>> >> >> >"Earl Evleth" wrote in message The last National Geographic
>> >> >> >deals with this issue. The answer it is changing. <<<<<<<<
>> >> >> >The Earth's weather has been changing for a billion years or so.
>> >> >> >That the weather is changing is NOT the question.
>> >> >> >The question is whether man is making it change or not.
>> >> >> >I vote for "not".
>> >> >> >You seem to think we are the ones who are changing the weather, which is >> >> >> >ridiculous.
>> >> >> >Who was changing the weather 1000 years ago or a 1,000,000 years ago ??????
>> >> >> >You lefties just have to have something to whine about or you are not happy.
>> >> >> >In the 1970's it was global COOLING that was going to doom the planet.
>> >> >> >Today it's global warming.
>> >> >> >I wonder what it will be 30 years from now....global stagnation ?
>> >> >> How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
>> >> >> I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
>> >> >> But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you hit
>> >> >> a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
>> >> >> happening with climate change.
>> >> >Really? From where did you get such a thought?
>> >> >> Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
>> >> >> and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
>> >> >> slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate
>> >> >> changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway.
>> >> >So you say!
>> >> How long do you think modern humans have been on the planet?
>> >I was speaking of your gulability, on how fast or slowly things change
>> >depending on the words of others with a political agenda.
>> The situation reminds me of the historic battle with the cigarette
>> manufacturers who claimed cigarettes weren't harmful. Who were
>> Americans supposed to trust during that debate? How would a person
>> decide who to trust and who not to trust?
>> As for me, when push really comes to shove on climate change, I trust
>> scientists who have written articles on the specific subject in a
>> peer-reviewed, scientific journal. What method do you use to decide
>> who to believe?
>I actually read those articles and other articles falsifing the claims
>of those
>first articles. When I see articles peer reviewed by only the >authors
>employees, I grow suspicious. When the same articles make only vague
>claims in the passave voice such as "A strongly suggests B" with no >further
>data, I grow more suspicious. When the same articles consistantly >make
>predictions that turn out to be false and have to be corrected after >the fact
>I grow convinced of nonsense, and try to find out who is funding the >nonsense.
>All of the articles of Dr. James Hansen et-al, NASA Goddard fall in >this catagory.
>The warmists blaim everything on CO2. They claim that only the CO2 >from oxidizing
>coal is bad CO2, therefore needs a $20 per ton tax on coal. This >will make the price
>of so called natural gas competitive. CO2 and dirty H2O from >oxidizing natural gas
>however is OK. The warmists seem not interested in more efficient use
>of energy, >but only in eliminating the competing coal industry. You go guess >who is funding!
>Of course the coal industry is funding the opposing view, all of both
>sides scientific >and peer reviewed of course!
>It is the lobbyists that make a bundle keeping this going.
>Here is an abstract from a real mathimatical physicist.
> ABSTRACT
>The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace >back >to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius >1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially >describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts
>as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively >interacting >with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According
>to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can >never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)
>The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
>"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
>by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
>The whole PDF is available on line. >There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
>The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
>1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
>Max, Please read both sides to this political football
>than decide.
>For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
>thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business >plans, that need government intervention or not.
>God help us all!!!
Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann. They say that his "most significant
errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
atmosphere."
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
be interesting if he did.
>> >> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg7e6t0i860qa429...@4ax.com,
>> >> "mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
>> >>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>> >>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
>> >> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
>> >> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
>> >Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion, >> >and only post things here which support that position?
>> >Can you answer that, honestly?
>> When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
>> been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
>> journal and ignore the rest of the stuff. For a very quick,
>> non-rigourous overview of a subject, I often look at Wikipedia and
>> here's what they say about climate change:
>> "The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
>> human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
>> change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
>> issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
>> of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]
>Max, If you read those endorsements all they really say is
>"mabe, but more research is required"!
>The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
>25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
>How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?
>I am not in any way saying that earthlings are not to blame
>for lotsa crap. However the research continues to be flawed
>and has provided no answers, only claims. I think the problem
>is using research rather than search. Get those NASA heat >transfer engineers that design the back heat radiators for the >SS solar panels. These are the folk that do heat transfer >equations in their sleep and when they have an "answer", >then they check with others for "aw shits".
>Scientists seem to do that backwards.
>This planet's thermal control system seems to work in spite
>of 7 billion earthlings, and if need fixing, it will not be done
>by the "alls ya gosta do" of some scientist. Scientists are
>great to explain how something works, AFTER it works.
>They still have a hard time explaining how a vacuum
>tube works. That device pretty much won WWII. >Solid state semiconductors are much easier to explain.
>Can you imagine some scientist conceving even the >thought of a 3 color CRT before it was built?
Since I'm not a climate expert, and I don't want to claim that I'm
something that I'm not, I believe that the only reasonable approach I
can take is to listen to those who are climate experts and Wikipedia
reports that the GW theory has been endorsed by EVERY national science
academy that has issued a statement on the subject.
Do you believe that Wikipedia is wrong? Or can you name any national
science academies that have not endorsed GW theory?
On 25/09/12 11:04, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-pn2-hu30g4dmq...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> Check with the CBO on "Climate Research"
I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
the sun).
We know from data gathering that atmospheric CO2 has
been rising, and we know the global temperatures are
too. We know there is no significant change in solar
energy so the finger only points at the CO2.
>> >> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg7e6t0i860qa429...@4ax.com,
>> >> "mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
>> >>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>> >>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
>> >> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
>> >> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
>> >Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion, >> >and only post things here which support that position?
>> >Can you answer that, honestly?
>> When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
>> been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
>> journal and ignore the rest of the stuff. For a very quick,
>> non-rigourous overview of a subject, I often look at Wikipedia and
>> here's what they say about climate change:
>> "The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
>> human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
>> change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
>> issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
>> of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]
>Max, If you read those endorsements all they really say is
>"mabe, but more research is required"!
>The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
>25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
>How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?
>I am not in any way saying that earthlings are not to blame
>for lotsa crap. However the research continues to be flawed
>and has provided no answers, only claims. I think the problem
>is using research rather than search. Get those NASA heat >transfer engineers that design the back heat radiators for the >SS solar panels. These are the folk that do heat transfer >equations in their sleep and when they have an "answer", >then they check with others for "aw shits".
>Scientists seem to do that backwards.
>This planet's thermal control system seems to work in spite
>of 7 billion earthlings, and if need fixing, it will not be done
>by the "alls ya gosta do" of some scientist. Scientists are
>great to explain how something works, AFTER it works.
>They still have a hard time explaining how a vacuum
>tube works. That device pretty much won WWII. >Solid state semiconductors are much easier to explain.
>Can you imagine some scientist conceving even the >thought of a 3 color CRT before it was built?
The government can't even conclude that the earth wasn't created by Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it
fills up the "recommended diet list" with carbohydrates,
due to pressure from the food industry, which has resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the USA. Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics
or of amoral financial outfits who see a tremendously profitable source of revenue are involved, we're likely
to be fed lies.
I bought some diet soda yesterday, because I could
buy two twelve-packs and get two free except for shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit).
That meant I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus
$3.71 shenanigans, I also got a pack of Chips-Ahoy
for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not going to eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the package. I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area where the riffraff hang out. They can always use food,
though I'm a bit concerned that I won't be doing them
any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, it will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious health detriment.
On 25 Sep 2012 13:39:17 GMT, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid>
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:20:00 -0600, mg wrote:
>> Since I'm not a climate expert,
>...your opinion on "global warming" means.... absolutely nothing.
>Thanks for playing.
>NEXT!
Actually, I have no "opinion" like you do; opinions are like assholes,
everybody has one. I merely accept the mainstream scientific position
on Global Warming and here's what Wikipedia says on the subject:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries."
> > >> >> >"Earl Evleth" wrote in message The last National Geographic
> > >> >> >deals with this issue. The answer it is changing. <<<<<<<<
> > >> >> >The Earth's weather has been changing for a billion years or so.
> > >> >> >That the weather is changing is NOT the question.
> > >> >> >The question is whether man is making it change or not.
> > >> >> >I vote for "not".
> > >> >> >You seem to think we are the ones who are changing the weather, > > >> >> >which is > > >> >> >ridiculous.
> > >> >> >Who was changing the weather 1000 years ago or a 1,000,000 years ago > > >> >> >??????
> > >> >> >You lefties just have to have something to whine about or you are > > >> >> >not happy.
> > >> >> >In the 1970's it was global COOLING that was going to doom the > > >> >> >planet.
> > >> >> >Today it's global warming.
> > >> >> >I wonder what it will be 30 years from now....global stagnation ?
> > >> >> How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
> > >> >> I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
> > >> >> But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you > > >> >> hit
> > >> >> a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
> > >> >> happening with climate change.
> > >> >Really? From where did you get such a thought?
> > >> >> Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
> > >> >> and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
> > >> >> slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate
> > >> >> changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway.
> > >> >So you say!
> > >> How long do you think modern humans have been on the planet?
> > >I was speaking of your gulability, on how fast or slowly things change
> > >depending on the words of others with a political agenda.
> > The situation reminds me of the historic battle with the cigarette
> > manufacturers who claimed cigarettes weren't harmful. Who were
> > Americans supposed to trust during that debate? How would a person
> > decide who to trust and who not to trust?
> > As for me, when push really comes to shove on climate change, I trust
> > scientists who have written articles on the specific subject in a
> > peer-reviewed, scientific journal. What method do you use to decide
> > who to believe?
> I actually read those articles and other articles falsifing the claims
> of those
> first articles. When I see articles peer reviewed by only the > authors
> employees, I grow suspicious. When the same articles make only vague
> claims in the passave voice such as "A strongly suggests B" with no > further
> data, I grow more suspicious. When the same articles consistantly > make
> predictions that turn out to be false and have to be corrected after > the fact
> I grow convinced of nonsense, and try to find out who is funding the > nonsense.
> All of the articles of Dr. James Hansen et-al, NASA Goddard fall in > this catagory.
> The warmists blaim everything on CO2. They claim that only the CO2 > from oxidizing
> coal is bad CO2, therefore needs a $20 per ton tax on coal. This > will make the price
> of so called natural gas competitive. CO2 and dirty H2O from > oxidizing natural gas
> however is OK. The warmists seem not interested in more efficient use
> of energy, > but only in eliminating the competing coal industry. You go guess > who is funding!
> Of course the coal industry is funding the opposing view, all of both
> sides scientific > and peer reviewed of course!
> It is the lobbyists that make a bundle keeping this going.
> Here is an abstract from a real mathimatical physicist.
> ABSTRACT
> The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace > back > to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius > 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially > describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts
> as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively > interacting > with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According
> to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can > never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)
> The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
> "Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
> by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
> The whole PDF is available on line. > There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
> The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
> 1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
> Max, Please read both sides to this political football
> than decide.
> For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
> thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business > plans, that need government intervention or not.
> God help us all!!!
So why are the scientists so far behind the curve? 'If you live on an island, move now,' wasn't the message of the IPCC. So instead, the sea takes their homes and creates a crisis.
> The government can't even conclude that the earth wasn't created by > Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it fills up the "recommended diet list" > with carbohydrates, due to pressure from the food industry, which has > resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the USA. > Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics or of amoral financial > outfits who see a tremendously profitable source of revenue are > involved, we're likely to be fed lies. I bought some diet soda > yesterday, because I could buy two twelve-packs and get two free > except for shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit). That meant > I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus $3.71 shenanigans, I also got > a pack of Chips-Ahoy for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not > going to eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the package. > I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area where the riffraff hang > out. They can always use food, though I'm a bit concerned that I won't > be doing them any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, it > will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious health detriment.
><
Heh
When running a job down in the city, I used to carry sacks of fresh fruit to share out with the homeless guys.
They all accepted the stuff gladly, except for one old dude who always asked why the hell I didn't bring donuts, or something else good.
<2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/25/2012 9:19 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> The government can't even conclude that the earth wasn't created by >> Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it fills up the "recommended diet list" >> with carbohydrates, due to pressure from the food industry, which has >> resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the USA. >> Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics or of amoral financial >> outfits who see a tremendously profitable source of revenue are >> involved, we're likely to be fed lies. I bought some diet soda >> yesterday, because I could buy two twelve-packs and get two free >> except for shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit). That meant >> I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus $3.71 shenanigans, I also got >> a pack of Chips-Ahoy for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not >> going to eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the package. >> I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area where the riffraff hang >> out. They can always use food, though I'm a bit concerned that I won't >> be doing them any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, it >> will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious health detriment.
> ><
>Heh
>When running a job down in the city, I used to carry sacks of fresh >fruit to share out with the homeless guys.
>They all accepted the stuff gladly, except for one old dude who always >asked why the hell I didn't bring donuts, or something else good.
There was a group of five when I walked by and gave them the
cookies this morning, so at least no single one of them will make a meal out of the whole package. My alternative was to feed the cookies to the pigeons, but it would take a whole lot
of carrying the cookies around to do that. The pigeons would
appreciate it though. They are very appreciative birds, generally more lovable than hairless apes.
If I were a homeless guy and somebody gave me a piece of
fruit, I'm not sure how I would react. I don't like most fruit.
I do like bananas, though I haven't had any for a while, and I like frozen strawberries and blueberries, mostly with ice cream
and frozen orange juice concentrate and vodka in smoothies.
I haven't had those for a very long time, but the fruit is frozen so it will they'll last forever or until we have a major earthquake and the power is out for a couple of days.
In fact, I can't remember when I last had a piece of fruit.
It must have been a banana, since I buy one of those occasionally, but it's been at least two months, maybe as much as six months, since I've done that. I pay no attention whatsoever to dietary rules. This morning I had
ground beef fried up with cut-up onion and spinach, flavoured with MSG, Montreal Steak seasoning, salt, teriyaki sauce, Worcestershire sauce, and mixed with
boiled peas after it was fried. Scrumptious, as always!
I meant to eat half of it on the spot and half later, but it was so delicious that I ate the whole thing. That will
probably do me for the whole day, though I might have a hot-link or two later on.
>>>>>>>>>It's a part of a normal, cyclic, repeating pattern of climate
>>>>>>>>>change that has happened before, and will happen again.
>>>>>>>>>Nothing more than that.
>>>>>>>> How fast is it changing, though?
>>>>>>>Doesn't matter. It changes as it changes, and there's nothing that
>>>>>>>we can do about it. Mother Nature does what she wants to.
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> Has the world-wide climate on this planet ever changed this rapidly
>>>>>> before without some dramatic, large event occurring, like being hit
>>>>>> by an asteroid, for instance?
>>>>>I don't know, and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Not everything
>>>>>that happens is a repeat of what has happened before. Quit worrying
>>>>>about shit that you can't control or affect.
>>>> I'm not worried. I'm 71 years old and I have more money than I'll ever
>>>> spend. I do believe in truth, honesty and facts, though, and I am
>>>> always trying to watch out for my children and grandchildren.
>>>> And speaking of truth, honesty, and facts, I don't see how you can say
>>>> that the current climate change situation is similar to others that
>>>> have happened in the past when that doesn't appear to be so.
>>>It's similar in that it's *changing*. That's what has always happened,
>>>and will continue to happen.
>>>Really, this isn't that complicated. You'll get it, eventually.
>> You're going around in circles and your reasoning just leads us back to
>> the original question which is why is the climate change that we are
>> experiencing now so different from the ones that occurred previously?
>OK, so maybe you *won't* get it eventually... <shrug>
So you say there are precedents for the current global warming
situation and the scientist say the situation is unprecedented. So, I
do get it now; you want me to take your word over the word of the
scientists. I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>?Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite
>>>>>>>>>scanning of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago? the New
>>>>>>>>>Zealand Climate Science Coalition announced today. ?It is also the
>>>>>>>>>fifth highest daily value on record.? Coalition chairman, Hon
>>>>>>>>>Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect is the extent to
>>>>>>>>>which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica averages. ?The sea
>>>>>>>>>ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres above the
>>>>>>>>>1979-2012 average.
>>>>>>>>>The surplus ice is more than twice the area of New Zealand?. more
>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area- >>>sets-
>>>>>record-high.htm
>>>>>>>>Is the climate changing?
>>>>>>>The climate is always changing. Dinosaurs once walked on the North
>>>>>>>Slope of Alaska, when that Slope was even closer to the Poll than it
>>>>>>>is now. We are in an unusually mild warm interval between periods of
>>>>>>>extreme cold. When we drop into the next period of glaciation,
>>>>>>>Canada will cease to exist -- buried under a sheet of ice up to
>>>>>>>three miles thick. Brrrrrrr ...
>>>>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/ >>>>>Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>>>>>>>http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
>>>>>> How fast is it changing, though?
>>>>><SNIP>
>>>>>How many times are you gonna copy-n-paste the same old tired talking
>>>>>points? LOL
>>>>>I already told you, anyway. It doesn't matter how fast it's changing.
>>>> First you said that the earth is going through a warming cycle like it
>>>> has done many times before.
>>>> Then I said that this isn't like previous warming cycles and one of
>>>> the differences is that the earth is warming much, much faster than it
>>>> used to..
>>>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
>>>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
>>>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
>>>What I said is that it doesn't matter that it's "changing faster". It's
>>>changing, like it always has, and that's fine. Got it now?
>> You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The climate is not changing "like it always
>> has".
>That's not what I said. You removed a comma, and that changes the entire >meaning of the sentence. Go back and read what *I* wrote again, and then >read how you mis-quoted me, and see if you can tell the difference >between the two. Seriously.
>> The change we are experiencing now is different than the changes
>> that occurred before.
>No, it isn't. Change is change.
Nope. That's wrong. There are a lot of different kinds of changes that
have different results. If you believe that "change is change", then
explain to me why the term di/dt is present in the following formula:
> >"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
> >by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
> >The whole PDF is available on line. > >There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
> >The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
> >1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
> >Max, Please read both sides to this political football
> >than decide.
> >For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
> >thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business > >plans, that need government intervention or not.
> >God help us all!!!
> Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
> background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
> Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann.
What does it take to be a so called Climate Scientist?
A box of Crackerjacks?
Gerlich has been a Mathimatical Physics Professor for a long tim.e
He is noted for teaching how to use mathimatics to show how your
own assumptions are wrong. If Math cannot show error, your OK.
The paper shows how the climate clowns are wrong in their assumptions
The Climate Clown claim:
>They say that his "most significant
> errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
> Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
> rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
> non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
> atmosphere."
If you read the Gerlich Paper you see that the "errors" are not!!!,
but instead just what Gerlich pointed out as a mathematical error
in the climate clown assumptions. The Climate Clowns are those
that do radiative heat transfer incorrectly, thus violating the 2nd.
The Climate Clowns systematically ignore all the convective heat
transfer between earth and atmosphere. To consider this would
demonstrate that the CO2 effect is trivial.
Gerlich pulls no punches when dealing with the bad science
of the Climate Clowns. It is no wonder that they hate him.
You would enjoy reading his well writen paper. When he gets to the Navier- Stokes stuff, your eyes will likely glaze over, but with my limited knowledge, I could find no error.
> As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
> be interesting if he did.
He has some newer versions, but just how do you respond to folk
that only claim you are wrong. with no evidence of error on your part?
> Other sources have also released refutation of his paper. For example,
> see the following which references a paper by Jochen Ebel:
> http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Gerhard_Gerlich
Go read all, then decide. Do not rely on the interpretation of others
Max, you can find many holes tn the thinking of Climate Clowns.
> > > >> >> >"Earl Evleth" wrote in message The last National Geographic
> > > >> >> >deals with this issue. The answer it is changing. <<<<<<<<
> > > >> >> >The Earth's weather has been changing for a billion years or so.
> > > >> >> >That the weather is changing is NOT the question.
> > > >> >> >The question is whether man is making it change or not.
> > > >> >> >I vote for "not".
> > > >> >> >You seem to think we are the ones who are changing the weather, > > > >> >> >which is > > > >> >> >ridiculous.
> > > >> >> >Who was changing the weather 1000 years ago or a 1,000,000 years ago > > > >> >> >??????
> > > >> >> >You lefties just have to have something to whine about or you are > > > >> >> >not happy.
> > > >> >> >In the 1970's it was global COOLING that was going to doom the > > > >> >> >planet.
> > > >> >> >Today it's global warming.
> > > >> >> >I wonder what it will be 30 years from now....global stagnation ?
> > > >> >> How fast is it changing, though? When I put on the breaks on my car,
> > > >> >> I'm not injured because I stop at a relatively slow rate of change.
> > > >> >> But what happens when you stop very quickly? What happens when you > > > >> >> hit
> > > >> >> a brick wall at 60 miles an hour, for instance? That's what's
> > > >> >> happening with climate change.
> > > >> >Really? From where did you get such a thought?
> > > >> >> Modern humans have only been around about 50,000 years, incidentally,
> > > >> >> and the last ice age lasted for millions of years and changed very
> > > >> >> slowly. So we weren't even around when those prehistoric climate
> > > >> >> changes occured and the change was very slow, anyway.
> > > >> >So you say!
> > > >> How long do you think modern humans have been on the planet?
> > > >I was speaking of your gulability, on how fast or slowly things change
> > > >depending on the words of others with a political agenda.
> > > The situation reminds me of the historic battle with the cigarette
> > > manufacturers who claimed cigarettes weren't harmful. Who were
> > > Americans supposed to trust during that debate? How would a person
> > > decide who to trust and who not to trust?
> > > As for me, when push really comes to shove on climate change, I trust
> > > scientists who have written articles on the specific subject in a
> > > peer-reviewed, scientific journal. What method do you use to decide
> > > who to believe?
> > I actually read those articles and other articles falsifing the claims
> > of those
> > first articles. When I see articles peer reviewed by only the > > authors
> > employees, I grow suspicious. When the same articles make only vague
> > claims in the passave voice such as "A strongly suggests B" with no > > further
> > data, I grow more suspicious. When the same articles consistantly > > make
> > predictions that turn out to be false and have to be corrected after > > the fact
> > I grow convinced of nonsense, and try to find out who is funding the > > nonsense.
> > All of the articles of Dr. James Hansen et-al, NASA Goddard fall in > > this catagory.
> > The warmists blaim everything on CO2. They claim that only the CO2 > > from oxidizing
> > coal is bad CO2, therefore needs a $20 per ton tax on coal. This > > will make the price
> > of so called natural gas competitive. CO2 and dirty H2O from > > oxidizing natural gas
> > however is OK. The warmists seem not interested in more efficient use
> > of energy, > > but only in eliminating the competing coal industry. You go guess > > who is funding!
> > Of course the coal industry is funding the opposing view, all of both
> > sides scientific > > and peer reviewed of course!
> > It is the lobbyists that make a bundle keeping this going.
> > Here is an abstract from a real mathimatical physicist.
> > ABSTRACT
> > The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace > > back > > to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius > > 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially > > describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts
> > as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively > > interacting > > with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According
> > to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can > > never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)
> > The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
> > "Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
> > by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
> > The whole PDF is available on line. > > There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
> > The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
> > 1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
> > Max, Please read both sides to this political football
> > than decide.
> > For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
> > thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business > > plans, that need government intervention or not.
> > God help us all!!!
> So why are the scientists so far behind the curve? 'If you > live on an island, move now,' wasn't the message of the > IPCC. So instead, the sea takes their homes and creates a > crisis.
No crisis, living below sea level has alwas been a problem.
Ask the Dutch, or those in New Orleans.
There has been no measurable sea level rise!
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:12:45, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On 25/09/12 11:04, in article
> DmJ5SKFdRQph-pn2-hu30g4dmq...@209-142-179-188.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
> Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> > Check with the CBO on "Climate Research"
> I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
> runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
> not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
> and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
> is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
> the sun).
OK $2 Billion x 24 years equals $48 Billion, I was low.
For $48 Billion I would like some provable result, or
gove up the nonsence (non-science).
> We know from data gathering that atmospheric CO2 has
> been rising, and we know the global temperatures are
> too. We know there is no significant change in solar
> energy so the finger only points at the CO2.
The Climate Clowns have never shown a realizable method for CO2 to cause the changes they claim.
Now today, CO2 level rise, but temperature drops.
Please get the Clowns to say what the word "warming"
might mean? Ice melting with no temperature change?
The Clowns have not a clue.
They only have the radiative forcings of the week!
> >> >> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg7e6t0i860qa429...@4ax.com,
> >> >> "mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
> >> >>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
> >> >>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
> >> >> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
> >> >> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
> >> >Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion, > >> >and only post things here which support that position?
> >> >Can you answer that, honestly?
> >> When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
> >> been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
> >> journal and ignore the rest of the stuff. For a very quick,
> >> non-rigourous overview of a subject, I often look at Wikipedia and
> >> here's what they say about climate change:
> >> "The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
> >> human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
> >> change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
> >> issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
> >> of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]
> >Max, If you read those endorsements all they really say is
> >"mabe, but more research is required"!
> >The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
> >25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
> >How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?
> >I am not in any way saying that earthlings are not to blame
> >for lotsa crap. However the research continues to be flawed
> >and has provided no answers, only claims. I think the problem
> >is using research rather than search. Get those NASA heat > >transfer engineers that design the back heat radiators for the > >SS solar panels. These are the folk that do heat transfer > >equations in their sleep and when they have an "answer", > >then they check with others for "aw shits".
> >Scientists seem to do that backwards.
> >This planet's thermal control system seems to work in spite
> >of 7 billion earthlings, and if need fixing, it will not be done
> >by the "alls ya gosta do" of some scientist. Scientists are
> >great to explain how something works, AFTER it works.
> >They still have a hard time explaining how a vacuum
> >tube works. That device pretty much won WWII. > >Solid state semiconductors are much easier to explain.
> >Can you imagine some scientist conceving even the > >thought of a 3 color CRT before it was built?
> Since I'm not a climate expert, and I don't want to claim that I'm
> something that I'm not, I believe that the only reasonable approach I
> can take is to listen to those who are climate experts and Wikipedia
> reports that the GW theory has been endorsed by EVERY national science
> academy that has issued a statement on the subject.
> Do you believe that Wikipedia is wrong? Or can you name any national
> science academies that have not endorsed GW theory?
Each and everyone of those only claim "more research is requited" Understandable as research is their money.
> >> >> On 24/09/12 9:53, in article a240685pssd9pg9kg7e6t0i860qa429...@4ax.com,
> >> >> "mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> And now you appear to be saying that you don't care if the current
> >> >>> cycle is different because you have concluded that it's the same.
> >> >>> Think about it. Does that make any sense?
> >> >> No and the reason is that Dan has already reached a conclusion and only
> >> >> gathers facts which support that conclusion,
> >> >Is that any different than what you do? Have *you* reached a conclusion, > >> >and only post things here which support that position?
> >> >Can you answer that, honestly?
> >> When push comes to shove, I look at ALL of the information that has
> >> been written on the specific subject in a peer-reviewed scientific
> >> journal and ignore the rest of the stuff. For a very quick,
> >> non-rigourous overview of a subject, I often look at Wikipedia and
> >> here's what they say about climate change:
> >> "The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
> >> human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
> >> change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
> >> issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
> >> of all of the major industrialized countries.[39]
> >Max, If you read those endorsements all they really say is
> >"mabe, but more research is required"!
> >The US government has already spent $45 billion in the last
> >25 years for "climate research" with no conclusive result.
> >How many more billion before the clowns say "I don't know"?
> >I am not in any way saying that earthlings are not to blame
> >for lotsa crap. However the research continues to be flawed
> >and has provided no answers, only claims. I think the problem
> >is using research rather than search. Get those NASA heat > >transfer engineers that design the back heat radiators for the > >SS solar panels. These are the folk that do heat transfer > >equations in their sleep and when they have an "answer", > >then they check with others for "aw shits".
> >Scientists seem to do that backwards.
> >This planet's thermal control system seems to work in spite
> >of 7 billion earthlings, and if need fixing, it will not be done
> >by the "alls ya gosta do" of some scientist. Scientists are
> >great to explain how something works, AFTER it works.
> >They still have a hard time explaining how a vacuum
> >tube works. That device pretty much won WWII. > >Solid state semiconductors are much easier to explain.
> >Can you imagine some scientist conceving even the > >thought of a 3 color CRT before it was built?
> The government can't even conclude that the earth > wasn't created by Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it
> fills up the "recommended diet list" with carbohydrates,
> due to pressure from the food industry, which has > resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the > USA. Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics
> or of amoral financial outfits who see a tremendously > profitable source of revenue are involved, we're likely
> to be fed lies.
> I bought some diet soda yesterday, because I could
> buy two twelve-packs and get two free except for > shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit).
> That meant I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus
> $3.71 shenanigans, I also got a pack of Chips-Ahoy
> for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not going to > eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the > package. I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area > where the riffraff hang out. They can always use food,
> though I'm a bit concerned that I won't be doing them
> any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, > it will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious > health detriment.
How much does diet water cost in SF? I have my own well.
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:23:05 -0500, High Miles
> <2blues1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 9/25/2012 9:19 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> The government can't even conclude that the earth wasn't created by > >> Jehovah 6,000 years ago. And it fills up the "recommended diet list" > >> with carbohydrates, due to pressure from the food industry, which has > >> resulted in the epidemic of obesity that we have in the USA. > >> Unfortunately, when powerful groups of lunatics or of amoral financial > >> outfits who see a tremendously profitable source of revenue are > >> involved, we're likely to be fed lies. I bought some diet soda > >> yesterday, because I could buy two twelve-packs and get two free > >> except for shenanigans on everything (tax and can deposit). That meant > >> I paid only 2 * $6.49 for the goods plus $3.71 shenanigans, I also got > >> a pack of Chips-Ahoy for free as part of the deal. I'm certainly not > >> going to eat the Chips-Ahoy. I'm not even going to open the package. > >> I'll leave it out near the plaza, in the area where the riffraff hang > >> out. They can always use food, though I'm a bit concerned that I won't > >> be doing them any favours thereby. If they pass the cookies around, it > >> will be a bit of a treat without becoming a serious health detriment.
> > ><
> >Heh
> >When running a job down in the city, I used to carry sacks of fresh > >fruit to share out with the homeless guys.
> >They all accepted the stuff gladly, except for one old dude who always > >asked why the hell I didn't bring donuts, or something else good.
> There was a group of five when I walked by and gave them the
> cookies this morning, so at least no single one of them will > make a meal out of the whole package. My alternative was to > feed the cookies to the pigeons, but it would take a whole lot
> of carrying the cookies around to do that. The pigeons would
> appreciate it though. They are very appreciative birds, > generally more lovable than hairless apes.
> If I were a homeless guy and somebody gave me a piece of
> fruit, I'm not sure how I would react. I don't like most fruit.
> I do like bananas, though I haven't had any for a while, and I > like frozen strawberries and blueberries, mostly with ice cream
> and frozen orange juice concentrate and vodka in smoothies.
> I haven't had those for a very long time, but the fruit is frozen > so it will they'll last forever or until we have a major > earthquake and the power is out for a couple of days.
> In fact, I can't remember when I last had a piece of fruit.
> It must have been a banana, since I buy one of those > occasionally, but it's been at least two months, maybe as > much as six months, since I've done that. I pay no > attention whatsoever to dietary rules. This morning I had
> ground beef fried up with cut-up onion and spinach, > flavoured with MSG, Montreal Steak seasoning, salt, > teriyaki sauce, Worcestershire sauce, and mixed with
> boiled peas after it was fried. Scrumptious, as always!
> I meant to eat half of it on the spot and half later, but it > was so delicious that I ate the whole thing. That will
> probably do me for the whole day, though I might have > a hot-link or two later on.
On 26/09/12 3:46, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-pn2-3OrebKoR9...@209-142-179-185.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
>> I did, I only found CBO data on "Climate Change" which
>> runs about 2 billion a year, the data I find goes to 1998
>> not 25 years back. Most of the funding has gone to NASA,
>> and no doubt expensive satellite programs to monitor what
>> is occurring (like variation is incoming radiation from
>> the sun).
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
>> <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>> >ÂDay 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
>> >of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago÷ the New Zealand Climate
>> >Science Coalition announced today. ÂIt is also the fifth highest daily
>> >value on record.÷
>> >Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
>> >is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica
>> >averages. ÂThe sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres
>> >above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the
>> >area of New Zealand÷. more ...
>> >http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-...
>> Is the climate changing? That's the question everyone is asking and if
>> were getting record ice accumulation in the Antarctic and record ice
>> loss in the Artctic, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the
>> climate is changing.
>> "Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming
>> by Natalie Wolchover
>> Date: 19 September 2012 Time: 06:01 PM ET
>> Distracting from the news that Arctic sea-ice extent reached a record
>> low on Sept.16 is a widely circulating blog article claiming that at
>> the opposite end of the Earth, Antarctic sea ice is more than making
>> up for the losses.
>> In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states
>> that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the
>> 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the
>> Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern
>> Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero).
>> The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice
>> using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has
>> weathered global warming more robustly than Arctic ice. Goddard
>> dismisses the explanation, concluding instead, "Antarctic and Arctic
>> ice move opposite each other. NSIDC's dissonance about this is
>> astonishing."
>> Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered
>> attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high
>> Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell
>> the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and
>> admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
>> But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned
>> that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the
>> precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year ¿ or the
>> mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really
>> happening.
>> "Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the
>> Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark
>> Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well,
>> everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially
>> balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not
>> true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']
>> Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming
>> should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said.
>> "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up,
>> the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic.
>> The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different.
>> Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."
>> The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly
>> to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica,
>> Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by
>> ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies
>> indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the
>> Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists
>> say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels
>> that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.
>> "Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining
>> fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's
>> Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by
>> chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air
>> conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects
>> the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone
>> hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the
>> stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes
>> the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the
>> surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic,
>> and that keeps the sea ice extensive."
>> But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have
>> increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models
>> suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences
>> and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.
>> The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped
>> 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic
>> ice expansion makes up for this ¿ that heat is merely shifting from
>> the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global
>> warming must not be happening ¿ is "just nonsense," Serreze said."
>$45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
>but instead say "more research is needed". How many
>more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?
I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.
> >The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
>> >"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
>> >by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
>> >The whole PDF is available on line. >> >There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
>> >The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
>> >1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
>> >Max, Please read both sides to this political football
>> >than decide.
>> >For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
>> >thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business >> >plans, that need government intervention or not.
>> >God help us all!!!
>> Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
>> background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
>> Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann.
>What does it take to be a so called Climate Scientist?
>A box of Crackerjacks?
>Gerlich has been a Mathimatical Physics Professor for a long tim.e
>He is noted for teaching how to use mathimatics to show how your
>own assumptions are wrong. If Math cannot show error, your OK.
>The paper shows how the climate clowns are wrong in their assumptions
>The Climate Clown claim:
>>They say that his "most significant
>> errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
>> Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
>> rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
>> non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
>> atmosphere."
>If you read the Gerlich Paper you see that the "errors" are not!!!,
>but instead just what Gerlich pointed out as a mathematical error
>in the climate clown assumptions. The Climate Clowns are those
>that do radiative heat transfer incorrectly, thus violating the 2nd.
>The Climate Clowns systematically ignore all the convective heat
>transfer between earth and atmosphere. To consider this would
>demonstrate that the CO2 effect is trivial.
>Gerlich pulls no punches when dealing with the bad science
>of the Climate Clowns. It is no wonder that they hate him.
>You would enjoy reading his well writen paper. When he gets to >the Navier- Stokes stuff, your eyes will likely glaze over, but with >my limited knowledge, I could find no error.
>> As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
>> be interesting if he did.
>He has some newer versions, but just how do you respond to folk
>that only claim you are wrong. with no evidence of error on your part?
>> Other sources have also released refutation of his paper. For example,
>> see the following which references a paper by Jochen Ebel:
>> http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Gerhard_Gerlich
>Go read all, then decide. Do not rely on the interpretation of others
>Max, you can find many holes tn the thinking of Climate Clowns.
In doing just a quick search, it looks like a lot of universities
offer degrees in climate science. The first one that I noticed with
the Google search results was Northern Arizona University.
http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Climate-Science-Solutions/
Typically what happens with GW deniers is that they rarely write
articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, or when they do they
are quickly refuted. Then the denier never responds to their criticism
in the magazine. Or, he claims he hasn't been alloted enough space by
the magazine and he directs the reader to go to his website. Both of
those ploys are obviously an admission that he screwed up.
In the case of Gerlich, I don't know whether he has properly responded
to the criticism from Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Smith, and
Zimmermann, or not. So finding out should be an interesting project
for someone who is very interested in his paper, like you are, for
instance.
We are all capable of self-deception and we can easily deceive
ourselves into believing almost anything from talking ourselves into
believing that our canary loves us to believing that Iraq really did
have WMDs or Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I make an effort not to
do that and with only a BSEE, I'm not going to deceive myself into
thinking that I have the ability to critique any scientific paper in a
scientific journal.
> > >The above is the abstract of a July 24 2007 publication,
> >> >"Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
> >> >by: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner.
> >> >The whole PDF is available on line. > >> >There are later versions, this one is "relatively" easy to read.
> >> >The Gerlich paper is but one of many published between
> >> >1906 and now, all falsifing the "Greenhouse Effect"
> >> >Max, Please read both sides to this political football
> >> >than decide.
> >> >For me whom,"I do not know" is a fine answer, the whole
> >> >thing is not a conspiricy but instead two competing business > >> >plans, that need government intervention or not.
> >> >God help us all!!!
> >> Gerhard Gerlich is a physics professor. He has no climate science
> >> background. His article has been refuted by Halpern, Colose,
> >> Ho-Stuart, Smith, and Zimmermann.
> >What does it take to be a so called Climate Scientist?
> >A box of Crackerjacks?
> >Gerlich has been a Mathimatical Physics Professor for a long tim.e
> >He is noted for teaching how to use mathimatics to show how your
> >own assumptions are wrong. If Math cannot show error, your OK.
> >The paper shows how the climate clowns are wrong in their assumptions
> >The Climate Clown claim:
> >>They say that his "most significant
> >> errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second
> >> Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process
> >> rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most
> >> non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and
> >> atmosphere."
> >If you read the Gerlich Paper you see that the "errors" are not!!!,
> >but instead just what Gerlich pointed out as a mathematical error
> >in the climate clown assumptions. The Climate Clowns are those
> >that do radiative heat transfer incorrectly, thus violating the 2nd.
> >The Climate Clowns systematically ignore all the convective heat
> >transfer between earth and atmosphere. To consider this would
> >demonstrate that the CO2 effect is trivial.
> >Gerlich pulls no punches when dealing with the bad science
> >of the Climate Clowns. It is no wonder that they hate him.
> >You would enjoy reading his well writen paper. When he gets to > >the Navier- Stokes stuff, your eyes will likely glaze over, but with > >my limited knowledge, I could find no error.
> >> As far as I know, Gerlich hasn't responded to this paper, but it would
> >> be interesting if he did.
> >He has some newer versions, but just how do you respond to folk
> >that only claim you are wrong. with no evidence of error on your part?
> >> Other sources have also released refutation of his paper. For example,
> >> see the following which references a paper by Jochen Ebel:
> >> http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Gerhard_Gerlich
> >Go read all, then decide. Do not rely on the interpretation of others
> >Max, you can find many holes tn the thinking of Climate Clowns.
Thanks Max for your reply.
> In doing just a quick search, it looks like a lot of universities
> offer degrees in climate science. The first one that I noticed with
> the Google search results was Northern Arizona University.
> http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Climate-Science-Solutions/
Climate Science is the only "research" funded since 1998
lots of wanabes!
> Typically what happens with GW deniers is that they rarely write
> articles in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, or when they do they
> are quickly refuted. Then the denier never responds to their criticism
> in the magazine. Or, he claims he hasn't been alloted enough space by
> the magazine and he directs the reader to go to his website. Both of
> those ploys are obviously an admission that he screwed up.
Those so called scientific journals will publish nothing that disagrees
with has been published by that journal. There are indeed gobs of
bullshit in blogs on both sides.
> In the case of Gerlich, I don't know whether he has properly responded
> to the criticism from Halpern, Colose, Ho-Stuart, Smith, and
> Zimmermann, or not. So finding out should be an interesting project
> for someone who is very interested in his paper, like you are, for
> instance.
Gerlich has not responded to that, because they only claim Gerlish
is wrong and, I am correct, with no real critique.
Gerlich has published Ver 1,2,3,4 in answer to critciisim for his views
that the thing cannot be done via computer modeling which is his opinion.
In the latest, hard to read, Gerlitch identified 122 different coefficents
all dependent on each other, none orthoginal, that need be considered in the massive partial differential equations. I think his opinion that the computer will fail before an answer, is correct.
> We are all capable of self-deception and we can easily deceive
> ourselves into believing almost anything from talking ourselves into
> believing that our canary loves us to believing that Iraq really did
> have WMDs or Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I make an effort not to
> do that and with only a BSEE, I'm not going to deceive myself into
> thinking that I have the ability to critique any scientific paper in a
> scientific journal.
I think you do your self a disservice Anyone with a BSEE and some
experiance knows much more about heat transfer, always a bitch,
than any or all climate scientists. They talk of theory, you had to
do
things to get rid of the heat before the puppy melted.
Please quickly read any of the alarmist, peer reviewed papers, an also
quickly read a Gerlitch, peer reviewed paper. You decide which
is trying to explain things, and which is trying to confuse you with FUD. All are available on the internet. Please read the papers, rather than
what someone says about the papers.
One other thing to consider, the alarmists rely only on radiative
heat transfer from the earth which is the only way entropy can get out
from this isolated body, the earth. Please calculate the average rainfall
in terms of years, hours, or seconds. Each gram of water must radiate
between 2,200 and 3,000 Joules of latent heat, depending on rain, or ice,
before that water can participate. This the alarmists all ignore as that cannot prove that Anthropoids are at fault.
> >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:01 -0700, El Castor
> >> <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> >> >¶Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning
> >> >of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years agoö the New Zealand Climate
> >> >Science Coalition announced today. ¶It is also the fifth highest daily
> >> >value on record.ö
> >> >Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect
> >> >is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica
> >> >averages. ¶The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres
> >> >above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the
> >> >area of New Zealandö. more ...
> >> >http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00050/antarctic-ice-area-sets-...
> >> Is the climate changing? That's the question everyone is asking and if
> >> were getting record ice accumulation in the Antarctic and record ice
> >> loss in the Artctic, then it seems pretty obvious to me that the
> >> climate is changing.
> >> "Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming
> >> by Natalie Wolchover
> >> Date: 19 September 2012 Time: 06:01 PM ET
> >> Distracting from the news that Arctic sea-ice extent reached a record
> >> low on Sept.16 is a widely circulating blog article claiming that at
> >> the opposite end of the Earth, Antarctic sea ice is more than making
> >> up for the losses.
> >> In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states
> >> that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the
> >> 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the
> >> Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern
> >> Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero).
> >> The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice
> >> using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has
> >> weathered global warming more robustly than Arctic ice. Goddard
> >> dismisses the explanation, concluding instead, "Antarctic and Arctic
> >> ice move opposite each other. NSIDC's dissonance about this is
> >> astonishing."
> >> Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered
> >> attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high
> >> Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell
> >> the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and
> >> admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
> >> But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned
> >> that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the
> >> precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year ¨ or the
> >> mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really
> >> happening.
> >> "Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the
> >> Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark
> >> Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well,
> >> everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially
> >> balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not
> >> true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']
> >> Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming
> >> should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said.
> >> "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up,
> >> the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic.
> >> The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different.
> >> Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."
> >> The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly
> >> to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica,
> >> Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by
> >> ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies
> >> indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the
> >> Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists
> >> say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels
> >> that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.
> >> "Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining
> >> fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told Life's
> >> Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by
> >> chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air
> >> conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects
> >> the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone
> >> hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the
> >> stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes
> >> the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the
> >> surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic,
> >> and that keeps the sea ice extensive."
> >> But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have
> >> increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models
> >> suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences
> >> and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.
> >> The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped
> >> 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic
> >> ice expansion makes up for this ¨ that heat is merely shifting from
> >> the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global
> >> warming must not be happening ¨ is "just nonsense," Serreze said."
> >$45 Billion later these turkyes have no provable answers,
> >but instead say "more research is needed". How many
> >more billion before these fools say "I do not know"?
> I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
> gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
> how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
> better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
> knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
> the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
> reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.
That is true, but after $45 billion, with no answers, 'tis time to fire
those fuckers and find others that can do the work!
On 26/09/12 23:38, in article f1t668lo653ekfnsngaejh0api8oiiv...@4ax.com,
"mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
> gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
> how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
> better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
> knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
> the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
> reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.
Some things are understood almost completely, for instance Evolution.
The mystery exists for me in forces like magnetism, which operates
across "empty space", a north pole of a magnetic attracting the south
pole. Things like the procession of a gyroscope also has a mysterious
aspect.
For humans forces work via contact, if one pushes an object it moves.
So we have no intuitive feeling for forces occurring through space.
>On 26/09/12 23:38, in article f1t668lo653ekfnsngaejh0api8oiiv...@4ax.com,
>"mg" <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't think scientists really understand exactly how magnetism or
>> gravity works, for sure. I don't think doctors understand completely
>> how the human body works, but they still plug along and were certainly
>> better off with them, than without them. One doesn't need absolute
>> knowledge and 100% certainty before you do anything. We simply look at
>> the probabilities and the evidence and the consensus of professional,
>> reputable, climate scientists and we go from there.
>Some things are understood almost completely, for instance Evolution.
>The mystery exists for me in forces like magnetism, which operates
>across "empty space", a north pole of a magnetic attracting the south
>pole. Things like the procession of a gyroscope also has a mysterious
>aspect.
>For humans forces work via contact, if one pushes an object it moves.
>So we have no intuitive feeling for forces occurring through space.
I understand the precession of a gyroscope much better than I
understand magnetism. A professor I had once said that "a force
is a name for something we don't understand", and I still think that's the most illuminating definition of a force that I've ever understood.
As I've mentioned, I wear a bracelet of nickel-coated neodymium
cubes and spheres, because the power of the magnetism fascinates me. I read that neodymium is capable of holding the most powerful permanent magnetism of any element or compound, though some of the other rare-earths are competitors. Of course,
that can't compare with the power of electromagnets, but you need a continuous supply of electricity to run those.
Of course, gravity is no longer a "force", now that Einstein has
revealed (or redefined) it to be a function of the curvature of space
in a fourth dimension. We're still completely at a loss as to why
there should be time and dimensions at all and what they are, but at least gravity is no longer quite an utter mystery like
Jehovah or Allah. We can feel better for knowing a little about the structure of gravity, even if we still can't explain the
components.
Heisenberg, when he came up with his "uncertainty principle"
said "At last we know, that we shall never know". He turned out to be a bit premature about that, because we are starting to understand something about quantum uncertainty with the
help of the many-worlds conjecture, but we're still left with the
ultimate problem of where did it all come from, and in my opinion we are we can never get to the root of that because by its very nature it's inaccessible to logic, since logic can
only explain how Y comes from X, not where the ultimate
X ( whatever it is) comes from.
I know the religious loonies are going to pop in and say
"X is GOD! How can anything be more obvious! Problem
solved!!!" To that I say "No, idiots, problem not solved.
Where did this God come from?" "He created himself" you
say? Why not just say the universe created itself? That
makes exactly the same sense, and has the great benefit that we know that there is something we call a "universe" in our experience though we may not know what it is, whereas the very existence of this "God" is naked
conjecture without any evidence whatsoever to support it.
An alternate idiotic assertion, that "God always existed" suffers from the same debility, since one could just say
that the potential for the universe always existed and thereby stick to things we know, without interposing into
the mix a "God" which sounds all-too-suspiciously like
Santa Claus.
