW!

People have survived temperatures 30 degrees F higher than the
normal summer highs in Europe, and people have survived temperatures
30 degrees colder than normal winter lows in Europe.

It costs a lot less to run an air conditioner than to heat a
house, is that bad? New York City streets will be under water
in 5000 years, count on it, no matter what the temperatures are.

The left seems to be pessimistic about everything, is it the
food they eat, or the lack of faith? Godless socialist scientists
seem to forget the electorate they depend on are very religious,
we will have to wait to see hoe that turns out.

But don't look for any major changes other than the continued
improvements in technology that will help reduce energy use, and
improve life.
That will happen in spite of cooler temperatures, or Algore
screaming and squirming.

Puppet_Sock...

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:07 am

Guest

On May 8, 2:55 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Quote:

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.
Socks

Ouroboros_Rex...

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:12 pm

Guest

"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9a0591f-4f4a-432d-ac2b-bb95bed54d5c at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 2:55 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Quote:

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.
Socks

LOL In 1896? Do tell.

zdzis1...

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:33 pm

Guest

Quote:

And the p value doesn't say that the slope could be zero. Doofus.
Oh, doesn't it? What does it say then? What is the H0 hypothesis for

regression? Please answer and cite your source.

Quote:

Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
is
positive, and negative.

Here you are:

the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
(0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296, 0.03762496)
thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's all we know.

MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

disclaimer:
the linear model is obviously bullshit here, but M-for-Moron's asterisk-
and-o's approach is simply hilarious - linear model just puts it in
prespective

Page 2 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:10 pm Science Forum Index