Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
Eric Gisin
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
December 10, 2009 7:15 PM
As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is
finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a
forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming.
The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling
for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of
the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of
climate change.
Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with
climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more
from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton's public relations office,
Socolow called CO2 a "climate problem" that governments need to address.
"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on
continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor
and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The
reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global
warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.
As previously reported by CBSNews.com, Happer and other members of the APS have been urging the
society to take a second look at the 2007 statement, which claims the evidence for the CO2-global
warming link is "incontrovertible" and "we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning
now." Their letter circulated last month says: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be
known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have
seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which
it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done."
Neither the current APS president, Harvard's Cherry Murray, nor its incoming president, Princeton's
Curtis Callan, replied to questions on Thursday, and Socolow could not be reached for comment. The
APS leadership has chosen not to withdraw its statement but has authorized a limited review of the
language's "clarity and tone" -- although that was announced before the embarrassing leak from the
University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit occurred.
Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has
been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to
require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.
That means the review will be "chaired by a guy who is hip deep in conflicts of interest, running a
million-dollar program that is utterly dependent on global warming funding," Lewis says. In
addition, he points out that the group charged with taking a second look at the 2007 statement, the
Panel on Public Affairs, is the same body that drafted it in the first place. That, "too has a
smell of people investigating themselves," Lewis says.
The APS ethics policy that appears to apply to Socolow's panel says "it is particularly desirable
that members" be "free from real or perceived conflicts." An APS ethics policy used when awarding
prizes says that conflicts of interest can be resolved, depending on the circumstance, by
"resignation of one or more members of the committee, withdrawal of a member from parts of the
committee's deliberations and voting." And when involving the chairman: "Potential conflict of
interest involving the chair of the selection committee is ipso facto a serious matter, and at the
least another committee member should take over as chair."
An APS spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday about how the group's
ethics policies apply and whether Socolow would be the chairman.
As the full import of the ClimateGate leak became evident, Happer, Lewis, and others redoubled
their efforts to ask APS members to support a review of what they considered to be bad science.
They now say 77 supporters are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 are members of the
National Academies, and one is a Nobel laureate; Happer adds that "some have accepted a career risk
by signing the petition."
APS President Cherry Murray replied to that effort with a stiff letter to all members saying the
message was sent without "APS knowledge or approval" and the group is "continuing to investigate
how the senders obtained APS member e-mail addresses."
Murray also said the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is "in the process
of investigating the affair," and APS will wait until the results of that investigation are public.
But that doesn't seem to be accurate: IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri said in Copenhagen this week that
there is "not an investigation." And there's no mention of an investigation in either IPCC
statement, both of which defend the East Anglia research that has been called into question.
What irks the APS members circulating the petition are not claims that CO2 has been increasing for
a century and that the Earth is warming; Lewis says the planet has been warming for thousands of
years without our help, especially since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago. Instead, the
physicists are concerned about the APS's claim that the science is settled on the question of the
causal link between the two -- a claim that underpins the Copenhagen conference, the Democratic cap
and trade proposals, and the EPA's announcement this week that CO2 is dangerous to human health.
Socolow leads the Princeton Environmental Group's Energy Group, one of the university's research
units. According to a list of its reports and publications, the group is now focused on topics
including fuels with "near-zero" greenhouse gas emissions and "carbon dioxide capture"
technologies, both of which become of economic interest if a causal link between CO2 and global
warming can be shown to exist.
The current chair of the APA Panel on Public Affairs, or POPA, is Duncan Moore of the University of
Rochester, and Socolow will take over in three weeks, on January 1. A subcommittee will be tasked
with looking at the 2007 statement for "clarity and tone," and is expected to report its
recommendations to the full POPA committee by early February.
Moore told CBSNews.com on Wednesday that "we will only look at tone and clarity and will not
rewrite the 2007 statement," and a discussion about "whether APS should form a committee to look at
the role of APS in climate change" will take place at the February POPA meeting.
Meanwhile, the ClimateGate scandal is broadening, with more mainstream scientists being concerned
about what the leaked e-mails and apparently buggy computer code say about their chosen profession,
and how they could influence public perceptions of science. The two leading science publications,
Scientific American and Nature chose to downplay the scandal's impact, with Nature saying the leak
was a "propaganda windfall" to the "climate-change-denialist fringe" -- an especially unflattering
term that seems to sweep in the APS physicists asking for the re-review.
Petr Chylek, a fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and an adjunct professor at New Mexico
State University, said in an open letter that climate scientists "have substituted the search for
truth with an attempt at proving one point of view." And 141 scientists have signed a statement at
CopenhagenClimateChallenge.org that says actual evidence of human-caused global warming is lacking
and "unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data
obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation."
Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the letter to APS, says: "APS has
simply circled the wagons, while trying to figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the
membership."
Marvin the Martian
> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/
entry5964504.shtml
>
> December 10, 2009 7:15 PM
< snip >
> Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the
> letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while trying to
> figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the membership."
1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
research funding.
Sam Wormley
>
> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
> research funding.
Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against
global warming and the fact that it's being driven by an
increase in CO2 concentration and contributed to by human
activity. Instead you just yell fraud and six months ago
you were yelling something else.
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
Marvin the Martian
> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It
>> isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also research
>> funding.
>
> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global warming
An obvious lie, similar to your denying lower division chemistry even
when I gave you a wikipedia quote and two textbooks.
> and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2 concentration
That's not a fact. Even the IPCC doesn't claim it is a fact, and they're
a pack of lying frauds. Only wacko true believers claim it is a fact.
< snip gibberish >
I really don't care about your religion.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
>>> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
>>> research funding.
>>
>> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against
>> global warming and the fact that it's being driven by an
>> increase in CO2 concentration and contributed to by human
>> activity. Instead you just yell fraud and six months ago
>> you were yelling something else.
>>
>> 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
>
> A graph without source, stolen from where?
> </>
Google is your friend, Peter!
> http://images.google.com/images?q=800%2C000%20year%20record&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Sam Wormley
Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can
help one find references. Why are you being so childish?
jmfbahciv
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
>
>> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/
> entry5964504.shtml
>> December 10, 2009 7:15 PM
>
> < snip >
>
>> Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the
>> letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while trying to
>> figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the membership."
>
> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
A lot of science depends on funding which is approved and
apportioned by politicians.
> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
> research funding.
To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word
salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about
this; IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often.
You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying
the real problem.
/BAH
Ouroboros Rex
> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
Will Happer. Same bullshit artist, different day. lol
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
Petey is whining because I caught him over twenty times posting stolen
graphs with zero attribution. lol
Ouroboros Rex
>
> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph.
> So it's up to YOU to show us the data used for this graph!
>
> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Hey petey, go back and do that for all the stolen unattributed graphs you
have posted here over the past year. lol
Marvin the Martian
> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It
>> > isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also research
>> > funding.
>>
>> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global
>> warming and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2
>> concentration and contributed to by human activity. Instead you just
>> yell fraud and six months ago you were yelling something else.
>>
>> 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
>
> <AGW speech>
> A graph without source, stolen from where? </>
It is on Wormly's own website. You saw it on the web, so it MUST be true.
Really, though. The two highest data points are IPCC lies. Speculation at
best.
The rest of the data was taken from ice core data at one location. Mind
you, data from a glacier, which comprises most of the 800,000 years of
data is being compared to a single year measurement from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise, near the middle of the Pacific Ocean
which has a HUGE amount of CO2 that makes our atmospheric CO2 look puny
by comparison: 40,000 GtC in the ocean compared to 750 GtC in the
atmosphere. It is as much an "apples to oranges" comparison as it gets.
1) Ice core data wouldn't preserve a rapid change in CO2 concentration,
due to diffusion.
2) There is very little CO2 on top of glaciers, while there is LOTS being
emitted by the oceans in the tropics.
3) It is a comparison of a high latitude to an equatorial latitude.
Again, apples to oranges.
And even so, his whole arguments are a tangle of invalid arguments and
false premises. Post hoc fallacies, correlation proves causation
fallacies, appeal to consequence fallacies... the man is a living example
of irrational thought.
Marvin the Martian
> Sam, are you kidding?
>
> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
> show us the data used for this graph!
>
> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.
It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with "crimes
against humanity" like Nazis.
Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is on
the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is beyond
me.
The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
The other two data points that go way out of line are fabricated from
Hanson's sick, twisted mind.
I've been down this rabbit hole with Wormley before. He just keeps
repeating himself.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/
>> entry5964504.shtml
>>> December 10, 2009 7:15 PM
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the
>>> letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while trying
>>> to figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the membership."
>>
>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
>
> A lot of science depends on funding which is approved and apportioned by
> politicians.
That's like justifying prostitution by saying johns will pay for it.
Pretty soon, you end up with Clap or AIDS. Pretty much where we are at
now, the AGW fraud is the AIDS of science, and it might claim 6 billion
victims if we don't wise up and throw the whores out.
>> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
>> research funding.
>
> To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word salad of
> the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this; IIRC, the term
> grantsmanship was used often.
>
> You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
> real problem.
The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
whores.
Yes, you're right. The "professor" who brings funding to the school gets
to keep his job, the one who doesn't is replaced and someone else is
given a chance to bring in funding. Then the grad student has a choice of
what gets funded. If the grad student's work debunks his professor's
golden goose research project, then he doesn't get his Ph.D. and his work
never sees the light of day. The sniveling little sycophantic who parrots
his professor's fraudulent lies gets the research assistantship and a
Ph.D..
It' not just a fraud, it's a pyramid scheme. Pretty soon there are no
honest scientist LEFT.
Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big funded
research projects for engineers and physicist. If you "discover" hot
fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone is unemployed. No
way are we going to get hot fusion because it would kill the golden
goose.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.
Ouroboros Rex
> at his lower rear.
>
> I'm almost sure, there was no change in CO2 since ever.
>
> (Have little time atm, so copy&paste)
>
>
>
> CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
> over the last 400000 years.
Until now. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>
>
>> Sam, are you kidding?
>>
>> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
>> show us the data used for this graph!
>>
>> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.
>
> It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
> testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with
> "crimes against humanity" like Nazis.
>
> Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is
> on the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is
> beyond me.
>
> The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
> show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
> live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific
> ocean.
Cite, please.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Sam Wormley
>
> CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
> over the last 400000 years.
>
Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high
for 15,000,000 years!
>
> PRESS RELEASE SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
> Public release date: 8-Oct-2009
> University of California - Los Angeles
> Contact: Stuart Wolpert
> <mailto:swolp...@support.ucla.edu>swolp...@support.ucla.edu
> 310-206-0511
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
Sam Wormley
Marvin, you should start taking global climate change seriously.
Seriously!
Sam Wormley
>
> It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.
My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin!
Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences
since the 1950s!
Marvin the Martian
> On 12/29/09 12:59 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>
>
>> CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv over the last
>> 400000 years.
>>
>>
> Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high for
> 15,000,000 years!
Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
advocates.
Sam Wormley
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high for
>> 15,000,000 years!
>
> Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
> advocates.
>
Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration
of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per
year.
Sam Wormley
> Evidence your claim. Here.
>
> Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim.
> Where is it?
> And don't come up with Google now.
> I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.
As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase
in concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable
observable.
As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting
that human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil
fuel burning) is a contributing factor.
Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?
Rav1ng rabbit
Peter likes to generate a lot of noise, unable to accept any facts,
taken away by a crumbling right wing ideology.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Pavor Nocturnus
> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.
>
If a blogger is a correspondent, what's that make you?
You can't even spell correspondent.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high for
>>>>>> 15,000,000 years!
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
>>>>> advocates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
>>>> carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration
>>>> of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> Caused by what?
>>> Evidence your claim. Here.
>>>
>>> Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim.
>>> Where is it?
>>> And don't come up with Google now.
>>> I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.
>>
>> As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase
>> in concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable
>> observable.
>
> Have YOU observed the als 15 mio. yaears? How?
>
>
>> As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting
>> that human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil
>> fuel burning) is a contributing factor.
>
> Repeatedly parroting this AGW bollocks doesn't make it more credible.
>
>
>> Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?
>
> Nothing serious and nothing dooming.
> This you should do also.
>
>
> Sit down, get data sets and do some research on your own, instead of posting
> bite-sized more or less false graphs and science.
What's false about the data and graphs I've linked in
posting, Peter? You better have a better answer than
repeatedly saying they are lies, etc.
Pavor Nocturnus
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
For true crazy. Trust Leonard.
How many nutjobs are there in this newsgroup who are deniers? A
dozen tops? The ones who quote Lord Monckton as if he was The
Messiah. Or disgraced geography professor Tim Ball, who lies about
his credentials? Or known communist affiliate Martin Durkin, whose
video "The Global Warming Swindle" deliberately twisted the words of
legitimate climatologists? How about how, how the lies of the
deniers have repeatedly been debunked, but they incessantly repeat
them anyway?
How many support the idea of AGW and have a bona fide grasp on science
because they at least work in the field?
About 4 or 5.
Looks like the nutjobs quoting bloggers (opinion as fact) have the
consensus.
Time to call the governments in the world, time to summon the major
insurance companies, time to remind the Bush era US military that AGW
poses a threat to US national security!
Yes! Time to call the troops home! The global warming myth has been
disposed of!
Usenet is a magnet for kooks. And the kooks of denialism are all
right here in one tidy, little bundle.
Repeating their bull shit, ignoring debate by ignoring data.
Distorting data and being exposed.
Describing a felony theft of emails (by what appears to be Russian oil
interests) as a "great expose!" Saying that it definitively wipes
out decades of peer reviewed research. Claiming that there are "peer
reviewed" papers refuting global warming (that don't exist). And
again, quoting bloggers.
Then there's the threat to freedom! The big paranoid plot, never a
better reason to declare war on an entire aspect of science, by those
who know fuck all about it and demonstrate so by tripping up at every
turn!
Did you hear that it's about the frequency of hurricanes now,
according to them. Not the intensity!
Better get your marching orders from "boob" or "bozo" or what ever he
calls himself in ten minutes.
Yeah! That's the ticket! He says it's not happening. Ten minutes
later he says that it's happening but it's the Sun's rays!
Then the next day he says that it's happening but it's natural. Then
he says that CO2 emissions are good for you! Then he eventually bows
to his Islamic masters and admits that he doesn't think that we could
do without them and their precious oil.
It's like a comic strip.
This newsgroup is just too funny.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
I take it seriously, but I don't have
to like the colder than normal weather
and the resulting bigger heating bills,
I even have to let faucets run when
the temperature goes 10 degrees
below normal.
Move about 800 miles east and
see how you like it, but wait till spring,
some of the roads may be closed.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
The AGW nutcases are so far left they
think JFK was right wing.
Your posts are so perverted from reality,
I am sorry every time I read one instead of
deleting it unseen as I do the other nuts.
Sam Wormley
You appear to easily confuse local weather and global climate.
Marvin the Martian
A sane man, a rational man, would have discussed the correction to the
CO2 data that shows that our recent CO2 levels is NOT unusual.
Wormley, however, simply repeats the same sloped curve that the article
attacked, completely ignoring the entire issue, and throws in some
gratuitous irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
Discussing this with him is pointless, IMHO. He doesn't listen and is an
endless source of smug assed yet mindless cut and paste repetitive posts.
Marvin the Martian
Weather is what causes a lack of hurricane activity over the entire
season for several successive years when their climate prediction is for
many more than average and more powerful hurricanes.
Got it?
Sam Wormley
Try not to be so stooooopid, Marvin. Instead, try taking climate
change a bit more seriously.
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
I M @ good guy
wrote:
There is no "global climate", every region
has it's own unique climate, which may include
every kind of weather ever experienced.
To show how stupid the temperature
averaging is, the high temperature for this
date was 70 degrees, tomorrow the high
will be 29, and the low for this date was
13 below, tomorrow night it will be 18 F.
Both those records were before 1885,
and with temperature excursions like that,
averaging is a joke.
Global Warming has become a big joke,
all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always
been a joke.
If the alarmists would even stick to the
IPPC latest reports at least the insanity would
be gone.
Too bad AGW is being claimed by so many
hopeful carbon credit salesmen.
Sam Wormley
>
> Global Warming has become a big joke,
> all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always
> been a joke.
You really ought to be taking the global climate change
seriously. Seriously! Why are you wasting your time
poking holes at 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 melting ice.
pegleg
a political statement and nothing more.
The data are so corrupted that they show nothing and are good for
nothing any more.
tj Frazir
the earths speed and will just miss the moon ..that bends its path to
new york city right past the moon on sep 21 2017.
3500 feet wide will do more then a 100 mile spash impact ,,it will
move the plate usa sits on and it will be in motion for 50 miles and
spit panama in two and break off from alaska .
usa and russia cant do shit but launch evry nuke we can and try to
speed it up by detnating nukes behind it so it passed the point befor we
get there.
With luck a bit faster and it could hit the moon or miss the moon and
usa.
40 mt² 8 trillion ton rock at 300,000 mph at 34 deg angle from new
york going east at 34 deg from nyc horisen ..and after a 8 deg turn
passing the moon .
Marvin the Martian
Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they
altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide
the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge
factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion
seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these
proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist.
Spencer Spindrift
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
> >>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
> >> To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word
> >> salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this;
> >> IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often.
>
> >> You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
> >> real problem.
> > Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
> > working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
> > promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big
> > funded research projects for engineers and physicist. If you
> > "discover" hot fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone
> > is unemployed. No way are we going to get hot fusion because it would
> > kill the golden goose.
>
Why do all my posts on this topic disappear into cyberspace? Could it
be because I bring up the taboo subject of overpopulation as the true
cause of climate change and advocate a death rate solution? If this
mss. vanishes I'll become a conspiracy k00k!
Spencer Primate
Poetic Justice
You are a conspiracy kook
ONLY YOU can prevent over population, die early and die often.
--
Sam Wormley
Spoken like a science illiterate. There are a lot of them in our
society.
Sam Wormley
I could be that your news server or your news client don't
retain things for very long. Have you some real physics to
discuss?
Benj
> > Google is no reference to original data, Schmock!
>
> Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can
> help one find references. Why are you being so childish?
Why are you being such a Club of Rome shill? Plan on hitting the AGW
money big?
Why do you only use Google to reference your fellow shills including
those obvious ones in the APS making such idiotic public statements as
CO2 causing global warming as "incontrovertible". And yet even the
IPCC has to wave hands and come up with equally nonsensical "feedback"
theories to explain how CO2 is even capable of any significant change
in climate.
What is clear is that science has been taken over at the top through
the likes of the leadership of the IPCC and APS for political
purposes. And it is also clear that you, Sam the Sham, are part of
that political effort. All of you non-science fraudsters quoting each
other will fool nobody here. Take your "proof" to some Washington DC
press conference instead. They'll eat it up.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 12/30/09 10:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>>
>> Global Warming has become a big joke,
>> all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always
>> been a joke.
>
> You really ought to be taking the global climate change
> seriously.
You keep saying that to everybody, every
time it gets colder than normal everybody says
it must be Global Warming.
> Seriously! Why are you wasting your time
> poking holes at it?
I am not wasting my time, I am searching
for truth in science, and not finding it in any
of the AGW discussions or even on the major
government or school lab sites.
Do you consider me saying that GHGs
are the only thing that cools the atmosphere
is "poking holes in Global Warming alarmism"?
>CO2 increase,
That is not climate change.
>Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
>increase, are all consistent with each other.
And you are totally convinced it will
continue as long as atmospheric CO2
concentrations increase?
>Real
>impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
>patterns, shifting seasons and melting ice.
1998, the supposedly warmest year seems
to have been pretty food for agriculture.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-18218806.html
And there will likely be years with more
Atlantic hurricanes than 2009.
>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
That is the dumbest and least professional
graphic on the subject, did you upload it?
>And accompanying Sea Level Rise
>
>http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
With a large difference in sea level between
the two oceans, any "measurement" should be
just an estimate;
You are always blowing off about how science
is so settled, please explain the following statement
and tell us how this is handled in global sea level
measurements claimed to be precise;
"In 1883 it was realized that the tide level at the Pacific side was
almost 19 feet higher than the Atlantic side."
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/camerica/pncanal.htm
[[[ Note that is 19 feet, not 1.9 ]]]
>There are many sources of good data
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Why not the hadcru that shows a plunging plot;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
>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
The claim that half the flux returns to
Earth is bogus, is there some reason the AGW
crowd can't write "surface", is it because they
know that none of the high altitude flux
makes it to the surface, it is absorbed on
the way down and re-radiated, with most
of it ending up being re-radiated again
and again in the atmosphere and then
to space.
What will it take to get writers to say
that the primary role of GreenHouse Gases
is to cool the atmosphere and that almost
all the GreenHouse Gas is due to water vapor
in the troposphere, and to O2 and O3 in
the stratosphere.
Do you ever think a thought about
things you didn't learn reading or listening
to?
Really, I have been attending presentations
in college auditoriums and public halls since
the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate
Change is about the dumbest of all.
Only one way to convince me, real easy,
just give me a year warmer than 1998.
Benj
> On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.
> My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin!
>
> Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences
> since the 1950s!
You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause
of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory
of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it,
that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs
are "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the
universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of
progress.
Sam Wormley
>
> Really, I have been attending presentations
> in college auditoriums and public halls since
> the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate
> Change is about the dumbest of all.
That make you one old fart, doesn't it!
> Only one way to convince me, real easy,
> just give me a year warmer than 1998.
>
Published in 2006
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
Sam Wormley
Glad you agree Benj...
Don't forget the solution to the solar neutrino problem, sequencing
of genomes, space telescopes, finding water lots of placed in the
solar system.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 12/31/09 1:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Not everybody can be a smart mouth ex-associate professor.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Seems to me he is trapped in a repetitive time warp.
Maybe he needs to be posting all his messages
in sci.physics.relativity, they will love his ego.
I M @ good guy
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>It's so very vain even trying to open a rudimentally discussion with him.
>He's the worst case I've seen in this newsgroup since years.
>Even Ollibolli Rex or LLiard LLoyd are more conversable and amusing.
>This mantra-like "Look, I have - No, you're wrong - Look, I have- No, you're
>wrong" without any substance is more like his religion than science.
>As soon as you scratch his surface a little bit, he shuts himself off, hiding
>behind his stupid links.
I have been reading messages from sci.physics
in 2003 that were cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity,
I have never seen an original message by him, even
though he had to spend twice as long in school. :-)
With old age, long history of mild diabetes
and resulting heart trouble, cold weather is no
longer a joke, so I will suffer long stretches of
cabin fever during the next couple of months
while the AGW idiots complain about a fraction
of a degree warmer average in the cooked books.
There must be air moving up north some
place to have so much arctic air moving down
here.
Ilja
wrote:
> The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
> politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
> whores.
No, the problem is the way how scientists are paid. It makes them
whores.
Give a scientist a secure job (teaching at a university, nothing else,
publishing papers as his hobby, no grants) and you obtain independent
scientist who are able to tell you the truth without being afraid of
loosing
their jobs. (No, not loosing their jobs, but simply not getting a new
one.)
Almost everybody has more job security. But job security is the basis
of independence.
Make them dependent on science managers who distribute grants,
and you obtain whores.
Sam Wormley
I was hoping you would have greater curiosity about the chemistry
and physics of global climate change and dig into the science deeper.
What's to stop you from channeling your cabin fever into trying to
understand why climatologists have come to the conclusions that they
have. Are you not the least bit interested in the science?
tj Frazir
north of nyc.
The side of the moon and manic crator in canada line up and the 3500
foot wide rock at 40,000 mph put a 500,000 megaton blast at a 45 deg
angle and pushed the usa plate west 50 miles in 30 days.
The impact will produce a shock wave that will kill evrything 1000
miles around.
Then usa and canada pivot as canada breaks from alaska 50 miles and
panama rips in two 50 miles and usa has a new west coast .
It will hit ,,the moon will turn it 8 deg and speed it up as it heads
to earth and the earth wount be out of the way and hit it head on at 38
deg ,,just 300 miles from the last one that did th very same thing..
tj Frazir
To where it was made .
It may have came from earth when the moon hit earth .
A few pices may not hve changed speed or direction when a object like
the moon hit the earth.
Then at some point the two orbits will be at the same time same place
again.
just 300 miles from manicougan canada
tj Frazir
And that one grazed the moon and put a mark in it visible from earth
and hit the earth and is still visible from the moon.
In fact that rock may have orbited this rock when it hit he moon and
then the earth.
This rock might hit the moon and might turn at th moon and hit earth
right beside the manic canada crator .
100 KM wide blast at 38 deg will push the tatonic plate 50 miles west
in 30 days .
the 500000 megaton blast and shock wave is not the worse of it.. panama
rips in two ad alaska stays wile canada moves east.
manic crator busted the plate
Marvin the Martian
You don't have a clue what an "intelligent argument" is, do you?
We have e-mails where they conspire to alter the data with a "trick" to
"hide the decline".
We have a Fortran source code that is even COMMENTED that it is applying
a 'fudge factor' and there is no rational reason at all for it to be
there other than to support an argument that you know is false.
Then you come here and tell these bald faced lies that anyone familiar
with the issue knows is just a damned lie, and you think that has weight?
Marvin the Martian
Most AGWers use it a fig leaf for their global genocide fantasies, yes.
The mistake the rest of the world is making is that they wouldn't murder
billions of people once they had a chance. They will do it the same way
that Mao and Stalin did along with dozens of petty African warlords; and
that is by starvation.
Idiot policies like the "national animal control act", the "safe foods
act" and the trees on farmland policy.
Sam Wormley
>
> We have a Fortran source code that is even COMMENTED that it is applying
> a 'fudge factor' and there is no rational reason at all for it to be
> there other than to support an argument that you know is false.
Why don't you post that FORTRAN Code (or a link to it) so we may
scrutinize.
Marvin the Martian
That "article" hides by not giving a reference. There is a "for more
information" that takes you to here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Turns out that claim is from that Nazi Nutjob Hansen, who wants to charge
all "deniers" with crimes against humanity. The mans a raving loon.
And you know the data is utter bullshit because 1938 (aprox) was about as
warm as 1998, within a small fraction of a degree, and was probably the
warmest year of the 20th century. The real temperatures are hidden by
Hansen's bullshit "Global-Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly" parameter,
which is basically whatever the nutjob Hansen says it is.
You AGWers really must STOP using sources now debunked as utter
fabrications. That isn't going to work.
Marvin the Martian
Data gathering is not science. Science is the development of new theories
proven to predict. In the first half of this century, that would include
Quantum mechanics, Relativity, relativistic quantum, and the physics of
transistors.
No theoretical developments on that scale have happened in the last half
of the 20th century.
Sam Wormley
Yup--general relativity, QCD, GED, etc. pretty much says it all. :-)
Nice that we agree!
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> >> Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high
>> >>>>> for 15,000,000 years!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
>> >>>> advocates.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
>> >>> carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration
>> >>> of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per
>> >>> year.
>> >>
>> >> Caused by what?
>> >> Evidence your claim. Here.
>> >>
>> >> Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim. Where is it?
>> >> And don't come up with Google now.
>> >> I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.
>> >
>> > As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase in
>> > concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable observable.
>> >
>> > As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting that
>> > human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil fuel
>> > burning) is a contributing factor.
>> >
>> > Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?
>>
>> A sane man, a rational man, would have discussed the correction to the
>> CO2 data that shows that our recent CO2 levels is NOT unusual.
>>
>> Wormley, however, simply repeats the same sloped curve that the article
>> attacked, completely ignoring the entire issue, and throws in some
>> gratuitous irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
>>
>> Discussing this with him is pointless, IMHO. He doesn't listen and is
>> an endless source of smug assed yet mindless cut and paste repetitive
>> posts.
>
> Seems to me he is trapped in a repetitive time warp.
I wonder if he even reads what's posted. I think he just goes by the name
of the poster, and then he does his cut and paste. He uses the same post
hoc argument using bogus "temperature anomalies" graphs over and over
even if you point out that his logic is invalid and his premises are
exposed as outright lies and fraud.
He seems to think there is some civic duty in science to believe in AGW
and advocate for it. No.
Marvin the Martian
You won't scrutinize. You never have a critical eye. You just look at the
day and claim it is night. Those of us who CARE about science have
already looked at it and saw what a laughably outrageous piece of code it
was. They clearly didn't think anyone would ever look at it.
Just go away Wormely, You just didn't lose your credibility; you shot it,
poisoned it, ran a tank over it, fed it to a wood chipper and then fed it
to the pigs.
Sam Wormley
>
> You AGWers really must STOP using sources now debunked as utter
> fabrications. That isn't going to work.
Sam Wormley
>
> And you know the data is utter bullshit because 1938 (aprox) was about as
> warm as 1998, within a small fraction of a degree, and was probably the
> warmest year of the 20th century. The real temperatures are hidden by
> Hansen's bullshit "Global-Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly" parameter,
> which is basically whatever the nutjob Hansen says it is.
See:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-14-globalaveragetemperaturesnoaa.gif
Rav1ng rabbit
It seems that Peter Muehlbauer is stiil completely nuts in 2010.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Sam Wormley
>
> I wonder if he even reads what's posted.
Climate Monitoring
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
Sam Wormley
Marvin is afraid to post the FORTRAN code as it will likely
show he just blustering some more and doesn't even understand
the code! Post the FORTRAN Marvin!
Marvin the Martian
I agree. I've seen how the process "works". You never "debunk" a bad
idea. You say it needs "further study".
Sam Wormley
Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Forcings_Anthro.jpg
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Forcings_Both.jpg
TUKA
Utter bull. He speaks as if the model is evidence. It simply
is not. It is the usual AGW appeal to ignorance -- "We can't
imagine what else it might be, so it must be man."
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Marvin the Martian
Damn it, Wormly, this is exactly the kinda crap that I mean. That idiot
graph isn't mean global temperature, it's "anomaly" again; "temperature
anomaly" is whatever the damned fraud using it wants it to mean.
If the peak of the early 1940s isn't as higher than the current peak, the
graph is a bunch of LYING CRAP.
The fact that the e-mails prove collusion in spreading these damned lies
just can't get through to you. NO ONE IS FALLING FOR THIS STUPID LIE,
WORMELY, YOU'RE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
Marvin the Martian
I'll take that as a big "no, you don't read what's posted".
LOL!!
Rav1ng rabbit
> On 29 Dez. 2009, 23:47, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> wrote:
>> The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
>> politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
>> whores.
>
> No, the problem is the way how scientists are paid. It makes them
> whores.
Ah come on Ilja, what a boner.
>
> Give a scientist a secure job (teaching at a university, nothing else,
> publishing papers as his hobby, no grants) and you obtain independent
> scientist who are able to tell you the truth without being afraid of
> loosing
> their jobs. (No, not loosing their jobs, but simply not getting a new
> one.)
A common mistake of non-scientists is to think that science could create
something as magical as "the truth" which is a holy grail word invented
by creationists.
Scientists will in general not speak about the truth, or claim that they
have found the final answer to all your problems. Anywhere where this
occurs "science itself" is directly depreciated to "technology" to be
submitted to a patent office.
More common behavior is that scientists are never satisfied with an
answer, there is always something to do within their field.
The more fundamental question is, how do you trickle scientists to
become and stay productive for the rest of their career?
If you just give away the money then experience tells that "fat ass
civil servants" are often not motivated any long to do science. Poorly
educated engineers will grow to super-engineers, and they will run a
thriving cottage factory. Yet essentially nothing new will happen.
The most productive ones happen to work on grants, knowing that also
their position could be affected if they don't publish in peer review
journals. The most productive ones publish with high citation indexes,
win awards and produce new PhD's in their field.
Q
> Almost everybody has more job security. But job security is the basis
> of independence.
>
> Make them dependent on science managers who distribute grants,
> and you obtain whores.
>
>> It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.
>
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Really, I thought you wanted somebody
to say Whata Fool am I.
> What's to stop you from channeling your cabin fever into trying to
> understand why climatologists have come to the conclusions that they
> have.
Facts, like my heating bill going up, but
I apologize for not being able to understand
how warmer = cooler, or how cooler = warmer.
>Are you not the least bit interested in the science?
Very much so, after reading every science
fiction rag between 1938 and 1951, I gave up
science fiction for science.
Until a climate writer begins a paper with
"GreenHouse Gases are what cool the atmosphere",
I will have no confidence in them knowing what
they write about.
I consider water vapor and the LTE to provide
99 percent of holding the heat in the lower
atmosphere, CO2 is not a major factor.
I do not consider a person doing library
research and parroting what he read to be
an expert on the subject, the identical
wording of so many sentences in different
papers is a horrible example of science.
Sam Wormley
>
> Until a climate writer begins a paper with
> "GreenHouse Gases are what cool the atmosphere",
> I will have no confidence in them knowing what
> they write about.
Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat
so the earth doesn't cool so much.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/1/10 10:37 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
He should not post the code, just a link
to it, quit trying to get people to do illegal
things.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html?currentPage=2
http://di2.nu/foia/osborn-tree6/summer_modes/pl_decline.pro
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>Scientific Evidence
>Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
>
>http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
That is a good link, it clearly shows the temperature
goes down as soon as the CO2 goes up.
>http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Forcings_Anthro.jpg
Sam's better way to hide the decline, just stop at 2000.
>http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Forcings_Both.jpg
Gee, I wonder why the observation plot drops
below the models plot?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/1/10 12:36 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
But you are not able to describe in your own
words exactly how they do this and where the
heat is stored, how much, for how long?
GHGs do not "trap" heat as well as nitrogen,
because nitrogen can only lose the heat in
molecular collisions, while GHGs can't keep
from losing it because they radiate LW Infra-Red.
Isn't this clear enough for a ninth grader,
and doesn't it suggest a different story is needed
about what GHGs do and how they do it?
I don't subscribe fully to how much thermal
transfer takes place due to convection or latent
heat as described by Bill Ward, but LWIR transfer
in the atmosphere is very short range except for
the 10 um window.
Sam Wormley
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com>
>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat
>> so the earth doesn't cool so much.
>
>
> But you are not able to describe in your own
> words exactly how they do this and where the
> heat is stored, how much, for how long?
>
Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self
education concerning the greenhouse gas effect.
Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Claudius Denk
> On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>
> >> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat
> >> so the earth doesn't cool so much.
>
> > But you are not able to describe in your own
> > words exactly how they do this and where the
> > heat is stored, how much, for how long?
>
> Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self
> education concerning the greenhouse gas effect.
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
>
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Sam,
You have my deepest sympathy. I can't even imagine how frustrating it
must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say
how or why.
Richard Henry
>
> Only one way to convince me, real easy,
> just give me a year warmer than 1998.
2005.
2007.
Maybe 2009 - the numbers are not yet in.
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 1, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:46:10 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>>> Actually greenhouse gasses, by definition, "trap" heat
>>>> so the earth doesn't cool so much.
>>
>>> But you are not able to describe in your own
>>> words exactly how they do this and where the
>>> heat is stored, how much, for how long?
>>
>> Here are some resources so that you may do a bit of self
>> education concerning the greenhouse gas effect.
>>
>>
>> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scien...
>>
>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> Sam,
>
> You have my deepest sympathy. I can't even imagine how frustrating it
> must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say
> how or why.
I, like anybody else, can be wrong... I'm just trying to get
folks to look at the science and the data.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/1/10 3:14 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
You first;
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/794323929-72453084/content~content=a788582859~db=all
:-)
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 1/1/10 4:03 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
Don't you mean part of the science and data?
I have been trying for more than two years
to get people to see that GHGs are what cools the
atmosphere, and you dance around that and pretend
it isn't there.
Polly want a cracker?
I M @ good guy
Dream on.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg
I wish it would get warmer, cold and snow
can make it colder, and colder causes burning
more fossil fuel, so warming is good-good, win-win.
If the new literature that shows more CO2
cools the atmosphere is right, then what, reduce
fossil fuel use to prevent cooling?
mrbawana2u
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
Sam Wormley
> I have been trying for more than two years
> to get people to see that GHGs are what cools the
> atmosphere, and you dance around that and pretend
> it isn't there.
>
> Polly want a cracker?
Ref: http://dichionary.reference.com/search?q=parrot
par�rot
1. One who teaches or instructs; one whose business or occupation
is to instruct others; an instructor; a tutor.
2. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences,
especially a natural or physical science.
Source: The American Heritige� Dichionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2000 by Houghtin Mifflen Company.
Published by Houghtin Mifflen Company. All rights reserved.
Sam Wormley
>
> � 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.
>
Not while human have been on the planet! Last Time Carbon
Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists
Report.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Sam Wormley
>
> http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg
>
Gee: there seems to be some discrepancy here!
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
Now what could that be, bubba?