Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Greenhouse gases drove the close of the last ice age
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Apr 6, 2012, 2:47:53 PM4/6/12
to
Sam Wormley
Apr 6, 2012, 10:20:26 PM4/6/12
to
On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
>
> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
>
> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 7, 2012, 12:59:51 AM4/7/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
Only if you are fool and believe that you can use your climate model to
confirm your climate model's assumptions.
That's not science.
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
Only if you are fool and believe that you can use your climate model to
confirm your climate model's assumptions.
That's not science.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 7, 2012, 1:03:40 AM4/7/12
to
their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real world
data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the major
features seen in the proxies. "
In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of the
ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
matt_sykes
Apr 7, 2012, 3:15:20 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 6, 8:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
So in this study desperate scientists try to overturn the CO2 lagging
temperature data from the vostok and Greenland ice cores and inject
life into that dead dog, the gulf stream switching off as it gets
warmer.
This is achieved by creating a model to show what they want to show,
running it, and calling it proof thus overturning the very basis of
scientific rigour.
How really laughably pathetic that people are stupid enough to believe
this garbage.
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
So in this study desperate scientists try to overturn the CO2 lagging
temperature data from the vostok and Greenland ice cores and inject
life into that dead dog, the gulf stream switching off as it gets
warmer.
This is achieved by creating a model to show what they want to show,
running it, and calling it proof thus overturning the very basis of
scientific rigour.
How really laughably pathetic that people are stupid enough to believe
this garbage.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 7, 2012, 3:53:06 AM4/7/12
to
black and white fallacy; climate change must be either orbital or CO2 in
origin. Then since it isn't orbital, they claim it MUST be CO2 and
advance the CO2 curve up 800 years to make it causal.
I mean, damn. That's just wrong.
What really pisses me off is that they keep pushing this non-science out.
This is a slap in the face to all real scientist out there.
Wally W.
Apr 7, 2012, 9:08:26 AM4/7/12
to
It's all about positive feedbacks, you know.
Any day now, a climate model should explode after one feedback too
many.
Bill Snyder
Apr 7, 2012, 9:49:46 AM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:03:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
>close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
>>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
>>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
>>> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the
>>> ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
>>> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
>>> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as
>>> the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
>
>"To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
>their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
>forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
>drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
>8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real world
>data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the major
>features seen in the proxies. "
>
>In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of the
>ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
>
>They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
Dog ate the evidence that anyone except Svensmark and Marvie
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
>close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
>>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
>>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
>>> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the
>>> ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
>>> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
>>> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as
>>> the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
>
>"To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
>their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
>forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
>drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
>8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real world
>data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the major
>features seen in the proxies. "
>
>In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of the
>ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
>
>They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
consider it proven.
>And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
>was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
>the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
>
>Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2012, 10:50:59 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 1:03 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
>
> close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
>
>
> >> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
> >> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
> >> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
> >> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the
> >> ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
> >> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
> >> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as
> >> the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
>
> "To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
> their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
> forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
> drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
> 8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real world
> data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the major
> features seen in the proxies. "
>
> In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of the
> ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
>
> They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
Proven? Repeat after me: Cosmic rays are not correlated with
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-
>
> close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
>
>
> >> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
> >> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
> >> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
> >> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the
> >> ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
> >> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
> >> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well as
> >> the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
>
> "To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
> their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
> forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
> drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
> 8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real world
> data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the major
> features seen in the proxies. "
>
> In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of the
> ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
>
> They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
temperature.
>
> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
>
> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
Middle school math. You flunked.
Sam Wormley
Apr 7, 2012, 11:24:26 AM4/7/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Apr 8, 2012, 12:09:14 AM4/8/12
to
sun-climate/sun-climate03-335.jpg>
Humm. Seems to be that you're once again, wrong.
>> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
>> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
>> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
>>
>> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
>
> X cannot be a factor for Y if X is not correlated with Y.
>
> Middle school math. You flunked.
Elementary school science. You flunked.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 8, 2012, 12:25:06 AM4/8/12
to
spanked about the silly "black and white", Neglectful induction and
begging the question fallacies used in the paper.
I note that you've spammed the newsgroup with your question, as if you
subscribed to an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Quite frankly, if you do believe in your appeal to ignorance fallacy,
you're stupid. You're also using the same fallacy that was used in the
paper to throw out the data that shows that CO2 rose AFTER the climate
change. "If not this, it must be that!" is a fallacy.
The answer, of course, that climate is a complex system and NO ONE
understands it very well. We do know, however, that the CAGW "scientists"
are completely wrong - bad physics, failure of their predictive
hypothesis, complete non-science used in their methods, and out and out
fraud and lies.
A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
<http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/
sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
Then with Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases (which you don't
understand...), ocean cycles and so on.
If you think you can reduce it all down to just CO2, you're simple
minded.
Surfer
Apr 8, 2012, 1:01:41 AM4/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:15:20 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
>
>So in this study desperate scientists try to overturn the CO2 lagging
>temperature data from the vostok and Greenland ice cores and inject
>life into that dead dog, the gulf stream switching off as it gets
>warmer.
>
>This is achieved by creating a model to show what they want to show,
>running it, and calling it proof thus overturning the very basis of
>scientific rigour.
>
The article didn't say "proof".
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 8:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
>
>So in this study desperate scientists try to overturn the CO2 lagging
>temperature data from the vostok and Greenland ice cores and inject
>life into that dead dog, the gulf stream switching off as it gets
>warmer.
>
>This is achieved by creating a model to show what they want to show,
>running it, and calling it proof thus overturning the very basis of
>scientific rigour.
>
Why are you making making false claims?
matt_sykes
Apr 8, 2012, 4:09:49 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:01 am, Surfer <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:15:20 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:15:20 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>
worthless and doesnt constitute any kind of 'proof' that CO2 can end
an Ice Age I agree with you.
matt_sykes
Apr 8, 2012, 4:11:16 AM4/8/12
to
Sam Wormley
Apr 8, 2012, 9:39:01 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>
Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
>
> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>
by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
> Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
>
> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Sorry, Deniers, Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
>
ala
Apr 8, 2012, 9:45:36 AM4/8/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:DsKdnTr9A_prCRzS...@mchsi.com...
> On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>
>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>
>
> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/has-big-coal-lost-its-power-20120316
>
>>
>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>
>
> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>
Has Big Coal Lost Its Power?
By Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone
17 March 12
right now, energy geeks around the country are debating the economic and
political consequences of high gasoline prices, but here's one thing you can
say for sure: Pain at the pump is inspiring President Obama to make some
sharp speeches about energy. In Maryland yesterday, he confronted the issue
of soaring gas prices head-on, slamming Republicans for "talking down new
sources of energy" and aptly comparing fossil fuel-loving Solyndra-bashers
to "founding members of the Flat Earth Society."
I particularly liked the distinction he drew yesterday between energy
sources of the past and those of the future: "We can't have an energy
strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy
strategy for the future - an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st Century
that develops every source of American-made energy. Yes, develop as much
oil and gas as we can, but also develop wind power and solar power and
biofuels."
The most surprising thing about the speech was what Obama didn't say:
"coal." There were no odes to "clean coal," no false promises about the
number of jobs coal mining will provide in the future, no bullshit about how
America needs coal to keep the lights on. Nor did the president mention coal
in any of his riffs about energy in the recent State of the Union speech, or
in his remarks about energy in North Carolina a few weeks ago when he
promised to strip the fossil fuel industry of $4 billion in subsidies.
be...@iwaynet.net
Apr 8, 2012, 1:00:17 PM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 9:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>
> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
That's right Marvin. "Evidence is mounting" as the holocultists crank it
> On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>
> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
out by the ream! Remember, Marvin, in the "scientific method" the
decision as to what is "true" is a simple counting process whereby you
count the number of "scientists" on your side and the number of articles
and papers that have been published with your point of view.
And that is "settled science".
<Snip same old Wormley crap>
In my view a simple equation describes it all: AGW = NWO
Explains everything.
Sam Wormley
Apr 8, 2012, 1:32:56 PM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/12 12:00 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 9:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>
>>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
>> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
>> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>
> That's right Marvin. "Evidence is mounting"...
> On 4/8/2012 9:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>
>>> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>> Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated
>> by greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
>> contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>
Much of the evidence can be found in these resources:
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
Sam Wormley
Apr 8, 2012, 1:34:25 PM4/8/12
to
Marvin?
Marvin the Martian
Apr 8, 2012, 9:43:14 PM4/8/12
to
There really is not fucking reason at all to talk to someone as idiotic
as you, is there?
I can see why so many people think you're a bot.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 8, 2012, 9:55:49 PM4/8/12
to
But most people are not going to be able to understand that until AFTER
you explain fractional reserve central banking to them, and the history
of central banking in the world.
Sam Wormley
Apr 8, 2012, 10:41:40 PM4/8/12
to
R Kym Horsell
Apr 9, 2012, 12:40:00 AM4/9/12
to
explain the data; it is for them to supply long-winded self-contradictory rationalisations why they don't like the accepted theory, why they wouldn't like any of the current body of obsverations if they *were* to warm to the theory, and attempt to disqualify or studiously avoid mention of any assumption or subsidiary or allied area of research that supports or even looks like it could be useful within the generally accepted theory.
--
[Millikelvin Theory 2.0:]
I found my mistake!
It was in admitting that I made a mistake in the first place.
I will now stand by my claim that:
"A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would result in a 1
kelvin change in earth temperature."
Please show any mistake in my math.
[Goes on to show some dubious arithmetic].
-- wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka), 08 Apr 2012 16:57 -0500
Peter Webb
Apr 9, 2012, 1:36:41 AM4/9/12
to
"R Kym Horsell" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23575063.133.1333946400893.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbckz3...
Its nobody's job. Its not part of the scientific method. There is no
requirement to produce an alternate theory. If you think about it for a
little while, you may work out why this is the case. You should learn about
the scientific method.
it is for them to supply long-winded self-contradictory rationalisations
why they don't like the accepted theory, why they wouldn't like any of the
current body of obsverations if they *were* to warm to the theory, and
attempt to disqualify or studiously avoid mention of any assumption or
subsidiary or allied area of research that supports or even looks like it
could be useful within the generally accepted theory.
Wow. You certainly how to make long, rambling and semi-coherent sentences. I
personally believe that AGW is not a correct theory based on use of the
scientific method - it doesn't predict future temperatures correctly. If you
learn about the scientific method, and accept that it is the correct method
for determining the truth of scientific theories, we can discuss this
further.
hanson
Apr 9, 2012, 1:55:32 AM4/9/12
to
Mike Varney aka "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:5_qdnaFNl9wvox_S...@giganews.com...
Mike Varney Marvin wrote:
> WHOOSH!!!
> There really is not fucking reason at all to talk to someone
> as idiotic as you are, Sam Wormley, is there?
> WHOOSH!!!
> There really is not fucking reason at all to talk to someone
> I can see why so many people think you're a bot.
>
Did Sam crank you, Mikey?... ahahaha.. LOL & ROTFLMAO!
>
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 10:45:27 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 12:09 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelin...
we have a scientific article saying this happened before too.
> sun-climate/sun-climate03-335.jpg>
>
> Humm. Seems to be that you're once again, wrong.
>
> >> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
> >> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
> >> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
>
> >> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
>
> > X cannot be a factor for Y if X is not correlated with Y.
>
> > Middle school math. You flunked.
>
> X cannot be a factor for Y if X happens AFTER Y.
>
> Elementary school science. You flunked.
And for this warming, CO2 is preceding temperature increase, and now
>
> Humm. Seems to be that you're once again, wrong.
>
> >> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
> >> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
> >> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
>
> >> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
>
> > X cannot be a factor for Y if X is not correlated with Y.
>
> > Middle school math. You flunked.
>
> X cannot be a factor for Y if X happens AFTER Y.
>
> Elementary school science. You flunked.
we have a scientific article saying this happened before too.
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 10:47:05 AM4/9/12
to
1. The earth is warming.
2. CO2 traps heat.
3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
5. All other causes of the current warming have been investigated and
ruled out.
>
> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's
been refuted!
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 10:49:12 AM4/9/12
to
Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
Seriously, I want to know your answer.
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 10:48:24 AM4/9/12
to
hanson
Apr 9, 2012, 11:26:19 AM4/9/12
to
Globally self-Warmed Humdinger <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Varney aka Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:24:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 4/7/12 12:03 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
> >>>>the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
> >>>> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
> >>>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
> >>>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
> >>>> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like
> >>>> the ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
> >>>> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
> >>>> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well
> >>>> as the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a
> >>>> whole.
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:24:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 4/7/12 12:03 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:26 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
> >>>>the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
> >>>> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
> >>>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
> >>>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
> >>>> included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like
> >>>> the ice cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake
> >>>> sediments. These were then used to reconstruct both the local
> >>>> conditions, such as temperature and ocean current strength, as well
> >>>> as the mean temperature for each hemisphere and the planet as a
> >>>> whole.
>
Mike Varney Marvin wrote:
> >> "To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
> >> their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
> >> forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
> >> drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
> >> 8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real
> >> world data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the
> >> major features seen in the proxies. "
> >> In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of
> >> the ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
> >> They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
> >> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
> >> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
> >> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
> >> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
>
> >> "To test the influence of various climate influences, the authors reran
> >> their model with only one of the factors in place: either only orbital
> >> forcings or only carbon dioxide forcings. Orbital forcings were able to
> >> drive a very slight increase in temperature over the course of about
> >> 8,000 years, and showed little of the variability seen in the real
> >> world data. In contrast, the CO2-only scenario captured most of the
> >> major features seen in the proxies. "
> >> In other words, they allowed only TWO possible causes for the end of
> >> the ice age - Orbital changes or CO2.
> >> They ignored Svensmark's proven theory entirely.
> >> And since it wasn't orbital, all that was left in their computer model
> >> was CO2 and thus they move the curve 800 years to the future, ignoring
> >> the isotope data in the ice cores that says that is crap.
> >> Stupid as hell. You fell for it, of course.
>
Pinko Green Sam Wormley wrote:
> > What caused the warming, Marvin.
>
> > What caused the warming, Marvin.
>
Mike Varney Marvin wrote:
> I take it that now you want to change the subject because you've been
> spanked about the silly "black and white", Neglectful induction and
> begging the question fallacies used in the paper.
> I note that you've spammed the newsgroup with your question, as if you
> subscribed to an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> Quite frankly, if you do believe in your appeal to ignorance fallacy,
> you're stupid. You're also using the same fallacy that was used in the
> paper to throw out the data that shows that CO2 rose AFTER the climate
> change. "If not this, it must be that!" is a fallacy.
> The answer, of course, that climate is a complex system and NO ONE
> understands it very well. We do know, however, that the CAGW "scientists"
> are completely wrong - bad physics, failure of their predictive
> hypothesis, complete non-science used in their methods, and out and out
> fraud and lies.
> I take it that now you want to change the subject because you've been
> spanked about the silly "black and white", Neglectful induction and
> begging the question fallacies used in the paper.
> I note that you've spammed the newsgroup with your question, as if you
> subscribed to an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> Quite frankly, if you do believe in your appeal to ignorance fallacy,
> you're stupid. You're also using the same fallacy that was used in the
> paper to throw out the data that shows that CO2 rose AFTER the climate
> change. "If not this, it must be that!" is a fallacy.
> The answer, of course, that climate is a complex system and NO ONE
> understands it very well. We do know, however, that the CAGW "scientists"
> are completely wrong - bad physics, failure of their predictive
> hypothesis, complete non-science used in their methods, and out and out
> fraud and lies.
> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelin...
> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelin...
> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
> Then with Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases (which you don't
> understand...), ocean cycles and so on.
> If you think you can reduce it all down to just CO2, you're simple
> minded.
>
> understand...), ocean cycles and so on.
> If you think you can reduce it all down to just CO2, you're simple
> minded.
>
Humdinger wrote:
Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
1. The earth is warming.
2. CO2 traps heat.
3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
5. All other causes of the current warming have been
investigated and ruled out.
>
hanson wrote:
Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
1. The earth is warming.
2. CO2 traps heat.
3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
5. All other causes of the current warming have been
investigated and ruled out.
>
... "ruled out", except for the causes of these AGWers
who quoted their Green Bible that says:
>
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change
= provides equality in the world."
= -- Christine Stewart, Canada Enviro Minister.
>
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
= we will be doing the right thing".
= -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
>
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ...
= make it up on the spot... for the mass-media today...
= the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
>
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ...
= it only matters what people believe is true.
= -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace
>
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public
= by making things bigger and more dangerous
+ than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax.
>
9 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
-- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but then hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
hanson
Apr 9, 2012, 11:48:12 AM4/9/12
to
Humdinger wrote:
So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
hanson wrote:
So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
Humdinger, here it is: When you Humdinger, begin to take
yourself seriously you will realize that
>
= AGW is to Science what Astrology is to Astronomy ==
== AGW is to Science what Astrology is to Astronomy ==
=== AGW is to Science what Astrology is to Astronomy ==
>
Humdinger, when you begin to take yourself seriously
you will stop proselytizing for what these AGWers say in
bill jackson
Apr 9, 2012, 1:26:28 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 4:49 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
Funding, principally. It has been good for science, AGW. They dont
want it to stop.
want it to stop.
be...@iwaynet.net
Apr 9, 2012, 2:03:37 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 10:49 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
> Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
> do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>
> Seriously, I want to know your answer.
Gosh, "E. R. Schroedinger" as one of the most esteemed scientists of the
> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
> Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
> do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>
> Seriously, I want to know your answer.
modern age, you must SURELY be aware that your own theories were at
first soundly rejected by every national science academy and every
scientific organization (or more exactly their leadership), and yet,
amazingly, science isn't done by popular vote. I would think a person
your scientific fame would certainly understand that!
Here's a hint from another famous scientist:
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
hypothesis is wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Hey, E. R., how's your cat doing?
Nor is anything "proved" by anonymous pussies taking potshots while
hiding behind pseudonyms.
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 4:49:55 PM4/9/12
to
Is this why there isn't a cancer cure yet too? You're a total nutcase.
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 4:51:09 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 2:03 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
1990 IPCC report to the most recent.
>
> Here's a hint from another famous scientist:
>
> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
> have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
> your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
> hypothesis is wrong. Period."
>
> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
And the predictions today of climate models are right, but only when
anthropogenic effects are added.
> On 4/9/2012 10:49 AM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
> > Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
> > do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>
> > Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
> Gosh, "E. R. Schroedinger" as one of the most esteemed scientists of the
> modern age, you must SURELY be aware that your own theories were at
> first soundly rejected by every national science academy and every
> scientific organization (or more exactly their leadership), and yet,
> amazingly, science isn't done by popular vote. I would think a person
> your scientific fame would certainly understand that!
So? AGW was only accepted after tons of data came in -- compare the
>
> > So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
> > Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
> > do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>
> > Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
> Gosh, "E. R. Schroedinger" as one of the most esteemed scientists of the
> modern age, you must SURELY be aware that your own theories were at
> first soundly rejected by every national science academy and every
> scientific organization (or more exactly their leadership), and yet,
> amazingly, science isn't done by popular vote. I would think a person
> your scientific fame would certainly understand that!
1990 IPCC report to the most recent.
>
> Here's a hint from another famous scientist:
>
> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
> have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
> your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
> hypothesis is wrong. Period."
>
> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
anthropogenic effects are added.
Androcles
Apr 9, 2012, 5:03:09 PM4/9/12
to
"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:IvFgr.54002$IQ1....@newsfe18.iad...
> On 4/9/2012 10:49 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
>> Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
>> do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>>
>> Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
> Gosh, "E. R. Schroedinger" as one of the most esteemed scientists of the
> modern age, you must SURELY be aware that your own theories were at first
> soundly rejected by every national science academy and every scientific
> organization (or more exactly their leadership), and yet, amazingly,
> science isn't done by popular vote. I would think a person your scientific
> fame would certainly understand that!
>
> Here's a hint from another famous scientist:
>
> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
> have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
> side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
> wrong. Period."
>
> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
You'd do well to remember that, Jokaby. Your aether predictions are wrong.
>
>> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
>> Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
>> do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>>
>> Seriously, I want to know your answer.
>
> Gosh, "E. R. Schroedinger" as one of the most esteemed scientists of the
> modern age, you must SURELY be aware that your own theories were at first
> soundly rejected by every national science academy and every scientific
> organization (or more exactly their leadership), and yet, amazingly,
> science isn't done by popular vote. I would think a person your scientific
> fame would certainly understand that!
>
> Here's a hint from another famous scientist:
>
> "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
> have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
> side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
> wrong. Period."
>
> Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Tom P
Apr 9, 2012, 5:42:43 PM4/9/12
to
On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
The Nature article itself is here:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun et al
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
download: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
Super Turtle
Apr 9, 2012, 5:53:47 PM4/9/12
to
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:QuCdnUAKCPj2OeLS...@mchsi.com...
>On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>
>
>>
Oh, right this is that same old trick to "hide the decline", but now it is
"hide the incline!"
In other words, let's leave out any part of history where man's had any type
of modern industrialized nations, or even going back 200 years ago when we
started burning coal.
In other words, any of mankind's recent history is completely ignored by
this data, and in fact completely eliminated!
Therefore this really helps nothing in terms of stating that man's output of
co2 is driving temperatures.
In fact as noted, for about the last 5000 years the relationship they claim
of course breaks down, and does not exist.
Translation:
Can I have this straw paper hat conclusion served with a big huge fat round
of cherry pie?
Until the reason given of tossing out of the last 5000 years is explained
and why the ignored such a time frame, then we have to take this thing with
a huge grain of salt.
I fail to see how this is any different than the hockey stick in which the
temperatures from the tree ring proxies started going the wrong way that
people didn't like so they just simply tossed out that part.
Once again in this set of data they simply toss out parts that they don't
like and that don't agree with their conclusion!
Super Turtle
news:QuCdnUAKCPj2OeLS...@mchsi.com...
>On 4/6/12 1:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>
>
>>
>> To understand what was happening with the climate at the time, the
>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
>>included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the ice
>>cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake sediments.
>>These were then used to reconstruct both the local >>conditions, such as
>>temperature and ocean current strength, as well as the mean temperature
>>for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
And their trick and reason for leaving out the last 5000 years is why?
>> authors gathered data from 80 different climate proxies, widely
>> distributed around the globe. All of them covered 14,000 years that
>>included the exit from the last ice age; they included things like the ice
>>cores, microfossils in ocean sediments, and pollen from lake sediments.
>>These were then used to reconstruct both the local >>conditions, such as
>>temperature and ocean current strength, as well as the mean temperature
>>for each hemisphere and the planet as a whole.
Oh, right this is that same old trick to "hide the decline", but now it is
"hide the incline!"
In other words, let's leave out any part of history where man's had any type
of modern industrialized nations, or even going back 200 years ago when we
started burning coal.
In other words, any of mankind's recent history is completely ignored by
this data, and in fact completely eliminated!
Therefore this really helps nothing in terms of stating that man's output of
co2 is driving temperatures.
In fact as noted, for about the last 5000 years the relationship they claim
of course breaks down, and does not exist.
Translation:
Can I have this straw paper hat conclusion served with a big huge fat round
of cherry pie?
Until the reason given of tossing out of the last 5000 years is explained
and why the ignored such a time frame, then we have to take this thing with
a huge grain of salt.
I fail to see how this is any different than the hockey stick in which the
temperatures from the tree ring proxies started going the wrong way that
people didn't like so they just simply tossed out that part.
Once again in this set of data they simply toss out parts that they don't
like and that don't agree with their conclusion!
Super Turtle
ala
Apr 9, 2012, 9:39:47 PM4/9/12
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:jlv0c8$3tu$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>
> Humdinger, when you begin to take yourself seriously
> you will stop proselytizing for what these AGWers say in
> their Green Bible
you should take this to Tennessee
>>
> Humdinger, when you begin to take yourself seriously
> you will stop proselytizing for what these AGWers say in
> their Green Bible
wsj.com
April 5, 2012, 9:23 p.m. ET
Tennessee Is Lab for National Clash Over Science Class
By CAMERON MCWHIRTER
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam is likely in the coming days to sign into law a
bill requiring that public schools allow science teachers to discuss
purported weaknesses of theories such as evolution and global warming in
their classrooms.
Supporters, including a socially conservative organization in the state and
supporters of creationism, say the law allows teachers and students to
critique scientific theories they believe have flaws. They point out the
bill says the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious or
non-religious doctrine."
No major cases of Tennessee science teachers being punished for questioning
widely held theories have come to light, but the bill's proponents argue it
will provide a safeguard for those who want to raise questions.
hanson
Apr 10, 2012, 1:49:46 AM4/10/12
to
A Lame Ass "ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote
a) the reporters of the wsj already did that
b) but if you insist, then do it yourself...
I am here for fun and to crank fanatics.
So thanks for the laughs.. hahahahanson
>
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Humdinger, when you begin to take yourself seriously
>> you will stop proselytizing for what these AGWers say in
>> their Green Bible
>
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Humdinger, when you begin to take yourself seriously
>> you will stop proselytizing for what these AGWers say in
>> their Green Bible
>
A Lame Ass "ala" wrote:
> you should take this to Tennessee
> wsj.com
> April 5, 2012, 9:23 p.m. ET
> Tennessee Is Lab for National Clash Over Science Class
> By CAMERON MCWHIRTER
>
> Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam is likely in the coming days to sign into law a
> bill requiring that public schools allow science teachers to discuss
> purported weaknesses of theories such as evolution and global warming in
> their classrooms.
>
> Supporters, including a socially conservative organization in the state
> and supporters of creationism, say the law allows teachers and students to
> critique scientific theories they believe have flaws. They point out the
> bill says the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious or
> non-religious doctrine."
>
> No major cases of Tennessee science teachers being punished for
> questioning widely held theories have come to light, but the bill's
> proponents argue it will provide a safeguard for those who want to raise
> questions.
hanson wrote:
> you should take this to Tennessee
> wsj.com
> April 5, 2012, 9:23 p.m. ET
> Tennessee Is Lab for National Clash Over Science Class
> By CAMERON MCWHIRTER
>
> Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam is likely in the coming days to sign into law a
> bill requiring that public schools allow science teachers to discuss
> purported weaknesses of theories such as evolution and global warming in
> their classrooms.
>
> Supporters, including a socially conservative organization in the state
> and supporters of creationism, say the law allows teachers and students to
> critique scientific theories they believe have flaws. They point out the
> bill says the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious or
> non-religious doctrine."
>
> No major cases of Tennessee science teachers being punished for
> questioning widely held theories have come to light, but the bill's
> proponents argue it will provide a safeguard for those who want to raise
> questions.
a) the reporters of the wsj already did that
b) but if you insist, then do it yourself...
I am here for fun and to crank fanatics.
So thanks for the laughs.. hahahahanson
matt_sykes
Apr 10, 2012, 3:34:17 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
> On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> The Nature article itself is here:
> Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> during the last deglaciation
> Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
> download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
However ice core data doesnt show this does it? I mean, they can say
> The Nature article itself is here:
> Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> during the last deglaciation
> Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
> download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
all they like with a computer model but the facts are that temps
predate CO2 by around 800 years.
Tom P
Apr 10, 2012, 6:01:56 AM4/10/12
to
high-resolution globally distributed proxy temperature records - that
includes ice core records. So you are saying you would prefer to stick
just with the outdated analysis of ice core records and ignore the more
recent analysis? Don't forget that the dating of ice cores is not cast
in concrete, it's not like someone conveniently left some calendar
leaves buried in the ice.
bill jackson
Apr 10, 2012, 9:38:24 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 10:49 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
You asked. Dont blame me if you dont like the answer.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 11:04:15 AM4/10/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:48:24 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 8, 1:00 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>> >> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>> > Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated by
>> > greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
>> > contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>>
>> That's right Marvin. "Evidence is mounting" as the holocultists crank
>> it out by the ream! Remember, Marvin, in the "scientific method" the
>> decision as to what is "true" is a simple counting process whereby you
>> count the number of "scientists" on your side and the number of
>> articles and papers that have been published with your point of view.
>>
>> And that is "settled science".
>>
>> <Snip same old Wormley crap>
>>
>> In my view a simple equation describes it all: AGW = NWO
>>
>> Explains everything.
>
> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
When you say "every", you kinda give away the fact you're ignorant of
> On Apr 8, 1:00 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 9:39 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/7/12 11:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>> >> Elementary school science. You flunked.
>>
>> > Marvin, the evidence that temperature on the earth is dominated by
>> > greenhouse gas concentration is mounting! Each of these references
>> > contradict one or more of your misunderstandings, Marvin.
>>
>> That's right Marvin. "Evidence is mounting" as the holocultists crank
>> it out by the ream! Remember, Marvin, in the "scientific method" the
>> decision as to what is "true" is a simple counting process whereby you
>> count the number of "scientists" on your side and the number of
>> articles and papers that have been published with your point of view.
>>
>> And that is "settled science".
>>
>> <Snip same old Wormley crap>
>>
>> In my view a simple equation describes it all: AGW = NWO
>>
>> Explains everything.
>
> So why do YOU think every national science academy says you're wrong?
logic.
Nice bandwagon fallacy.
The reason why the agree is to get the money. I explained how that works
before.
> Why do YOU think every scientific organization says you're wrong? Why
> do 97% of the climate science papers in journals say you're wrong?
>
> Seriously, I want to know your answer.
making a point with your idiot question based on fallacies, as I've
already explained it more than once.
Money and politics.
Now, stop lying.
I notice that you can't argue the science, all you can do is make meta
arguments over what you think your betters want you to say.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 11:05:21 AM4/10/12
to
hypothesis to affirm the hypothesis. It's called "begging the question".
That went right over your head, didn't it?
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 11:39:04 AM4/10/12
to
majority of them should show about 2 Kelvins of Urban Heat Island
effect.
Premise 2 is trivially irrelevant. You probably meant to say that CO2
absorbs IR (a form of heat) in the 13 to 20 micrometer band, which caused
a bit of warming above what water vapor would cause. CO2 blocks all the
IR in this band it is going to block from the surface of the earth.
However, an increase in CO2 should block some of the incoming sunlight
from reaching the surface, which may cause cooling.
Premise 3 is grammatical gibberish. What you probably meant to say is
that the concentration of CO2 at Mount Loa, a live Volcano on a tropical
island in the middle of the Pacific ocean is currently 40% higher than an
Antarctica ice core analysis says was the CO2 concentration there in
1860. Mind you, even now there is a 15 ppm difference between Antarctica
and Hawaii.
Premise 4 is wrong. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 is from a
sequestered source, it certainly does NOT show it is from fossil fuels.
You'd have to believe that anthropogenic CO2 was some how magical and
didn't enter the carbon cycle to believe your stupid premise.
Premise 5 is not only not true and a damnable lie (See, for example,
Svensmark. Cosmic rays are NOT ruled out), but irrelevant even if it was
true and would be a neglectful induction fallacy.
Taken together, it appears your collection of bad premises is nothing but
a post hoc fallacy.
Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is? I've explained it many times to
the other jackass, Sam Wormley. It's when you mistake a stupid argument
like "this happened with that, so this caused that!" for science. It has
been known to be a stupid argument for over 2000 years. And here you are
using that stupid argument. Can you even be embarrassed? Apparently not.
Like a Creationist, you're quite smug and arrogant in your fallacious
utterances.
>> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
>> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/
forskning/05_afdelin...
>> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
>
> Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's been
> refuted!
event, where the earth's magnetic field screwed up the proxy that was
used to judge the intensity of the high energy cosmic rays.
The other was when the AGW frauds pretended to be too stupid to
understand that it is only the high energy muons that prompt cloud
nucleation, and showed that the total muon flux was not correlated to
climate change.
I find your last stupid statement to be particularly hypocritical. The AGW
frauds don't even have a scientific hypothesis to refute.
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 12:16:29 PM4/10/12
to
cores came from, but that samples from other parts of the world,
tested for the first time, shows CO2 led temps elsewhere.
Did you read the article or are you like Tundy with his fake book
review?
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 12:25:35 PM4/10/12
to
If you pay people to write bullshit, they will write bullshit. The UK,
the US, Shell Oil and BP all pay people to write pro-AGW non-science.
In a profession where 50% of the PhD's in physics are not employed in
physics, and their average starting salary is the same as a BSEE, you
betcha there's enough desperate newly minted physicist to fill the ranks
of government frauds. It only takes a few dozen.
Bill Snyder
Apr 10, 2012, 12:33:06 PM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:25:35 -0500, Marvin the Martian
Marvie's conspiracy theories really aren't good for his blood
pressure. He imagines all these people rolling in money, while he
can't get anybody to pay him one single penny for writing his
bullshit, and bang! 200/150.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
pressure. He imagines all these people rolling in money, while he
can't get anybody to pay him one single penny for writing his
bullshit, and bang! 200/150.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
erschro...@gmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 12:19:47 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 11:39 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
BEST disproved that.
>
> Premise 2 is trivially irrelevant. You probably meant to say that CO2
> absorbs IR (a form of heat) in the 13 to 20 micrometer band, which caused
> a bit of warming above what water vapor would cause. CO2 blocks all the
> IR in this band it is going to block from the surface of the earth.
> However, an increase in CO2 should block some of the incoming sunlight
> from reaching the surface, which may cause cooling.
Nope. That incoming sunlight isn't reflected back -- CO2 isn't a
mirror. The absorbed incoming radiation is also absorbed by CO2,
heating up the atmosphere.
>
> Premise 3 is grammatical gibberish. What you probably meant to say is
> that the concentration of CO2 at Mount Loa, a live Volcano on a tropical
> island in the middle of the Pacific ocean is currently 40% higher than an
> Antarctica ice core analysis says was the CO2 concentration there in
> 1860. Mind you, even now there is a 15 ppm difference between Antarctica
> and Hawaii.
Sorry, that's false. No place on earth shows 40% higher CO2 in 1860.
>
> Premise 4 is wrong. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 is from a
> sequestered source, it certainly does NOT show it is from fossil fuels.
> You'd have to believe that anthropogenic CO2 was some how magical and
> didn't enter the carbon cycle to believe your stupid premise.
The only sequestered source that is releasing CO2 is fossil fuels.
>
> Premise 5 is not only not true and a damnable lie (See, for example,
> Svensmark. Cosmic rays are NOT ruled out), but irrelevant even if it was
> true and would be a neglectful induction fallacy.
>
Cosmic rays are not even correlated with temp, so they cannot be a
cause of it. I provided you with a graph showing this.
> Taken together, it appears your collection of bad premises is nothing but
> a post hoc fallacy.
>
> Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is? I've explained it many times to
> the other jackass, Sam Wormley. It's when you mistake a stupid argument
> like "this happened with that, so this caused that!" for science. It has
> been known to be a stupid argument for over 2000 years. And here you are
> using that stupid argument. Can you even be embarrassed? Apparently not.
> Like a Creationist, you're quite smug and arrogant in your fallacious
> utterances.
>
> >> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> >> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/
No, a good place to start is with science.
>
> forskning/05_afdelin...
>
> >> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
>
> > Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's been
> > refuted!
>
> The "refutations" were discussed in the paper. One involved the Laschamp
> event, where the earth's magnetic field screwed up the proxy that was
> used to judge the intensity of the high energy cosmic rays.
No, it didn't. I provided you with a graph.
>
> The other was when the AGW frauds pretended to be too stupid to
> understand that it is only the high energy muons that prompt cloud
> nucleation, and showed that the total muon flux was not correlated to
> climate change.
>
> I find your last stupid statement to be particularly hypocritical. The AGW
> frauds don't even have a scientific hypothesis to refute.
Then why do almost all scientists agree with me and not you?
>
> Premise 2 is trivially irrelevant. You probably meant to say that CO2
> absorbs IR (a form of heat) in the 13 to 20 micrometer band, which caused
> a bit of warming above what water vapor would cause. CO2 blocks all the
> IR in this band it is going to block from the surface of the earth.
> However, an increase in CO2 should block some of the incoming sunlight
> from reaching the surface, which may cause cooling.
mirror. The absorbed incoming radiation is also absorbed by CO2,
heating up the atmosphere.
>
> Premise 3 is grammatical gibberish. What you probably meant to say is
> that the concentration of CO2 at Mount Loa, a live Volcano on a tropical
> island in the middle of the Pacific ocean is currently 40% higher than an
> Antarctica ice core analysis says was the CO2 concentration there in
> 1860. Mind you, even now there is a 15 ppm difference between Antarctica
> and Hawaii.
>
> Premise 4 is wrong. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 is from a
> sequestered source, it certainly does NOT show it is from fossil fuels.
> You'd have to believe that anthropogenic CO2 was some how magical and
> didn't enter the carbon cycle to believe your stupid premise.
>
> Premise 5 is not only not true and a damnable lie (See, for example,
> Svensmark. Cosmic rays are NOT ruled out), but irrelevant even if it was
> true and would be a neglectful induction fallacy.
>
cause of it. I provided you with a graph showing this.
> Taken together, it appears your collection of bad premises is nothing but
> a post hoc fallacy.
>
> Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is? I've explained it many times to
> the other jackass, Sam Wormley. It's when you mistake a stupid argument
> like "this happened with that, so this caused that!" for science. It has
> been known to be a stupid argument for over 2000 years. And here you are
> using that stupid argument. Can you even be embarrassed? Apparently not.
> Like a Creationist, you're quite smug and arrogant in your fallacious
> utterances.
>
> >> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> >> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/
>
> forskning/05_afdelin...
>
> >> sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
>
> > Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's been
> > refuted!
>
> The "refutations" were discussed in the paper. One involved the Laschamp
> event, where the earth's magnetic field screwed up the proxy that was
> used to judge the intensity of the high energy cosmic rays.
>
> The other was when the AGW frauds pretended to be too stupid to
> understand that it is only the high energy muons that prompt cloud
> nucleation, and showed that the total muon flux was not correlated to
> climate change.
>
> I find your last stupid statement to be particularly hypocritical. The AGW
> frauds don't even have a scientific hypothesis to refute.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 10, 2012, 12:37:29 PM4/10/12
to
In sci.physics Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> In a profession where 50% of the PhD's in physics are not employed in
> physics, and their average starting salary is the same as a BSEE, you
> betcha there's enough desperate newly minted physicist to fill the ranks
> of government frauds. It only takes a few dozen.
Have they gone up that much or is the BSEE in decline?
> In a profession where 50% of the PhD's in physics are not employed in
> physics, and their average starting salary is the same as a BSEE, you
> betcha there's enough desperate newly minted physicist to fill the ranks
> of government frauds. It only takes a few dozen.
Last time I looked at a wage survey several years ago a new BSEE got far
more than a new phyics PhD.
I would guess a big part is BSEE's being down as a major employeer of
BSEE's, aerospace, is now virtually non-existant compared to the 80's.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 1:43:24 PM4/10/12
to
the bad stations were really 1%.
>
>
>> Premise 2 is trivially irrelevant. You probably meant to say that CO2
>> absorbs IR (a form of heat) in the 13 to 20 micrometer band, which
>> caused a bit of warming above what water vapor would cause. CO2 blocks
>> all the IR in this band it is going to block from the surface of the
>> earth. However, an increase in CO2 should block some of the incoming
>> sunlight from reaching the surface, which may cause cooling.
>
> Nope. That incoming sunlight isn't reflected back -- CO2 isn't a
> mirror. The absorbed incoming radiation is also absorbed by CO2,
> heating up the atmosphere.
Everyone can tell you're lying.
>> Premise 3 is grammatical gibberish. What you probably meant to say is
>> that the concentration of CO2 at Mount Loa, a live Volcano on a
>> tropical island in the middle of the Pacific ocean is currently 40%
>> higher than an Antarctica ice core analysis says was the CO2
>> concentration there in 1860. Mind you, even now there is a 15 ppm
>> difference between Antarctica and Hawaii.
>
> Sorry, that's false. No place on earth shows 40% higher CO2 in 1860.
>> Premise 4 is wrong. Isotopic analysis shows that the CO2 is from a
>> sequestered source, it certainly does NOT show it is from fossil fuels.
>> You'd have to believe that anthropogenic CO2 was some how magical and
>> didn't enter the carbon cycle to believe your stupid premise.
>
> The only sequestered source that is releasing CO2 is fossil fuels.
carbonate rocks, is a major source of sequestered carbon.
>> Premise 5 is not only not true and a damnable lie (See, for example,
>> Svensmark. Cosmic rays are NOT ruled out), but irrelevant even if it
>> was true and would be a neglectful induction fallacy.
>>
>>
> Cosmic rays are not even correlated with temp, so they cannot be a cause
> of it. I provided you with a graph showing this.
correlated to cloud formation.
>> Taken together, it appears your collection of bad premises is nothing
>> but a post hoc fallacy.
>>
>> Do you know what a post hoc fallacy is? I've explained it many times to
>> the other jackass, Sam Wormley. It's when you mistake a stupid argument
>> like "this happened with that, so this caused that!" for science. It
>> has been known to be a stupid argument for over 2000 years. And here
>> you are using that stupid argument. Can you even be embarrassed?
>> Apparently not. Like a Creationist, you're quite smug and arrogant in
>> your fallacious utterances.
>>
>> >> A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
>> >> <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/
>
> No, a good place to start is with science.
kicked you in the ass.
< snip more moronic gibberish like a bandwagon fallacy and more lies >
You're a true shameless idiot. Everyone who reads your prattle can look
up bandwagon fallacy, and your stupid bw fallacy isn't even based on the
truth.
I mean, damn.
Will Janoschka
Apr 10, 2012, 2:57:43 PM4/10/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:05, "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ĸ ĸWhat caused the warming, Marvin.
> 2. CO2 traps heat.
Lie No2.
>
Gee 5 lies in 5 statements! Is this how 5th grade teachers do it?
> >
> > A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> > <http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelin...
> > minded.
>
How about non-minded------
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I take it that now you want to change the subject because you've been
> > spanked about the silly "black and white", Neglectful induction and
> > begging the question fallacies used in the paper.
> >
> > I note that you've spammed the newsgroup with your question, as if you
> > subscribed to an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> >
> > Quite frankly, if you do believe in your appeal to ignorance fallacy,
> > you're stupid. You're also using the same fallacy that was used in the
> > paper to throw out the data that shows that CO2 rose AFTER the climate
> > change. "If not this, it must be that!" is a fallacy.
> >
> > The answer, of course, that climate is a complex system and NO ONE
> > understands it very well. We do know, however, that the CAGW "scientists"
> > are completely wrong - bad physics, failure of their predictive
> > hypothesis, complete non-science used in their methods, and out and out
> > fraud and lies.
>
> Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
>
> 1. The earth is warming.
Lie No1.
> > I take it that now you want to change the subject because you've been
> > spanked about the silly "black and white", Neglectful induction and
> > begging the question fallacies used in the paper.
> >
> > I note that you've spammed the newsgroup with your question, as if you
> > subscribed to an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> >
> > Quite frankly, if you do believe in your appeal to ignorance fallacy,
> > you're stupid. You're also using the same fallacy that was used in the
> > paper to throw out the data that shows that CO2 rose AFTER the climate
> > change. "If not this, it must be that!" is a fallacy.
> >
> > The answer, of course, that climate is a complex system and NO ONE
> > understands it very well. We do know, however, that the CAGW "scientists"
> > are completely wrong - bad physics, failure of their predictive
> > hypothesis, complete non-science used in their methods, and out and out
> > fraud and lies.
>
> Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
>
> 1. The earth is warming.
> 2. CO2 traps heat.
Lie No2.
> 3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
Lie No3.
> 4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
Lie No4.
> 5. All other causes of the current warming have been investigated and
> ruled out.
Lie No5.
> ruled out.
>
Gee 5 lies in 5 statements! Is this how 5th grade teachers do it?
> >
> > A good place to start is with Svensmark paper:
> > sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>
>
> Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's
> been refuted!
>
>
> >
>
> Like starting with a paper about the steady-state universe -- it's
> been refuted!
>
>
> >
> > Then with Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases (which you don't
> > understand...), ocean cycles and so on.
> >
> > If ĸyou think you can reduce it all down to just CO2, you're simple
> > understand...), ocean cycles and so on.
> >
> > minded.
>
How about non-minded------
Marvin the Martian
Apr 10, 2012, 10:49:56 PM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:57:43 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:05, "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
>>
>> 1. The earth is warming.
> Lie No1.
>> 2. CO2 traps heat.
> Lie No2.
>> 3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
> Lie No3.
>> 4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
> Lie No4.
>> 5. All other causes of the current warming have been investigated and
>> ruled out.
> Lie No5.
>>
>>
> Gee 5 lies in 5 statements! Is this how 5th grade teachers do it?
What's really bad, is that even if his lies were true, they would be
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:05, "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Uh, the basic science is 5th grade level:
>>
>> 1. The earth is warming.
> Lie No1.
>> 2. CO2 traps heat.
> Lie No2.
>> 3. CO2 is up 40% in the earth's atmosphere.
> Lie No3.
>> 4. Isotopic analysis shows the CO2 is from fossil fuels.
> Lie No4.
>> 5. All other causes of the current warming have been investigated and
>> ruled out.
> Lie No5.
>>
>>
> Gee 5 lies in 5 statements! Is this how 5th grade teachers do it?
fallacious non-science.
He doesn't know enough about reason to even be embarrassed; you can tell
him about a post hoc fallacy, and like that other idiot, he won't google
it and learn anything. His fallacies suit him so he clings to them
dearly.
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 10:44:41 PM4/12/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
Note how quickly the warming happened after increased atmospheric
CO2 happened. The smoothed average temperature curve follows the
increase in atmospheric CO2, just as all of the scientists
predicted.
Note also the AMOC: Dr. Mann and his team were the first to
identify that cycle using various temperature proxies, and the
first to add the error bars.
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
Note how quickly the warming happened after increased atmospheric
CO2 happened. The smoothed average temperature curve follows the
increase in atmospheric CO2, just as all of the scientists
predicted.
Note also the AMOC: Dr. Mann and his team were the first to
identify that cycle using various temperature proxies, and the
first to add the error bars.
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 10:45:17 PM4/12/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:59:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
> Only if you are fool and believe that you can use your climate model to
> confirm your climate model's assumptions.
It's from measurements, you stupid shit.
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
> Only if you are fool and believe that you can use your climate model to
> confirm your climate model's assumptions.
It's from measurements, you stupid shit.
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 10:46:17 PM4/12/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:42:43 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd>
wrote:
Thank you for the PDF, but the article is still embargoed on the
internet; I object to intellectual property theft.
wrote:
internet; I object to intellectual property theft.
AGWFacts
Apr 12, 2012, 10:46:48 PM4/12/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
> >
> > The Nature article itself is here:
> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> > during the last deglaciation
> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> > Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
> > download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>
> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
Read the article, Shit-for-brains. It includes ice core proxies.
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-th...
> >
> > The Nature article itself is here:
> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> > during the last deglaciation
> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> > Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
> > download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>
> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
Good fucking grief.
Marvin the Martian
Apr 13, 2012, 11:27:14 AM4/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:46:48 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >
>> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
th...
>> >
>> > The Nature article itself is here:
>> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
>> > during the last deglaciation
>> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
>> > Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
>> > download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>>
>> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
Correct. In all the ice core data, the CO2 lags the warming.
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >
>> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
th...
>> >
>> > The Nature article itself is here:
>> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
>> > during the last deglaciation
>> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
>> > Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
>> > download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>>
>> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
Even this paper says that the warming caused a CO2 increase.
It is based on a unphysical model; that is, it contradicts known physics
that says that as the earth warms it would radiate MORE energy; their
computer models say it radiates LESS energy, a violation of Planck's law
- but what the hell, Wormley and "AGW Facts" don't need no stinkin'
Planck's law - they're above the law.
Anyway, they took this bogus computer model that can't be correct,
limited it to either orbital causes or CO2 as a cause of warming, found
it couldn't be orbital, thus it had to be CO2.
How's that for a neglectful induction fallacy? Wormley and "AGW facts",
who spew nothing but logical fallacies in the newsgroup, of course, loved
this stupidity.
> Read the article, Shit-for-brains. It includes ice core proxies. Good
> fucking grief.
good scientist you are.
Tom P
Apr 13, 2012, 11:57:19 AM4/13/12
to
On 04/13/2012 04:46 AM, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:42:43 +0200, Tom P<wero...@freent.dd>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>>
>>
>> The Nature article itself is here:
>> Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
>> during the last deglaciation
>> Jeremy D. Shakun et al
>> Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
>> download: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>
> Thank you for the PDF, but the article is still embargoed on the
> internet; I object to intellectual property theft.
That's strange, the link works fine for me. I got it via scholar.google.
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:42:43 +0200, Tom P<wero...@freent.dd>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>>>
>>
>> The Nature article itself is here:
>> Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
>> during the last deglaciation
>> Jeremy D. Shakun et al
>> Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012)
>> download: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
>
> Thank you for the PDF, but the article is still embargoed on the
> internet; I object to intellectual property theft.
matt_sykes
Apr 14, 2012, 7:56:27 AM4/14/12
to
matt_sykes
Apr 14, 2012, 7:58:22 AM4/14/12
to
about earlier.
matt_sykes
Apr 14, 2012, 7:59:36 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 13, 4:46 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>
according to a model.
In the real world though the ice core data shows it doesnt.
AGWFacts
Apr 14, 2012, 3:11:36 PM4/14/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:44:41 -0600, AGWFacts
<AGWF...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
> Note how quickly the warming happened after increased atmospheric
> CO2 happened. The smoothed average temperature curve follows the
> increase in atmospheric CO2, just as all of the scientists
> predicted.
>
> Note also the AMOC: Dr. Mann and his team were the first to
> identify that cycle using various temperature proxies, and the
> first to add the error bars.
Funny how the alarnists are hiding in terror at this article
<AGWF...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:47:53 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-the-close-of-the-last-ice-age.ars
>
> Note how quickly the warming happened after increased atmospheric
> CO2 happened. The smoothed average temperature curve follows the
> increase in atmospheric CO2, just as all of the scientists
> predicted.
>
> Note also the AMOC: Dr. Mann and his team were the first to
> identify that cycle using various temperature proxies, and the
> first to add the error bars.
thread, eh?
AGWFacts
Apr 14, 2012, 3:12:47 PM4/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:27:14 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:46:48 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> > <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
> th...
> >> >
> >> > The Nature article itself is here:
> >> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> >> > during the last deglaciation
> >> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> >> > Nature 484, 49?54 (05 April 2012)
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:46:48 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:34:17 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> > <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 11:42 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> > On 04/06/2012 08:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/greenhouse-gases-drove-
> th...
> >> >
> >> > The Nature article itself is here:
> >> > Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
> >> > during the last deglaciation
> >> > Jeremy D. Shakun et al
> >> > download:http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdf
> >>
> >> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
> Correct.
Idiot.
> >>
> >> However ice core data doesnt show this does it?
> Correct.
> In all the ice core data, the CO2 lags the warming.
fucking paper.
0 new messages