On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
Sam Wormley
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101155.html
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.
Describe what they want the temperature
to be, and how they manage that.
Sam Wormley
Don't be so silly!
mrbawana2u
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
they need to stop lying.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/[garbage flushed]
=======================================
the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak.
At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate
when they do speak out, that they ignore media
hype and maintain a clinical detachment from
social or other agendas. There are facts and
data that are ignored in the maelstrom of
social and economic agendas swirling
about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases
and their effects are well-known.
Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor,
comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for
nearly 100 years.
It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are
near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not
statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels
to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically
declines with increasing concentration. At present levels,
any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time,
in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934,
not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records
in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year
cycle,
and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling
absolutely
falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling
factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate
Optimum (MCO)
was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny
that fact was at best
bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th
century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and
fallen, including
the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100
years are in
normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly,
rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the
cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-
year lows.
Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing
population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and
property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or
severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme
cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years
extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger
than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice
extent was significantly above the 30-year average.
There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the
last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level
rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten
centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data
and computer programs. The computer programs are the source
of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data.
Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and
inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is
misused by media and in public pronouncements alike.
It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years."
"Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting,
with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask,
"How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979.
And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer
is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling.
Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be
legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000
years.
=============================================================
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which it
provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
JohnM
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
Most of us do, or used to do, science because we enjoy(ed) it. And the
ivory tower metaphor is fairly accurate but is not the whole story.
The enjoyment comes in the form of sharing discovery with one's peers
and colleagues, discussing ideas, etc. That pretty much excludes hoi
polloi from vast swathes of knowledge because of its esoteric nature,
jargon, lack of utility in some cases.
In climatology it seems the average person is able to grasp the
concepts because they are concrete and rooted in everyday experience.
So dumbing down, proffering simplistic explanation and discarding
difficult material become the order of the day, as one can see even
here on alt.g-w
The scientists now face having to engage with people who mostly
haven't as clue. The sort identified in the widely quoted paper by
Kruger, J and D. Dunning "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments" in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. Add in a few micrograms of testosterone and the mixture
is explosive. Science gets bombed back to the stone age.
Claudius Denk
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt.
Yeah, we already knew this.
> The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming.
It doesn't disprove bigfoot either, but that doesn't mean bigfoot is
real.
> Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
We're not attacking science. We're attacking scientific fraud.
Big difference.
RichD
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy
> highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio,
> scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their
> knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
Good point.
Scientists need to better publicize their soviet
system (a/k/a Pravda), whereby anything published
requires approval by the Party, and dissenters
must be declared legally insane, then shipped
to Siberia for treatment...
--
Rich
Dwayne
When will they admit that science is a big conpsiracy by the Marxists
who are on the government payroll?
tadchem
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
press collaboration which has purely political motivations?
=====
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken,
"In Defense of Women", 1922
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
> On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> >> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> >> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> >> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> >> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> >> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> >> science comes under attack.
>
> > Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
> > experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
> > is in a hot box out in the sun.
>
That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.
To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10
meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."
...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Sam Wormley
Would these biases be constant over many decades?
Marvin the Martian
> On Jan 1, 3:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak
>> up
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/
AR200...
>>
>> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
>> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
>> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that
>> in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
>> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond
>> when science comes under attack.
>
> What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
> censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
> press collaboration which has purely political motivations?
I've heard first hand tales of how the government "asked" for particular
papers to NOT be published. The implication was there would be more
funding for other programs if the government request was honored, and
less funding if it was ignored.
Mixing politics with science leads to bad science and tyrannical
politics.
Llanzlan Klazmon
Certainly not for some of the stations that have been encroached on
over time. What would be interesting is to see a summary of the data
just for the stations that they rate as good. They do show one on the
site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
that could be cherry picked.
Bill Ward
Only when the barbecues are lit, the air conditioning is on, or the jet
engines are running.
Realist
news:QbqdnWxFZd1rxaPW...@mchsi.com:
And that they are corrupt, devious members of the world government cabal,
whose real aim is to shift wealth from the West to the "have nots" and to
gain a kind of control or power for themselves they've previously not had.
Green Turtle
news:iNednRT5Tcp7C6PW...@mchsi.com...
>
>> That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
>> blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
>> ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.
>>
>> To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
>> USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
>> errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2� C:
>>
>> Class 4 (CRN4) (error>= 2C) - Artificial heating sources<10
>> meters.
>>
>> Class 5 (CRN5) (error>= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
>> above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
>> lot, or concrete surface."
>>
>> ...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
>> reliable source of surface temperature data!
>>
>> Tom Davidson
>> Richmond, VA
>
> Would these biases be constant over many decades?
>
>
No, and in the cause of Russia, after the wall came down, 1000's of data
stations were lost, and they tended to be cold and rural ones.
And, over time buildings have things like air condition added...
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=837
Or, in the above, the air conditioning exhaust and even a portable BBQ that
rolled outside to cook food next to the temperature sensor...
Why not do a simple study in which your remove all urban tempature stations
and see what hte results are?
Well, here is an 6th grader kid who did this..and the results are no
warming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded
Simple do do..and a amazing video...
Super Turtle
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:
Why sure, did you think government employees
or socialists make haste to fix things that are broke?
Benj
> What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
> censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
> press collaboration which has purely political motivations?
Exactly! Who just wants to be right, when like Algore, just by fudging
your data an opinions a bit to end up on the 'correct" side, you too
can go from failed broke politician to Oscar winning, Nobel prize
scarfing near billionaire. Especially when speaking the truth will
only get you fired and blackballed from working in science for life.
7
All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
had funded the R&D.
It would help if all climate scientists show more transparency
and upload all their emails to public servers so that we
(the public who fund them) can judge them independently of their
contrived fake science.
Holowarming still remains a hoax
--------------------------------
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
Sam Wormley
>
> All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
> and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
> propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
> They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
> had funded the R&D.
>
If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.
jmfbahciv
I was wondering about that. I'm trying to find a spot in my yard
to place a thermometer which will
1. Measure the real temperature and,
2. I need to be able to see it from a window.
There isn't any.
/BAH
TUKA
> On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:
>
>>
>> All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
>> and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
>> propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
>> They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
>> had funded the R&D.
>>
>
> If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
> there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract.
Utter bull. Federal funding doesn't have non-disclosure except for
national security. *Private* funding may introduce non-disclosure,
but often taking federal money negates that.
> This often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
> publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
> the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
> which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
> may be freely shared and often is.
If you can show the contract language you are honoring, then you might
be able to evade FOI requests. If you don't do either, then you are in
violation, aren't you? CRU didn't show either. Still hasn't. Now they
claim "we lost the data".
And more telling, no one has surfaced in the past couple of weeks
suggesting that the raw data is going to be shared. (The release of
their "value-added" data isn't worth the disk it is written on.)
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:
Read the FOI law, isn't it precisely the government
entities that are supposed to be made transparent by
the law, I would assume to prevent a bunch of egotistical
control freaks from doing as they please with public
funds and affecting the rights of the public.
Sam Wormley
Did you read the FOI act?
I M @ good guy
You left out "must not get wet".
I M @ good guy
wrote:
JohnM
Indeed, those are precisely the locations that should be subject to
individual data analysis - using the original records without applying
empirically derived corrections, but instead fitting a specific
regression model containing functional terms known to be contributing
e.g a sinusoid of cycle 365.24 days to allow for seasonality, another
of ca. 11 years to match the solar cycle, etc.
Why aren't the so-called sceptics doing this? I have a good idea why -
they're actually not sceptics at all, they're denialists ;-(
Marvin the Martian
Lame excuse pulled out of a hat.
7
There is no scientific proof you can produce to call
any of your critics denialists. Denialist is a political term.
Unfortunately you are engaging minds trained in science
and you owe it to them to either produce the proof
or at the very least abandon your rants and aim a little
higher with your science.
You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
and string it into a coherent answer.
>> They do show one on the
>> site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
>> that could be cherry picked.
There is no scientific proof that you can produce to prove AGW
science rises above fake science.
Holowarming still remains a fake science
----------------------------------------
JohnM
> JohnM wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:37 am, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip redundant text>
> >> > > To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in
> >> > > the USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to
> >> > > vairous errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:
>
> >> > > Class 4 (CRN4) (error>= 2C) - Artificial heating sources<10
> >> > > meters.
>
> >> > > Class 5 (CRN5) (error>= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
> >> > > above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top,
> >> > > parking lot, or concrete surface."
>
> >> > > ...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
> >> > > reliable source of surface temperature data!
> >> > Would these biases be constant over many decades?
>
> >> Certainly not for some of the stations that have been encroached on
> >> over time. What would be interesting is to see a summary of the data
> >> just for the stations that they rate as good.
>
> > Indeed, those are precisely the locations that should be subject to
> > individual data analysis - using the original records without applying
> > empirically derived corrections, but instead fitting a specific
> > regression model containing functional terms known to be contributing
> > e.g a sinusoid of cycle 365.24 days to allow for seasonality, another
> > of ca. 11 years to match the solar cycle, etc.
>
> > Why aren't the so-called sceptics doing this? I have a good idea why -
> > they're actually not sceptics at all, they're denialists ;-(
>
> There is no scientific proof you can produce
Correct. Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics.
There is no such concept as proof in science - only falsification
works.
> to call any of your critics denialists. Denialist is a political term.
Denialist is a neologism that I dreamed up a few months back.
> Unfortunately you are engaging minds trained in science
> and you owe it to them to either produce the proof
Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
> or at the very least abandon your rants and aim a little
> higher with your science.
>
> You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
> You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
> and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
> You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
> and string it into a coherent answer.
>
> >> They do show one on the
> >> site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
> >> that could be cherry picked.
>
> There is no scientific proof that you can produce to prove AGW
> science rises above fake science.
Correct again. Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and
Mathematics. There is no such concept as proof in science - only
falsification works.
> Holowarming still remains a fake science
Incorrect. There is no such thing. It is another recent neologism, but
not one of mine this time.
> ----------------------------------------
>
> It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
> sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
> from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
>
> Its become a means to an end.
>
> Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
> kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
> we live without any scientific or material proof.
> Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
> The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
>
> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
Incorrect. The actual proportion varies, but for 100% RH at STP it is
around 75%.
So far you have three correct out of five. Not too bad for a
denialist. They usually score in the low tens, if they score at all.
> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> become a major factor to global warming.
> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> to carry heat around the globe.
Incorrect again. The feature that CO2 and H2O molecules share is the
existence of quantised energy levels in their rotations and vibrations
that match long-wave infra-red emitted originating in grey and black
bodies of around 250 - 300 K.
> The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
> a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
> calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
> and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
Using the wrong method (and I agree it is wrong) to determine facts
cannot alter the truth or otherwise of those facts. The evidence for
the climate changing very swiftly is not held by the temperature
records alone.
> A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
> in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover)
Incorrect. You should have quit while you had a 50% score. Now you've
gone and fallen below the pass level.
First of all, the rate you give is unsustainable. In a 12 hour night
the temperature could fall 72 deg., but before that happens it will
be effectively shut down. The nett radiation will become zero. Any
atmosphere will keep its heat much more effectively than the surface.
Secondly, clouds are condensates. Water vapour itself is invisible, as
it is transparent in the portion of the e-m. spectrum used by the
human eye.
around, despite
> all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
> around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Yet another dismal error. CFCs, NOx, CH4 all have considerably greater
potential than CO2 to block and slow LWIR exit to space, by absorption
followed by 4π sterad re-radiation.
> Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
> crap artist in need of some urgent education.
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
You didn't do too well - but then denialists all score rather low, as
I observed before.
7
> On 2010-01-02, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their
>>> data and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
>>> propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
>>> They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
>>> had funded the R&D.
>>>
>>
>> If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
>> there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract.
>
> Utter bull. Federal funding doesn't have non-disclosure except for
> national security. *Private* funding may introduce non-disclosure,
> but often taking federal money negates that.
>
>> This often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
>> publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
>> the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
>> which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
>> may be freely shared and often is.
>
> If you can show the contract language you are honoring, then you might
> be able to evade FOI requests. If you don't do either, then you are in
> violation, aren't you? CRU didn't show either. Still hasn't. Now they
> claim "we lost the data".
I doubt they 'lost' anything. The emails show they intended
to delete their data rather than honor an FOI request.
They also backed that up with statements like worked
on it for years and therefore by some act of magic,
the data belonged to them despite taking public money for
the data and all the facilities that housed their offices,
computers and recording media.
Sam Wormley
Did you read it?
Sam Wormley
I've had plenty of different funding sources over the years... some
had restriction and some not.
7
Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
> There is no such concept as proof in science - only falsification
> works.
Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>> to call any of your critics denialists. Denialist is a political term.
>
> Denialist is a neologism that I dreamed up a few months back.
Incorrect - Denialist is a political term used by zealots
to address anyone they feel is not with them and their ideology.
>> Unfortunately you are engaging minds trained in science
>> and you owe it to them to either produce the proof
>
> Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
> such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>> or at the very least abandon your rants and aim a little
>> higher with your science.
>>
>> You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
>> You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
>> and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
>> You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
>> and string it into a coherent answer.
>>
>> >> They do show one on the
>> >> site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
>> >> that could be cherry picked.
>>
>> There is no scientific proof that you can produce to prove AGW
>> science rises above fake science.
>
> Correct again. Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and
> Mathematics. There is no such concept as proof in science - only
> falsification works.
Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>> Holowarming still remains a fake science
>
> Incorrect. There is no such thing. It is another recent neologism, but
> not one of mine this time.
Incorrect - Holowarming lies and fake science go against experiments,
reproducibility and laws of thermodynamics.
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
>> sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
>> from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
>>
>> Its become a means to an end.
>>
>> Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
>> kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
>> we live without any scientific or material proof.
>> Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
>> The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
>>
>> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
>
> Incorrect. The actual proportion varies, but for 100% RH at STP it is
> around 75%.
Obviously you don't get out much. Its at least 95%.
Since gases don't conduct much heat, it is a probably
99% of all heat transport on the planet.
The other contributors are hard to measure because
they approach measurement noise thresholds which can
set in when what you are trying to measure dips below 1%
of the total of a measured effect.
> So far you have three correct out of five. Not too bad for a
> denialist. They usually score in the low tens, if they score at all.
I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
fake scoring systems. Upload all your emails to some
public ftp server, and then we can decide how to
mark you up.
p.s. JUST DO IT! Don't argue back.
>> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
>> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
>> and thats why there is so much of it about.
>>
>> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
>> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
>> become a major factor to global warming.
>> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
>> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> Incorrect again.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!
What would you know?
> The feature that CO2 and H2O molecules share is the
> existence of quantised energy levels
Of course. BWEAWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> in their rotations and vibrations
> that match long-wave infra-red emitted originating in grey and black
> bodies of around 250 - 300 K.
YEEEAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!! This bloody idiot can replace a whole think tank me
thinks now!! Somebody give this tart a Nobel Prize!!!
>> The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
>> a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
>> calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
>> and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous
>> methods.
>
> Using the wrong method (and I agree it is wrong) to determine facts
> cannot alter the truth or otherwise of those facts. The evidence for
> the climate changing very swiftly is not held by the temperature
> records alone.
>
>> A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
>> in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover)
>
> Incorrect.
You utter cretin! What is the temperature of Sahara Desert
at 4 noon and 4 am?
> You should have quit while you had a 50% score. Now you've
> gone and fallen below the pass level.
I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
fake scoring systems.
> First of all, the rate you give is unsustainable. In a 12 hour night
> the temperature could fall 72 deg.,
YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER *FOOL*!!! IT DOES FALL 72 DEGREES!!!!!
WHY WHY WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS BROUGHT TO ATTENTION????
It is less than -30 degrees in the night, and greater than 40
degrees in the day.
> but before that happens it will
> be effectively shut down. The nett radiation will become zero. Any
> atmosphere will keep its heat much more effectively than the surface.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I assume you know this?
> Secondly, clouds are condensates. Water vapour itself is invisible, as
> it is transparent in the portion of the e-m. spectrum used by the
> human eye.
>
> around, despite
>> all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
>> around the planet is carried by water vapor.
>
> Yet another dismal error. CFCs, NOx, CH4 all have considerably greater
> potential than CO2 to block and slow LWIR exit to space, by absorption
> followed by 4π sterad re-radiation.
No they don't. None of the work are valid since they
don't integrate over a 24 hour period and get results above noise
levels.
>> Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
>> crap artist in need of some urgent education.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> You didn't do too well - but then denialists all score rather low, as
> I observed before.
I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
fake scoring systems.
7
You didn't directly (and properly) answer to the sharp needle you are being
prodded with in this argument.
And that was there is no such restriction!!
If restriction exist, it relates to national security or private data - most
of which do come into public domain if the source of
the private data took public money.
You could by way of example explain the restriction that forced
you to hide your data in each and every case.
Sam Wormley
I could, but I won't. I made my point whether you accept it or not.
JohnM
Many experiments and their reproduction discovered the earth to be
flat. Do you accept the result as proof? It was also discovered that a
witch cannot be drowned, by testing lots of people who turned out not
to be witches when they drowned. Is this the proof by reproducibility
you have in mind? You're obviously not aware of the work of Sir Karl
Popper.. It seems likely you are not even aware.
> >> or at the very least abandon your rants and aim a little
> >> higher with your science.
>
> >> You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
> >> You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
> >> and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
> >> You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
> >> and string it into a coherent answer.
>
> >> >> They do show one on the
> >> >> site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
> >> >> that could be cherry picked.
>
> >> There is no scientific proof that you can produce to prove AGW
> >> science rises above fake science.
>
> > Correct again. Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and
> > Mathematics. There is no such concept as proof in science - only
> > falsification works.
>
> Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
Which is not proof. It's a failure to falsify, and therefore a partial
verification.
> >> Holowarming still remains a fake science
>
> > Incorrect. There is no such thing. It is another recent neologism, but
> > not one of mine this time.
>
> Incorrect - Holowarming lies and fake science go against experiments,
> reproducibility and laws of thermodynamics.
A search of Wikipedia gave the following:
Did you mean: Housewarming
Google has 47 hits, all are from Usenet. There is clearly no such
thing. Seems you can't get anything right.
> >> ----------------------------------------
>
> >> It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
> >> sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
> >> from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
>
> >> Its become a means to an end.
>
> >> Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
> >> kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
> >> we live without any scientific or material proof.
> >> Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
> >> The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
>
> >> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
>
> > Incorrect. The actual proportion varies, but for 100% RH at STP it is
> > around 75%.
>
> Obviously you don't get out much. Its at least 95%.
Nope. It's no more than 85% even when adding in forcing from clouds,
which you don't seem to realise are not gas.
> Since gases don't conduct much heat, it is a probably
> 99% of all heat transport on the planet.
The transport of sensible heat is presumably what you are talking
about. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG forcing.
> The other contributors are hard to measure because
> they approach measurement noise thresholds which can
> set in when what you are trying to measure dips below 1%
> of the total of a measured effect.
Gobbledegook is not a language I can understand. Please try to put
your thoughts into English (or French).
> > So far you have three correct out of five. Not too bad for a
> > denialist. They usually score in the low tens, if they score at all.
>
> I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
> fake scoring systems. Upload all your emails to some
> public ftp server, and then we can decide how to
> mark you up.
>
> p.s. JUST DO IT! Don't argue back.
>
> >> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> >> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> >> and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> >> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> >> become a major factor to global warming.
> >> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> >> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> > Incorrect again.
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!
>
> What would you know?
Not as much as Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, Feynman...
but enough.
> > The feature that CO2 and H2O molecules share is the
> > existence of quantised energy levels
>
> Of course. BWEAWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> > in their rotations and vibrations
> > that match long-wave infra-red emitted originating in grey and black
> > bodies of around 250 - 300 K.
>
> YEEEAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAA!!! This bloody idiot can replace a whole think tank me
> thinks now!! Somebody give this tart a Nobel Prize!!!
The initial prize for this particular piece of Physics was handed out
a long time ago. 1918 to be exact. The big one was in 1932, however.
> >> The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
> >> a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
> >> calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
> >> and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous
> >> methods.
>
> > Using the wrong method (and I agree it is wrong) to determine facts
> > cannot alter the truth or otherwise of those facts. The evidence for
> > the climate changing very swiftly is not held by the temperature
> > records alone.
>
> >> A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
> >> in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover)
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> You utter cretin! What is the temperature of Sahara Desert
> at 4 noon and 4 am?
Have you got winter or summer in mind? I've lived there in both
seasons so I can answer your question, no problem.
> > You should have quit while you had a 50% score. Now you've
> > gone and fallen below the pass level.
>
> I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
> fake scoring systems.
>
> > First of all, the rate you give is unsustainable. In a 12 hour night
> > the temperature could fall 72 deg.,
>
> YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER *FOOL*!!! IT DOES FALL 72 DEGREES!!!!!
> WHY WHY WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS BROUGHT TO ATTENTION????
>
> It is less than -30 degrees in the night, and greater than 40
> degrees in the day.
Obviously you've never lived in a desert. Even in a winter's night the
temperature of the surface may just get "ground frost", -1 or -2 at
the surface level ( I experienced this first hand in the Central
Sahara) but the day temperature reaches only 25. During summer when
day temperatures are 40+ there is never frost, ground or any other. In
fact it often remains too hot to sleep, even in the open, unless one
has access to aircon.
> > but before that happens it will
> > be effectively shut down. The nett radiation will become zero. Any
> > atmosphere will keep its heat much more effectively than the surface.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> I assume you know this?
>
> > Secondly, clouds are condensates. Water vapour itself is invisible, as
> > it is transparent in the portion of the e-m. spectrum used by the
> > human eye.
>
> >> around, despite
> >> all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
> >> around the planet is carried by water vapor.
>
> > Yet another dismal error. CFCs, NOx, CH4 all have considerably greater
> > potential than CO2 to block and slow LWIR exit to space, by absorption
> > followed by 4π sterad re-radiation.
>
> No they don't. None of the work are valid since they
> don't integrate over a 24 hour period and get results above noise
> levels.
Your gobblydegook is some of the most inventive I've ever read. You
should become a rapper.
> >> Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
> >> crap artist in need of some urgent education.
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> > You didn't do too well - but then denialists all score rather low, as
> > I observed before.
>
> I don't care much for your fruit cake science and its
> fake scoring systems.
Whether you care for science is immaterial. It still remains the best
way to get the truth.
7
>> YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER *FOOL*!!! IT DOES FALL 72 DEGREES!!!!!
>> WHY WHY WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS BROUGHT TO ATTENTION????
>>
>> It is less than -30 degrees in the night, and greater than 40
>> degrees in the day.
>
> Obviously you've never lived in a desert. Even in a winter's night the
> temperature of the surface may just get "ground frost", -1 or -2 at
> the surface level ( I experienced this first hand in the Central
> Sahara) but the day temperature reaches only 25. During summer when
> day temperatures are 40+ there is never frost, ground or any other. In
> fact it often remains too hot to sleep, even in the open, unless one
> has access to aircon.
Fsck you and your 'Central Sahara' desert!
The desert is not the Sahara.
The Sahara contains many different types of desert.
From coastal to semiarid where people live.
You want the hot and dry desert to work your AGW fantasies.
7
Not to me you haven't.
jmfbahciv
Wet? That doesn't matter for my purposes. Why would wet
affect the readings?
/BAH
Sam Wormley
No big deal.
I M @ good guy
Marvin the Martian
Yeah. You have it in your back pocket, where no one can see it.
However, in MY back pocket, I have proof your wrong. That works for you,
right, because you find that kind of argument persuasive.
LOL! Lame.
tadchem
> > Richmond, VA
>
> Would these biases be constant over many decades?-
Think about it, Sammy. We are talking about the Urban Heat Island
(UHI) effect. Obviously, the bias will be a function of the cited
variables: artificial heating sources, pavement, nearby building,
etc. These will change with time, becoming exacerbated as development
progresses.
For example, there were very few air-conditioned buildings in the US
in the 1930's (a very hot decade by most accounts). Cinemas used to
advertise their air conditioning as an inducement to movie-goers to
avoid the heat on summer days. Nowadays almost all public,
commercial, and private buildings are air-conditioned. www.surfacestations.org
has many examples of USHCN sites which have become 'contaminated' by
proximity to air conditioners since they were established.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not painting with too broad a brush. There
are some well-sited and well-maintained sites such as Orland, CA:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=56
OTOH, there are way too many like Marysville, CA:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
Read the site evaluation here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1681&g2_imageViewsIndex=2
http://www.surfacestations.org/ has a comparison of the temperature
records for these two stations (scroll down), which are both in the
Sacramento Valley of California, less than 70 miles apart by road,
(about 53 miles by air) and in similar geography (valley floor a few
miles west of the Sierra Nevada Foothills).
The difference in the multi-decadal trends is apparent. There is
obviously significant heating going on at the Marysville site that is
not occurring in Orland.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Claudius Denk
> On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > > Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
> > > such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
>
> > Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>
> Many experiments and their reproduction discovered the earth to be
> flat. Do you accept the result as proof?
Given the fact that there is zero experimental evidence underlying AGW
I think we should be asking you why you do not accept flat earth.
> It was also discovered that a
> witch cannot be drowned, by testing lots of people who turned out not
> to be witches when they drowned. Is this the proof by reproducibility
> you have in mind? You're obviously not aware of the work of Sir Karl
> Popper.. It seems likely you are not even aware.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> or at the very least abandon your rants and aim a little
> > >> higher with your science.
>
> > >> You get 1 mark for pointers if it has some remote significance.
> > >> You get 9 more marks if you add once sentence to your pointer
> > >> and explain what your pointer brings to your argument.
> > >> You get 90 marks if you quote relevant passage from your pointers
> > >> and string it into a coherent answer.
>
> > >> >> They do show one on the
> > >> >> site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
> > >> >> that could be cherry picked.
>
> > >> There is no scientific proof that you can produce to prove AGW
> > >> science rises above fake science.
>
> > > Correct again. Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and
> > > Mathematics. There is no such concept as proof in science - only
> > > falsification works.
>
> > Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>
> Which is not proof. It's a failure to falsify, and therefore a partial
> verification.
No AGW scientists has ever attempted to falsify the hypothesis that
CO2 causes AGW. AGW is a fraud.
> The transport of sensible heat is presumably what you are talking
> about. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG forcing.
GHG forcing is poorly defined, immeasurable, untestable and ultimately
unscientific. GHG forcing is a propaganda term that is only effective
on a scientifically illiterate audience.
>
> > The other contributors are hard to measure because
> > they approach measurement noise thresholds which can
> > set in when what you are trying to measure dips below 1%
> > of the total of a measured effect.
>
> Gobbledegook is not a language I can understand. Please try to put
> your thoughts into English (or French).
Here's a clue, retard. Al Gore's movie is not valid science.
> > >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> > >> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> > >> become a major factor to global warming.
> > >> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> > >> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> > > Incorrect again.
>
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!
>
> > What would you know?
>
> Not as much as Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, Feynman...
> but enough.
They too would be laughing at you.
JohnM
> JohnM wrote:
> >> YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER *FOOL*!!! IT DOES FALL 72 DEGREES!!!!!
> >> WHY WHY WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS BROUGHT TO ATTENTION????
>
> >> It is less than -30 degrees in the night, and greater than 40
> >> degrees in the day.
>
> > Obviously you've never lived in a desert. Even in a winter's night the
> > temperature of the surface may just get "ground frost", -1 or -2 at
> > the surface level ( I experienced this first hand in the Central
> > Sahara) but the day temperature reaches only 25. During summer when
> > day temperatures are 40+ there is never frost, ground or any other. In
> > fact it often remains too hot to sleep, even in the open, unless one
> > has access to aircon.
>
> Fsck
fsck is a 'bash' command in *nix OSes. Nothing wrong with my file
system. Why do I need to repair it?
> you and your 'Central Sahara' desert!
> The desert is not the Sahara.
Well who would have guessed <sarcasm>
> The Sahara contains many different types of desert.
> From coastal to semiarid where people live.
Desert is terrain within the 50mm isohyet. More than that and it is
classified as semi-desert, arid, etc.
> You want the hot and dry desert to work your AGW fantasies.
Let me spell it out for you. There is no place on this planet where
the temperature goes from 40 to -30 in the space of 12 hours - unless
the planet you inhabit is so backward it still measures environmental
temperature in something other than degrees Celsius.
JohnM
> On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > > > Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
> > > > such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
>
> > > Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>
> > Many experiments and their reproduction discovered the earth to be
> > flat. Do you accept the result as proof?
>
> Given the fact that there is zero experimental evidence underlying AGW
> I think we should be asking you why you do not accept flat earth.
As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
continue to promote the hypothesis.
As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
shit.
Where are your experimental contributions that can lead to its
falsification. You should publish immediately, not wait around 20
years like Charles Darwin because you fear the wrath of Jebus.
> > The transport of sensible heat is presumably what you are talking
> > about. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG forcing.
>
> GHG forcing is poorly defined, immeasurable, untestable and ultimately
> unscientific. GHG forcing is a propaganda term that is only effective
> on a scientifically illiterate audience.
I agree. But it is the jargon that everyone is used to, and if we all
speak a different language there can be no advance made in science.
> > > The other contributors are hard to measure because
> > > they approach measurement noise thresholds which can
> > > set in when what you are trying to measure dips below 1%
> > > of the total of a measured effect.
>
> > Gobbledegook is not a language I can understand. Please try to put
> > your thoughts into English (or French).
>
> Here's a clue, retard. Al Gore's movie is not valid science.
How's that. Did you use Babelfish to get the translation, you evasive
jackass?
> > > >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> > > >> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> > > >> become a major factor to global warming.
> > > >> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> > > >> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> > > > Incorrect again.
>
> > > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!
>
> > > What would you know?
>
> > Not as much as Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, Feynman...
> > but enough.
>
> They too would be laughing at you.
Yes, my posts are indeed very, very witty, aren't they. Though I say
it myself who shouldn't.
Sam Wormley
7
Doh!
In a land of AGW fantasies of your own making you might find such
a middle earth.
Which part of it is so difficult for you to understand fool?
What is the temperature swing range of a hot dry desert?
7
> As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
> observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
> continue to promote the hypothesis.
>
> As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
> hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
> shit.
Pray tell, what is the temperature swing range of a hot dry desert?
Marvin the Martian
< whatever...>
There is not a Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to falsify. There
is no physical principle behind AGW, and every single "computer model"
failed to predict the last decade, and thus is a REJECTED hypothesis.
And now we know that the top AGW "scientist" are a bunch of goddamned
frauds and liars.
Real scientist would reject the AGW non-hypothesis and go with
Svensmark's theory, which not only predicted the last 10 years, but is
consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of data and doesn't require
any "tricks" to "hide the decline".
You can't pry the AGW stupidity from some people. They have a death grip
and death wish on it.
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:08:12 -0800, JohnM wrote:
>
> < whatever...>
>
> There is not a Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to falsify. There
> is no physical principle behind AGW, and every single "computer model"
> failed to predict the last decade, and thus is a REJECTED hypothesis.
>
> And now we know that the top AGW "scientist" are a bunch of goddamned
> frauds and liars.
Now, now... Marvin should not be propagating misinformation!
>
> Real scientist would reject the AGW non-hypothesis and go with
> Svensmark's theory, which not only predicted the last 10 years, but is
> consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of data and doesn't require
> any "tricks" to "hide the decline".
There is no climate theory that works over a 4.5 billion year range
with a resolution of 10 years! Give us a break, Marvin!
>
> You can't pry the AGW stupidity from some people. They have a death grip
> and death wish on it.
CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
The global data CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
JohnM
The gobblydegook you posted earlier was kindly put into English by a
certain Mr C. Denk. As I interpret his translation, your post was
intended as disparagement of a retired politician. As I find
politicians, retired or not, quite despicable, I am happy to concur.
> What is the temperature swing range of a hot dry desert?
I believe the standard reply is JFGI. However, as you are unlikely to
possess the life skills necessary to undertake this simple exercise, I
have done it for you. The typical range seems to be around 15 - 25 K,
with a record (un-official) of 42 K.
JohnM
JFGI.
I M @ good guy
Actually, it can be almost anything, depending
a lot on the location of the desert, the Gobi desert
may be rather cold, lets see what google finds;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert
Minus 40 C???? But then Antarctica
is considered desert, gets a little colder than that.
The max daily swing of 35 C must cause a
problem with planning clothing.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/3/10 3:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
I guess I was wrong, you are obviously not
looking at the current temperatures, and not
re-evaluating the AGW premise.
This cold snap is an immediate problem,
not some cockamamie incorrect theory with
stupid inept computer model programs
predicting the future, this is here and now,
a life threatening situation, at a time when
there are more homeless than ever, and
less money to get through the winter
heating season.
JohnM
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:47:09 GMT, 7
>
> >JohnM wrote:
>
> >> As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
> >> observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
> >> continue to promote the hypothesis.
>
> >> As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
> >> hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
> >> shit.
>
> >Pray tell, what is the temperature swing range of a hot dry desert?
>
> Actually, it can be almost anything, depending
> a lot on the location of the desert, the Gobi desert
> may be rather cold, lets see what google finds;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert
>
> Minus 40 C???? But then Antarctica
> is considered desert, gets a little colder than that.
The low temperature record used to be from Siberia (ca. -70) until
recording regularly started in Antarctica.
> The max daily swing of 35 C must cause a
> problem with planning clothing.
Seems we agree on that latter figure. The nutter who said it was 70
obviously comes from another planet.
jmfbahciv
I don't need accuracy. I just want to know if I need
my winter woolies or shorts before I go outside. :-)
/BAH
I M @ good guy
Assume woollies until further notice. :-)
I have an indoor/outdoor thermometer,
even though the guy that installed it put a
vertical shield to keep direct sun off, at times
it reads high, and the indoor can read low
as much as 6 degrees when the wall is cold.
I really goofed, 8 years ago I had the
money to take off the weather board, install
insulation, sheathing, and side it with the
original weather board or something else,
but I spent all the money trying to keep
the economy going. :-)
Claudius Denk
> On Jan 3, 6:28 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > > > > Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
> > > > > such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
>
> > > > Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>
> > > Many experiments and their reproduction discovered the earth to be
> > > flat. Do you accept the result as proof?
>
> > Given the fact that there is zero experimental evidence underlying AGW
> > I think we should be asking you why you do not accept flat earth.
>
> As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
> observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
> continue to promote the hypothesis.
>
> As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
> hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
> shit.
Does it not concern you that the scientists who stand to profit from
AGW alarmism are making no effort at all to falsify the "CO2 causes
AGW" hypothesis? And then there's the fact that two German physicist
have falsified it and this is being ignored by the AGW advocate
scientists. Doncha kinda wonder why?
I never claimed to have such.
> You should publish immediately, not wait around 20
> years like Charles Darwin because you fear the wrath of Jebus.
Aha, so, to your credit, you do not dispute my assertion that, "No AGW
scientists has ever attempted to falsify the hypothesis that CO2
causes AGW." That said, why do you still believe?
Do you also believe in bigfoot, UFOs?
>
> > > The transport of sensible heat is presumably what you are talking
> > > about. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG forcing.
>
> > GHG forcing is poorly defined, immeasurable, untestable and ultimately
> > unscientific. GHG forcing is a propaganda term that is only effective
> > on a scientifically illiterate audience.
>
> I agree. But it is the jargon that everyone is used to, and if we all
> speak a different language there can be no advance made in science.
You present an argument for ignoring science in favor of cultish
notions.
> > a long time ago. 1918 to be exact. The big one was in 1932, however.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JohnM
> On Jan 3, 11:08 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 6:28 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Proof lies purely in the domain of logic and Mathematics. There is no
> > > > > > such concept as proof in science - only falsification works.
>
> > > > > Incorrect - it lies with experiments and reproducibility.
>
> > > > Many experiments and their reproduction discovered the earth to be
> > > > flat. Do you accept the result as proof?
>
> > > Given the fact that there is zero experimental evidence underlying AGW
> > > I think we should be asking you why you do not accept flat earth.
>
> > As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
> > observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
> > continue to promote the hypothesis.
>
> > As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
> > hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
> > shit.
>
> Does it not concern you that the scientists who stand to profit from
> AGW alarmism are making no effort at all to falsify the "CO2 causes
> AGW" hypothesis?
How do they stand to profit? Not from being salaried to an academic
institution. If they trade in Carbon credits, that's another matter.
It would be insider trading and the law takes care of such things.
> And then there's the fact that two German physicist
> have falsified it and this is being ignored by the AGW advocate
> scientists.
If their results are reproducible by another team in another
laboratory, then it is a big step towards falsification. I have to say
I am surprised that no-one has got around to building a physical
model, one which mirrors the essence of the Earth's atmosphere.
> Doncha kinda wonder why?
No. A scientist will perform experimental work with a view to having
the experiment succeed. This is a pity, as negative results are
important. If one is reasonably certain an experiment will yield a
negative result, most will look for a more scientifically profitable
way to spend their time.
So you'll have to be patient and wait until someone comes along who
*is* willing to do the necessary experiments.
> > You should publish immediately, not wait around 20
> > years like Charles Darwin because you fear the wrath of Jebus.
>
> Aha, so, to your credit, you do not dispute my assertion that, "No AGW
> scientists has ever attempted to falsify the hypothesis that CO2
> causes AGW." That said, why do you still believe?
I go along with the IPCC 90% likelihood of AGW. If one doesn't trust
the body scientific to deliver "truths" then it's best to stay away
from pharmacists.
> Do you also believe in bigfoot, UFOs?
I'll give the former .000000001%, and 1000 times higher for UFOs at .
000001%
> > > > The transport of sensible heat is presumably what you are talking
> > > > about. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG forcing.
>
> > > GHG forcing is poorly defined, immeasurable, untestable and ultimately
> > > unscientific. GHG forcing is a propaganda term that is only effective
> > > on a scientifically illiterate audience.
>
> > I agree. But it is the jargon that everyone is used to, and if we all
> > speak a different language there can be no advance made in science.
>
> You present an argument for ignoring science in favor of cultish
> notions.
No I present an argument for science to call a spade by the same,
identical name each time it needs to be referred to.
<snip of repeated, redundant material?
7
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:47:09 GMT, 7
> <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>>JohnM wrote:
>>
>>> As it has been amply falsified, and I regard the experimental and
>>> observational evidence as quite clear, it would be unscientific to
>>> continue to promote the hypothesis.
>>>
>>> As yet, I have seen nothing conclusive to falsify AGW, but I sincerely
>>> hope it will be, soon. If it turns out to be true, we're all in deep
>>> shit.
>>
>>Pray tell, what is the temperature swing range of a hot dry desert?
>
>
> Actually, it can be almost anything, depending
> a lot on the location of the desert, the Gobi desert
> may be rather cold, lets see what google finds;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert
wikipedia/google is your friend!
> Minus 40 C???? But then Antarctica
> is considered desert, gets a little colder than that.
There are different types of desert.
Thats a cold desert.
There are semi-arid deserts, coastal deserts and
'hot and dry' deserts.
Hot and dry deserts have massive temperature swings.
Between +40 and -30 degrees despite all the AGW CO2 crap.
7
You utter escapetard cretin!!!!
Google is your friend. 'Hot and Dry Desert'
JohnM
Not, however in the same location in the same 24 hours, which is what
you claimed earlier in the thread. That figure ΔΤ₂₄ is around 15 - 25
K for a desert depending on location and season.
mrbawana2u
> [flush usual tripe from jmoron]
Climate Crisis Was Too Good To Waste
By J.R. CLARK AND DWIGHT R. LEEPosted 12/30/2009 07:05 PM ET
Climatologists are learning from economists.
No, not how to more accurately forecast the future.
Climatologists could certainly benefit from
improving their forecasts, but they aren't
likely to learn how from economists.
What climatologists are learning from economists
is how to increase their importance by promoting
a theory that gives politicians more power.
Economists have shown that this can be
accomplished with the flimsiest of evidence.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516674
I M @ good guy
>you claimed earlier in the thread. That figure ??24 is around 15 - 25
>K for a desert depending on location and season.
>
>> > The max daily swing of 35 C must cause a
>> > problem with planning clothing.
The Gobi is in a position to maybe have the
biggest daily swing, it was 61 F.
JohnM
Which is 35 K. I found one item while googling which reported a record
daily ΔΤ₂₄ of 42 K at Death Valley area.
jmfbahciv
Yea, but how many hats? Sunday was a 3-hatter day.
>
> I have an indoor/outdoor thermometer,
I had one.
> even though the guy that installed it put a
> vertical shield to keep direct sun off, at times
> it reads high, and the indoor can read low
> as much as 6 degrees when the wall is cold.
Mine was on the east side and it took forever for the
siding (wood), patio deck (wood) and yard to cool
for a temperature reading that wasn't 10+ degrees higher.
>
> I really goofed, 8 years ago I had the
> money to take off the weather board, install
> insulation, sheathing, and side it with the
> original weather board or something else,
> but I spent all the money trying to keep
> the economy going. :-)
I had all of that done this past summer. that's why
the indoor/outdoor thermometer is no longer in place.
I don't allow holes to put into my new siding anymore.
There still is really no place I can figure out where
to put a themometer which won't be superheated nor
supercooled.
/BAH
I M @ good guy
>daily ??24 of 42 K at Death Valley area.
It is probably too far south to get as cold as Gobi,
Death Valley has close to the all-time maxT.
Sam Wormley
http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg
>
> And, where does this blue dashed line come from?
>
The dashed blue line represents the upper limit of CO2 concentration
in the trapped air record going back 800,000 years... until this
that century.
More references to this kind of data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/images/nature06949-f1.2.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html
Marvin the Martian
> What is the source of this graph?
Sam Wormley. No, really... back up the image and you'll find it is
Wormley's website. He quotes himself and gives no sources.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Wasn't some of that found in Cracker Jack Boxes?
http://www.crackerjack.com/home.htm
Sam Wormley
Marvin, you are supposed to be taking a break from me and have me in
your kill file. remember?
http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg
Roving rabbit
The AGW deniers filth industry marches on so to see.
Q
--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
How can anybody deny something that
doesn't exist?
Maybe I should spelled it Quacker Quack AGW.
jmfbahciv
How in the world can you believe that the line is continuous and
actually records each year's concentration (which is not a nice
datum in the first place).
/BAH