AP: 'Climategate' doesn't undercut Global Warming Science
John Manning
Associated Press, LONDON � E-mails stolen from climate scientists show
they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data � but the messages
don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked,
according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored
private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world
they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't
undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because
of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and
used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their
message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than
scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a
cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark
Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed
the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data,
although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous
interpretations.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual
temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of
this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged
how reliable certain data was.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate
research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an
influential source of climate science, and were posted online last
month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading
and rereading them � about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing
scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not
clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested
keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under
American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics
question because free access to data is important so others can repeat
experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East
Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the
university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data
is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be
hiding behind them."
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP
requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can
delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is
the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa)
and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press:
"I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe
anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal.
When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the
data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed
to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened
to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang
for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!"
Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic
because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist
Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic
wanted � and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and
others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are
designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one
critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans
that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish
quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a
third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a
scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very
tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy
and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.
Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in
1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat
of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken
out of context."
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn
State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should
encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American
Petroleum Institute.
The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate
science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was
centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial
melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month,
are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.
Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change
over long periods.
As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues
from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks
were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and
science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still
within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona
State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the
scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research
is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and
humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political
stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime
opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts
of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice
presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent
investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen
international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that
the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the
data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were
posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann)
trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after
the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the
real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he
talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data
which was misleading, Mann explained.
Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a
giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified,
what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and
Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make
global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast
body of research over the years.
None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate
scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that
global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support
of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which some of the scientists helped write.
"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global
warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel
Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a
National Academy of Sciences study that looked at � and upheld as valid
� Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in
centuries.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived
by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing
to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During
the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling
their arguments to answer online arguments � even as they claimed not to
care what was being posted to the Internet
"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the
University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are
making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre,
who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with
scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.
"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that
they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a
telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he
is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which
produces greenhouse gases.
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from
scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good
science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data
given to him.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done
in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails.
"Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."
The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a
"bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.
"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these
people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars.
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference
to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with
"a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or
re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was
released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one
of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step
for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHPLC00
:
Raleigh
> Associated Press, LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show
> they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages
> — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in
> centuries.
>
> "In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived
> by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
>
> Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing
> to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During
> the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
>
> Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling
>
> :
I note with some interest that this is cross-posted to
Alt.Religion.Mormon.
Is Global warming (or lack thereof) a doctrine of the LDS religion?
Or are you trying to compare the selling of global warming to the
selling of Mormonism?
>The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and
> used, and, JUST LIKE POLITICIANS, went to great pains to shape their
> message.
Yeah, politicians are the most honest and trustworthy people on earth.
> The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a
> cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark
> Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the
> American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed
> the communications.
>
> Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data,
> although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous
> interpretations.'"
Perhaps you wish to compare ARM favorably to scholarly discussions,
since the article indicates that disrespect and insults toward "the
enemy" are the order of the day.
How about you guys on Alt.Religion, soc.culture.jewish, alt.atheism,
and alt.bible.prophecy? Does Global warming have anything to do with
your respective newgroups?
Raleigh
John Manning
>> they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data � but the messages
>> centuries.
>>
>> "In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived
>> by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
>>
>> Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing
>> to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During
>> the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
>>
>> Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling
Tell us about your religious cult history and rabid anti-gay bigotry,
Raleigh.
Logan Sacket
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>Associated Press, LONDON � E-mails stolen from climate scientists show
>they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data � but the messages
>and rereading them � about 1 million words in total.
>wanted � and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and
>National Academy of Sciences study that looked at � and upheld as valid
>� Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in
>centuries.
>
>"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived
>by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
>
>Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing
>to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During
>the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
>
>Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling
>their arguments to answer online arguments � even as they claimed not to
That is total BS. If the emails are so benine, they why did Joes
step down so quickly?
If the science is anything like their computer models, then there is
little that can be salvaged.
I bet you haven't ever read the emails.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:35:07 -0200, John Manning
>
<snip>
> That is total BS. If the emails are so benine, they why did Joes
> step down so quickly?
>
> If the science is anything like their computer models, then there is
> little that can be salvaged.
Describe in detail the construction of the models, and the mistakes
you allege exist.
Note that you must demonstrate that the mistakes make a difference
with regard to the conclusions drawn from the models.
Make sure that all your assertions about the construction of the
models, and mistakes you allege, are verifiable.
Demonstrate that you have the intellectual capacity to criticize the
models; list your verifiable scientific degrees, list your published
and verifiable scientific publications that appear in peer-reviewed
science journals.
Prove your assertion that doubling/tripling CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere can have no impact on mean global temperature.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science:
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Logan Sacket
When you explain to me why the global temperature rises and falls
before CO2 levels.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:46:51 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 3:59 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:35:07 -0200, John Manning
>
> ><snip>
> >> That is total BS. If the emails are so benine, they why did Joes
> >> step down so quickly?
>
> >> If the science is anything like their computer models, then there is
> >> little that can be salvaged.
>
----
> >Describe in detail the construction of the models, and the mistakes
> >you allege exist.
>
> >Note that you must demonstrate that the mistakes make a difference
> >with regard to the conclusions drawn from the models.
>
> >Make sure that all your assertions about the construction of the
> >models, and mistakes you allege, are verifiable.
>
> >Demonstrate that you have the intellectual capacity to criticize the
> >models; list your verifiable scientific degrees, list your published
> >and verifiable scientific publications that appear in peer-reviewed
> >science journals.
>
> >Prove your assertion that doubling/tripling CO2 concentrations in the
> >atmosphere can have no impact on mean global temperature.
>
> ><snip to end>
>
> >Duwayne Anderson
> >Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> >science:
> >American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
>
> When you explain to me
And there you have it, folks. The perfect example of the anti-science
global warming denier -- full of hot air. Can't prove a single one of
his assertions.
> why the global temperature rises and falls
> before CO2 levels.
And there you have it again -- the classic anti-science global warming
denier busy misrepresenting the science and setting up strawman
arguments.
As already explained to Logan, climatologists didn't say that rising
CO2 concentrations initiate global warming; only that it is a major
contributor.
In Logan Sacket's world pressing the gas pedal won't cause a car to
accelerate because cars will iniate forward motion by simply releasing
the brake. This sort of logical fallacy (associating correlation with
causation) is at the root of many of Logan's misrepresentations about
global warming.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:46:51 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 3:59 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:35:07 -0200, John Manning
>
> ><snip>
> >> That is total BS. If the emails are so benine, they why did Joes
> >> step down so quickly?
>
> >> If the science is anything like their computer models, then there is
> >> little that can be salvaged.
>
> >Describe in detail the construction of the models, and the mistakes
> >you allege exist.
>
> >Note that you must demonstrate that the mistakes make a difference
> >with regard to the conclusions drawn from the models.
>
> >Make sure that all your assertions about the construction of the
> >models, and mistakes you allege, are verifiable.
>
> >Demonstrate that you have the intellectual capacity to criticize the
> >models; list your verifiable scientific degrees, list your published
> >and verifiable scientific publications that appear in peer-reviewed
> >science journals.
>
> >Prove your assertion that doubling/tripling CO2 concentrations in the
> >atmosphere can have no impact on mean global temperature.
<snip>
You ignored every one of the questions put to you, Logan. Time to
stop dodging them. Here they are again:
Logan Sacket
It's something else then?
What is it that causes the temperature to rise?
Logan Sacket
Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new
computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the
entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski,
the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his
claims.
"I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as
this."
The blunder follows the controversy over hacked emails from the
University of East Anglia�s Climate Research Unit, which sceptics
claim suggest scientists manipulated data to strengthen their argument
that global warming is man-made.
Mr Gore, who narrated the Oscar-winning climate change documentary An
Inconvenient Truth, told the conference that record melting of Polar
and Himalayan ice could deprive more than a billion people of access
to clean water.
Alluding to Dr Maslowski�s work, he said: �These figures are fresh, I
just got them yesterday.
"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per
cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months
could be completely ice free within five to seven years.
"There are more than a billion people on the planet who get more than
half of their drinking water � many of them all of their drinking
water � from the seasonal melting of snow melt and glacier ice."
His projection strongly contradicted forecasts made eight months ago
by the US government agency that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the
summer by 2030.
Dr Maslowki said that his latest results give a six-year projection
for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some
ice to remain beyond 2020.
He added: �I was very explicit that we were talking about
near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the
northern ocean.�
Following Dr Maslowski�s comments, Mr Gore�s office later said the 75
per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a �ballpark figure�
several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Mr Gore�s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the
climate science community, who described the projection as
�aggressive�.
Duwaynea Anderson
--
> >As already explained to Logan, climatologists didn't say that rising
> >CO2 concentrations initiate global warming; only that it is a major
> >contributor.
>
> It's something else then?
If you had any idea what you're talking about you'd know there is no
"it's." Global warming is influenced by many things including (as I
have already pointed out) other greenhouse gases like methane as well
as periodic fluctuations in solar energy caused by Milankovitch
cycles.
The idea that there is only once cause for global warming is a
strawman (i.e. lie) by the Global Warming deniers.
But the fact that global warming has other causes doesn't mean that
CO2 does not contribute to global warming.
> What is it that causes the temperature to rise?
There is no "it" -- there are many causes. But the contribution
played by CO2 is without serious scientific doubt, and is easy to
calculate.
As any fifth grader knows, incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
Earth and then re-radiated at longer wave-lengths. The incoming solar
flux is 1367 J/(m^2,sec) and the radius of the Earth is R = 6357 km,
so the area facing the Sun is pi*R^2 = 1:27*10^14 m^2. Thus the total
energy budget is 1:735*10^17 Watt.
The albedo of the Earth is about 30%, meaning that that 30% of the
incoming radiation is reflected back into space without being
absorbed. That leaves 0:7*1:735*10^17 = 1:2*10^17 W which is
absorbed.
When the earth is in thermal equilibrium (neither globally heating up
nor globally cooling down) this exact amount of energy has to be
radiated back into space in the form of infrared radiation.
Furthermore (as any fifth grader knows) the spectrum of this radiation
follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
I =sigma*T^4; where sigma = 5:67*10^-8 W/m^2,K^4
This gives the following:
T4 = (1.21*10^17)/(sigma*4*pi*R^2) = (0.7*1367)/(4* 5.67*10^-8) =
4.2*10^9 K^4
Thus T = 255 K, the effective temperature at which the Earth
radiates.
However (and just as we expect) Earth’s average surface temperature is
known to be 15 Celsius = 288 K, demonstrating the fact that the
atmosphere acts like a blanket over the
Earth, warming it by about 33 Celsius.
This simple calculation proves the reality of the “greenhouse
effect.” It demonstrates the fundamental absurdity of deniers who
claim that dramatic changes in major greenhouse gases will not have an
effect on mean global temperature.
Of course, as I said, none of this is spectacularly new – it’s
actually old news. Any fifth grader knows this stuff. Here are a few
relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/05SprgClass/geo116/8-1.pdf
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/temp.html
Duwaynea Anderson
> Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new
> computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the
> entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
is a spokesman, not a scientist.
Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
anthropogenic contribution to global warming:
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
Read their letter here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-f...
Here's another helpful link regarding the scientific consensus on
global warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
So let's summarize:
1) We have a another religious wacko (Logan Sacket) that says global
warming
is a fraud.
2) We have a whole bunch of scientific organizations that say global
warming is real.
Who should folks believe? The scientists or the wacko?
Teresita
> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was to
a politician, NOT a scientist.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
SwordoZ
"Teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.15....@newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
>> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was to
> a politician, NOT a scientist.
> http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Because it's political and not a scientific.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > is a spokesman, not a scientist.
>
> Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was to
> a politician, NOT a scientist.
There is no "Nobel Prize awarded" for Global Warming, you idiot.
Al Gore was awarded the Nobel *Peace* prize.
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
That's what right-wing politicians say. But even a fifth grader knows
that Global Warming is based on science.
Logan Sacket
No, a fifth grader has been TOLD that AGW is based on science.
SwordoZ
"Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ef2fc4e-c108-4d0d...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
> "Teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.15....@newsguy.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> >> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> >> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was
> > to
> > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> > Teresita
> >http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
> Because it's political and not a scientific.
>>That's what right-wing politicians say.
Your throwing that which covers you ... horse manure ... at other people .
>> But even a fifth grader knows
>>that Global Warming is based on science.
C'mon ... a mush brained fifth grader determines that on their own ... where
did you earn your degree from ... pep boys?
SwordoZ
What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
Teresita
> What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
Create a new religion based purely on faith:
http://2164th.blogspot.com/2009/12/theres-cancer-on-this-theory-mr-vice.html
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
SwordoZ
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:52:12 -0500, SwordoZ wrote:
>> What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
> Create a new religion based purely on faith:
Hummmm ... religion based on faith ... but you need a god ... whose the
god?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:12:50 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
> >> "Teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:pan.2009.12.15....@newsguy.com...
>
> >> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> >> >> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> >> >> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> >> > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was to
> >> > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> >> > Teresita
> >> >http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
>
> >> Because it's political and not a scientific.
>
> >That's what right-wing politicians say. But even a fifth grader knows
> >that Global Warming is based on science.
>
> No, a fifth grader has been TOLD that AGW is based on science.
Here's an example of the science behind Global Warming:
Data for the mean global temperature anomaly may be found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
Scroll to the bottom and click on the link that says:
The Annual Global Land Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)
Data for the last ten years are:
x y
1999 0.6760
2000 0.5175
2001 0.7204
2002 0.8309
2003 0.7713
2004 0.7078
2005 0.9558
2006 0.8161
2007 0.9807
2008 0.7771
The equation for the slope of the linear regression of these data is
slope = (sum(xi*yi-10*xm*ym)/(sum(xi^2-n*xm^2)
Where xi is the i’th value of x, yi is the i’th value of y, xm is the
mean value of x and ym is the mean value of y.
The slope of these data is *positive* and equals 0.3 Kelvin per
decade.
The variance of the slope is given by:
Variance = (sigma^2)/(sum(xi-xm)^2, where “sigma” in this case is the
standard deviation of the data from the least-squares linear fit.
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance and equals
0.51 Kelvin per decade.
The probability that the slope is positive is given by integral(0,
inf, ga(x)) where:
ga(x) = (1/(root(variance*2*pi)))*exp((-1/2)*((x-slope)^2)/variance)
In this equation “variance” is the variance of the slope (calculated
above) and “x” is a dummy variable of integration. Evaluating the
integral we have:
ga(x) = 0.72, which is the probability that the slope is positive.
Now an even more important point – the measured mean global
temperature anomaly is positive *even* *though* the past decade has
seen a steady *decrease* in mean solar radiation that has occurred as
part of the normal solar sunspot cycle. In fact, since 1999 the mean
solar irradiance has dropped by 0.2 W/m^2 – yet the mean global
temperature has continued to *rise.*
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
Michael
wrote:
> Duwayne Anderson
And here he is again practicing deception in front of the whole world.
That isn't his nym at all.
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ef2fc4e-c108-4d0d...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:> "Teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.12.15....@newsguy.com...
>
> > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > >> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > >> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> > > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was
> > > to
> > > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> > > Teresita
> > >http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
> > Because it's political and not a scientific.
> >>That's what right-wing politicians say.
>
> Your throwing that which covers you ... horse manure ... at other people .
This is an example (above) of how folks respond when they have no
credible means of dealing with the issues.
> >> But even a fifth grader knows
> >>that Global Warming is based on science.
>
> C'mon ... a mush brained fifth grader determines that on their own
Even a fifth grader can read statements from America's most
prestigious scientific organizations. Apparently, though, the tribe
of Global Warming deniers can't. Here are example of some of the
statements these scientific organizations have issued in support of
the science of Global Warming:
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information
Statement of the American Meteorological Society "Indeed, strong
observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate
that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major
contributor to climate change." (February 2007)"
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change: "The evidence
is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating
actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and
ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are
likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
beginning now." (November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate: "The Earth's
climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components
of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere,
land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea
level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—
are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are
best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse
gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th
century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December
2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board
Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear: global
climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is
a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change: "The Geological
Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that
Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to
human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes
will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October
2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change: "There
is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent
warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20
years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change
could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July
2004)
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to
Climate Change: "The scientific understanding of climate change is
now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global
response to climate change: "Climate change is real. There will
always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the
world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant
global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
Read more at http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
> ... where
> did you earn your degree from ... pep boys?
And that, folks, demonstrates the intellectual difference between the
scientific community and the tribe of right-wing religious wingnuts
that deny the science of Global Warming.
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehcle
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb0b6120-0dde-4d69...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 2:49 am, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > > The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > > is a spokesman, not a scientist.
>
----
> > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was to
> > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> >>There is no "Nobel Prize awarded" for Global >>Warming, you idiot.
> >>Al Gore was awarded the Nobel *Peace* prize.
>
> What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
is a spokesman, not a scientist.
Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
Read their letter here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-f...
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
So let's summarize:
1) We have a bunch of religious wackos that says global warming
is a fraud.
2) We have a whole bunch of scientific organizations that study
climate and say global warming is real.
Who should folks believe? The scientists or the wacko?
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 17, 9:37 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> And here he is again practicing deception in front of the whole world.
Hmmm. Looks like Michael, like Logan Sacket, is a Jesus hater. After
all, Jesus said "if you love me, keep my commandments," and yet Logan
and Michael tell lies.
To demonstrate that Michael tells lies, I'm going to challenge him to
specify the "deception" in the post to which he replied. Since he
snipped what was in that post (an act of deception itself) I've re-
posted it below.
--------------------------
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:52:12 -0500, SwordoZ wrote:
> > What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
>
> Create a new religion based purely on faith:
Al Gore didn't discover Global Warming, you idiot.
The first theory of global warming came in 1824 when French
mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier argued that the earth's
atmosphere traps solar radiation and reflects it back toward the
earth. This is now a well-established fact, and is the reason that
Venus is much hotter than Mercury even though it is much further from
the sun. It's also the reason that the earth's mean global
temperature has risen over the last decade, even though the mean solar
irradiance has *fallen* as part of the 11-year sunspot cycle.
By the way, that's the same "Fourier" that invented the famous
"Fourier analysis" which breaks a function (meeting certain
mathematical criteria) into a series of sine and cosines. His
mathematics wasn't based on "religion," and neither was his theory of
Global Warming.
In the late 19th century Fourier's theory was labeled the "greenhouse
effect" when Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius coined the term to
explain how carbon dioxide traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
Your persistent goof ups with regard to the nature of the Nobel award
and the history of the science of Global Warming seems typical of the
intellect so often found among the tribe of deniers.
Teresita
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
>anthropogenic contribution to global warming:
>
--
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Teresita
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>Even a fifth grader can read statements from America's most
>prestigious scientific organizations.
If that's how science really worked, our fifth graders would be learning
phlogiston theory to this day.
Teresita
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
>
>This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
>of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the
Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next
weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
For nearly three years CEI, a free-market, public-interest organization, has
pursued a series of Freedom of Information Act Requests intended to force NASA's
climate-science division to hand over e-mails it says could reflect the same
sort of pro-warming bias seen in the recent e-mails from the Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University.
http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/nasa-climategate-obama/2009/12/11/id/340897
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>In article <c537887d-a583-45be...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
>>
>>This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
>>of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>
>Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the
>Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next
>weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
They have a vested interest in misleading people about reality.
>For nearly three years CEI, a free-market, public-interest organization, has
>pursued a series of Freedom of Information Act Requests intended to force NASA's
>climate-science division to hand over e-mails it says could reflect the same
>sort of pro-warming bias seen in the recent e-mails from the Climatic Research
>Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University.
>
>http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/nasa-climategate-obama/2009/12/11/id/340897
>
They are liars. You are a fool to be sucked in by them.
Teresita
>>Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next
>>weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
>
>They have a vested interest in misleading people about reality.
>
talks in the middle of a raging snow storm.
John Manning
Uh... it's WINTER in Copenhagen, idiot.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>In article <i6qli55asi8od3bmh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>>
>>On 17 Dec 2009 18:25:49 -0800, Teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the
>>>Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next
>>>weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
>>
>>They have a vested interest in misleading people about reality.
>>
>Reality: Barack Obama steps off Air Force One in Copenhagen for global warming
>talks in the middle of a raging snow storm.
It's mid-December. Your ignorance of geography and climate makes you a
fairly good poster-child for the ignorant and dishonest anthropogenic
climate change deniers.
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <c537887d-a583-45be-9e5f-1131c083a...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
I notice that you (once again) snipped/ignored the science and simply
posted your right-wing talking points.
For those interested in the actual science of Global Warming, as
opposed to right-wing talking points, consider this example of the
science behind Global Warming:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
slope = (sum(xi*yi-10*xm*ym)/(sum(xi^2-n*xm^2)
ga(x) = (1/(root(variance*2*pi)))*exp((-1/2)*((x-slope)^2)/variance)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <d97f7009-e642-4be9-97f3-b47aa3ee3...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
> >Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
> >anthropogenic contribution to global warming:
>
> Fallacy of appeal to authority.
Not true. The scientific organizations listed the *evidence* that
demands acceptance of Global Warming.
> Sea levels have not risen since 2005.
> http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
That graph clearly shows sea level rising since 2009.
Let's take a quantitative look at the data for global sea level. From
the website that Teresita listed:
x y
2005 15 mm
2006 17 mm
2007 21 mm
2008 24 mm
2009 28 mm
Even a fifth grader knows how to read a chart -- and knows the
significance of linear regression, but apparently, not the Global
Warming deniers.
>
> --
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <4af0a76c-fea2-4f39-b3bc-cb137fa29...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>
>
----
> >Even a fifth grader can read statements from America's most
> >prestigious scientific organizations.
>
> If that's how science really worked, our fifth graders would be learning
> phlogiston theory to this day.
Phlogiston theory isn't supported by "America's most prestigious
scientific organizations."
But the scientific theory of Global Warming is. Here are a few
examples:
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehcle
>
> --
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <i6qli55asi8od3bmh5t7k4u5r4458fr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>
> >On 17 Dec 2009 18:25:49 -0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>Climategate may be just the tip of the global-warming iceberg according to the
> >>Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says the next
> >>weather-science scandal may erupt right here in the United States.
>
> >They have a vested interest in misleading people about reality.
>
> Reality: Barack Obama steps off Air Force One in Copenhagen for global warming
> talks in the middle of a raging snow storm.
First you tell us that Gore got the Nobel Prize for Global Warming.
Except there is no Nobel Prize for Global Warming. Gore won the Nobel
*Peace* prize.
Next you told us that Gore invented Global Warming. You were off by
over 100 years; it was the distinguished scientist Fourier that
discovered Global Warming.
Now you think a snow storm in winter in Europe (do you even know where
that is?) refutes Global Warming.
Clearly, the greatest tool that the deniers have is rampant ignorance,
superstition, and stupidity among the masses.
>
> --
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Bert Hyman
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phlogiston theory isn't supported by "America's most prestigious
> scientific organizations."
Phlogiston was once "settled science", accepted as fact until the mid
18th century.
When "prestigious scientific organizations" take the position that
current theory is not to be questioned, they're almost certainly wrong.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>In news:850d1f07-6026-46cf...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Phlogiston theory isn't supported by "America's most prestigious
>> scientific organizations."
>
>Phlogiston was once "settled science", accepted as fact until the mid
>18th century.
Not so much settled science because there was no evidence for it.
>When "prestigious scientific organizations" take the position that
>current theory is not to be questioned, they're almost certainly wrong.
But no one is saying that current theory is not to be questioned. They
are merely noting that flat-earthers, creationists, and anthropogenic
climate change deniers are not using any evidence, refusing to do
science and ignoring masses of data.
Duwaynea Anderson
> Innews:850d1f07-6026-46cf...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Phlogiston theory isn't supported by "America's most prestigious
> > scientific organizations."
>
> Phlogiston was once "settled science", accepted as fact until the mid
> 18th century.
>
> When "prestigious scientific organizations" take the position that
> current theory is not to be questioned, they're almost certainly wrong.
No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
questioned."
And I didn't say it either.
Questioning theories is the *business* of science.
In the case of Global Warming the theory has been extensively tested
and is fully supported by the data. The statements by the scientific
organizations make the point that the theory of Global Warming is
accepted *because* of the evidence.
I suggest you actually read the statements offered by the scientific
organizations:
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
thomas p.
What relevance do you think that has? Does a snowstorm in December
in Copenhagen (sharing the same latitude with Hudson Bay in Canada and
Moscow in Russia) negate all the global warming data?
thomas p.
And childishly pointing out snow storms in Copenhagen ignoring the fact
that we have had unusually mild winters for more than 20 years. This
winter will probably be mild too; the snow we just got is supposed to
start melting after the weekend, when it is expected to go above freezing.
Teresita
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>Now you think a snow storm in winter in Europe (do you even know where
>that is?) refutes Global Warming.
Time Magazine--
"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of
Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other
particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning
may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of
the earth."
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html
Cover Shows Shivering Americans Huddled
Teresita
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>Phlogiston theory isn't supported by "America's most prestigious
>scientific organizations."
>
>But the scientific theory of Global Warming is.
Newsweek's Infamous April 28, 1975 Article Warning We're In Danger Of An Ice Age
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Newsweek's Infamous April 28, 1975 Article Warning We're In Danger Of An Ice Age
You idiot, Newsweek isn't a scientific organization."
Here are some important statements from some of the most informed
scientific organizations:
The scientific evidence for global warming resulting from doubling/
tripling atmospheric CO2 is solid science. The same nuts (like Logan
Sacket) that deny the science of global warming also think the world
is just a few thousand years old, believe in a universal global flood,
and deny the scientific theory of evolution.
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article <60f69176-d711-49d3-8782-88c182bec...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
> >Now you think a snow storm in winter in Europe (do you even know where
> >that is?) refutes Global Warming.
>
> Time Magazine--
You idiot, Newsweek isn't a scientific organization."
<snip to end>
Logan Sacket
The sea level has been rising since the last ice age.
What's the anomoly?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:42:24 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 6:22 pm, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <d97f7009-e642-4be9-97f3-b47aa3ee3...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
> >> >Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
> >> >anthropogenic contribution to global warming:
>
> >> Fallacy of appeal to authority.
>
> >Not true. The scientific organizations listed the *evidence* that
> >demands acceptance of Global Warming.
>
> >> Sea levels have not risen since 2005.
>
> >> http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>
> >That graph clearly shows sea level rising since 2009.
>
> >Let's take a quantitative look at the data for global sea level. From
> >the website that Teresita listed:
>
> >x y
> >2005 15 mm
> >2006 17 mm
> >2007 21 mm
> >2008 24 mm
> >2009 28 mm
>
> >Even a fifth grader knows how to read a chart -- and knows the
> >significance of linear regression, but apparently, not the Global
> >Warming deniers.
>
> The sea level has been rising since the last ice age.
Glad you're finally catching on, Logan. Even a fifth grader knows
that the sea has been rising since the last ice age.
By the way, you do realize that the last ice age happened before you
silly Bible says the world was created, don't you?
> What's the anomoly?
It's described here:
How can you be taken credibly when you are so functionally illiterate
with regard to the data?
Teresita
> No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
> any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
> questioned."
The only person to have won the Nobel Prize in the climate change field
used a kill switch to disable the microphone of person with a dissenting
point of view.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:18:46 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>
>> No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
>> any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
>> questioned."
>
>The only person to have won the Nobel Prize in the climate change field
>used a kill switch to disable the microphone of person with a dissenting
>point of view.
You have no idea what you are talking about. No such award has been
made.
Steve Hayes
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:18:46 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>
>> No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
>> any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
>> questioned."
>
>The only person to have won the Nobel Prize in the climate change field
>used a kill switch to disable the microphone of person with a dissenting
>point of view.
Who was that, and when?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Logan Sacket
Gee, I'm so glad for you.
>
>By the way, you do realize that the last ice age happened before you
>silly Bible says the world was created, don't you?
Have you ever compared AGW with Mormonism?
>> What's the anomoly?
>
>It's described here:
>
>http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>
>How can you be taken credibly when you are so functionally illiterate
>with regard to the data?
What are you talking about?
SwordoZ
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b2bc361$0$36577$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
What relevance? It's very relevant. It better start warming up soon or the
artic isn't going to melt as quickly as gore predicted. :)
SwordoZ
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:LI2dncovy5Vn7rbW...@giganews.com...
Oh my ... now gore is going to have to go back to the drawing board
concerning the prophetic melting of the artic in 4 or 5 years.
SwordoZ
"Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af0a76c-fea2-4f39...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 4:40 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ef2fc4e-c108-4d0d...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 7:52 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:> "Teresita"
> <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.15....@newsguy.com...
> > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > >> The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > >> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> > > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was
> > > to
> > > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> > > Teresita
> > >http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
> > Because it's political and not a scientific.
> >>That's what right-wing politicians say.
> Your throwing that which covers you ... horse manure ... at other people .
>This is an example (above) of how folks respond when they have no
credible means of dealing with the issues.
I'm simply paroding what climatologists and the liberal establishment which
is in bed with them reverts to when their faith is openly questioned?
> >> But even a fifth grader knows
> >>that Global Warming is based on science.
>
> C'mon ... a mush brained fifth grader determines that on their own
>Even a fifth grader can read statements from America's most
prestigious scientific organizations.
>Apparently, though, the tribe
of Global Warming deniers can't.
Not saying they can't read words. Find me the fifth grader who has the
ability to comprehend the scientific jargon of prestigious scientific
organizations as you state? Do you know what common sense is?
Here are example of some of the
statements these scientific organizations have issued in support of
the science of Global Warming:
> ... where
> did you earn your degree from ... pep boys?
>And that, folks, demonstrates the intellectual difference between the
scientific community and the tribe of right-wing religious wingnuts
that deny the science of Global Warming.
Amazing how you base your argument on statements made between 2003 to 2007
... which was pre-emails.
Which one of the above crowd is going to be honest with themselves and be
the first to admit that they've been snookered and hoodwinked in the past 6
years by their scientific colleagues?
I assure you that many are going to bs their way out of the verbal
predicament they became entangled in.
soz
SwordoZ
On Dec 16, 4:52 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <duwayneander...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Dec 15, 2:49 am, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:50 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > > The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > > is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> > Interesting, that. The only Nobel Prize awarded for global warming was
> > to
> > a politician, NOT a scientist.
> >>Al Gore was awarded the Nobel *Peace* prize.
> What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
>The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
is a spokesman, not a scientist.
No ... but he's made millions as their spokesman ... a spokesman who puts
his size 10 shoe in his mouth every time he opens it? Is that something to
be proud of.
Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
anthropogenic contribution to global warming:
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
Read their letter here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-f...
Here's another helpful link regarding the scientific consensus on
global warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
>So let's summarize:
>1) We have a bunch of religious wackos that >says .global warming
>is a fraud.
You verify my contention as I've stated in another reply concerning horse
manure.
Uncovered e-mails from within the global warming scientific community points
to fraud.
>2) We have a whole bunch of scientific organizations >that study
>climate and say global warming is real.
>Who should folks believe? The scientists or the wacko?
Neither ... but believe the "truth" of the matter wheresoever it leads.
soz
thomas p.
Or as it is actually happening, but, of course, you think one snow storm
changes all that. By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
days.
thomas p.
Why? Try to provide a rational response this time.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
The arctic has been melting substantially more than it had been.
Keep up with the news. Stop wasting your time attacking reality.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>
I guess the concepts of summer and winter elude you.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:40:33 +0800, Teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:18:46 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
>>> any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
>>> questioned."
>>
>>The only person to have won the Nobel Prize in the climate change field
>>used a kill switch to disable the microphone of person with a dissenting
>>point of view.
>
>Who was that, and when?
No one, ever, but anthropogenic climate change denialists are very
confused about reality.
SwordoZ
Are you saying at the same time the artic is freezing it is melting as well?
but, of course, you think one snow storm
> changes all that.
No. But rain storms would fit systemically into global warming theories
moreso than snowstorms ... would they not?
By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
> days.
And you believe that it supports your GW theory because its "expected" to
melt in a couple of days?
Everyone then should be prepared to take off woolies, their wooly hats as
well as coats then ... right?
SwordoZ
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:4qopi5h994n6rnivq...@4ax.com...
Not in the least ... that's a fact of the cyclical nature of the environment
which surrounds this human experience ... just as the sun rises in the
morning and sets in the evening.
Natures predictability is out of the realm of human concepts. :)
SwordoZ
Read carefully.
He's going to have to re-adjust his module rate of dropping temps to
compensate for temp fluxations occuring which correlates to artic freezing
for 2009 - 2010 and the normal melting cycle for 2010 and beyond. He'll have
to push his predictions forward another year before the artic ice caps
completely melt. :)
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > C'mon ... a mush brained fifth grader determines that on their own
> >
> > Even a fifth grader can read statements from America's most
> > prestigious scientific organizations. Apparently, though, the tribe
> > of Global Warming deniers can't.
>
> Not saying they can't read words. Find me the fifth grader who has the
> ability to comprehend the scientific jargon of prestigious scientific
> organizations as you state?
The science that proves the reality of global warming is really
simple. I've posted examples before -- you just ignored them. I've
posted them (again) below.
It’s an established fact that atmospheric gases warm planets. For
example, Mercury, which lacks a substantial atmosphere, has an average
surface temperature of 167 Celsius while Venus, which has a thick
atmosphere of CO2, has an average surface temperature of 464 Celsius.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/mercury.htm
Thus Venus is much, much hotter than Mercury even though Mercury (at
just 0.387 AU from the sun) is nearly twice as close to the sun as
Venus (0.723 AU). All because of Venus’ thick atmosphere of CO2; it’s
nearly 300 Celsius hotter than Mercury even though it receives 3.5
times *less* solar radiation per square meter than Mercury.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Solar/soldata2.html#c2
This is an amazing demonstration of the way surface temperature is
affected by planetary atmospheres, and it needs to be kept as a
backdrop to the discussion about global warming in which advocates of
polluting industries try to argue that doubling/tripling the
concentration of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere won’t have any effect on
earth’s mean global temperature.
Now, as any fifth grader knows, incoming solar radiation is absorbed
by the Earth and then re-radiated at longer wave-lengths. The
incoming solar flux is 1367 J/(m^2,sec) and the radius of the Earth is
R = 6357 km, so the area facing the Sun is pi*R^2 = 1:27*10^14 m^2.
Thus the total energy budget is 1:735*10^17 Watt.
The albedo of the Earth is about 30%, meaning that that 30% of the
incoming radiation is reflected back into space without being
absorbed. That leaves 0:7*1:735*10^17 = 1:2*10^17 W which is
absorbed.
When the earth is in thermal equilibrium (neither globally heating up
nor globally cooling down) this exact amount of energy has to be
radiated back into space in the form of infrared radiation.
Furthermore (as any fifth grader knows) the spectrum of this radiation
follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
I =sigma*T^4; where sigma = 5:67*10^-8 W/m^2,K^4
This gives the following:
T4 = (1.21*10^17)/(sigma*4*pi*R^2) = (0.7*1367)/(4* 5.67*10^-8) =
4.2*10^9 K^4
Thus T = 255 K, the effective temperature at which the Earth
radiates.
However (and just as we expect) Earth’s average surface temperature is
known to be 15 Celsius = 288 K, demonstrating the fact that the
atmosphere acts like a blanket over the
Earth, warming it by about 33 Celsius.
This simple calculation proves the reality of the “greenhouse
effect.” It demonstrates the fundamental absurdity of deniers who
claim that dramatic changes in major greenhouse gases will not have an
effect on mean global temperature.
Of course, as I said, none of this is spectacularly new – it’s
actually old news. Any fifth grader knows this stuff. Here are a few
relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/05SprgClass/geo116/8-1.pdf
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/temp.html
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:18:46 -0800, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > No "prestigious scientific organization" has ever taken the POV that
> > any scientific theory (let alone Global Warming) "is not to be
> > questioned."
>
> The only person to have won the Nobel Prize in the climate change field
> used a kill switch to disable the microphone of person with a dissenting
> point of view.
You idiot, there is no "Nobel Prize in the climate change field."
Here are the Nobel Prizes:
Peace
Physics
Medicine
Chemistry
Literature
Economics
>
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Oh my ... now gore is going to have to go back to the drawing board
> concerning the prophetic melting of the artic in 4 or 5 years.
The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
is a spokesman, not a scientist.
Here's a short list of scientific organizations that have affirmed the
Read their letter here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-f...
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
So let's summarize:
1) We have a another religious wacko that says global warming
is a fraud.
2) We have a whole bunch of scientific organizations that say global
warming is real.
Who should folks believe? The scientists or the wacko?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > I guess the concepts of summer and winter elude you.
>
> Not in the least ... that's a fact of the cyclical nature of the environment
> which surrounds this human experience ... just as the sun rises in the
> morning and sets in the evening.
>
> Natures predictability is out of the realm of human concepts. :)
I predict that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere will
be about 15 degrees warmer in 6 months than it is right now.
I predict there will be two high tides and two low tides during the
next (approximately) 24 hours.
I predict that deer will have fawns in the spring.
I predict that the earth's continents will continue to move via the
mechanism called continental drift.
And I predict that doubling/tripling the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere will cause the mean global temperature to rise.
The science that predicts global warming, like the science that
predicts tides, is really simple. I've posted examples before -- you
http://www.solstation.com/stars/mercury.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Solar/soldata2.html#c2
This gives the following:
<snip to end>
Steve Hayes
>> Or as it is actually happening,
>
>Are you saying at the same time the artic is freezing it is melting as well?
As in those ice road truckers driving their artics across the ice?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >How can you be taken credibly when you are so functionally illiterate
> >with regard to the data?
>
> What are you talking about?
Your persistent lies about mean global temperature no longer
increasing, and mean global sea level no longer rising.
The data are clear show that both are continuing to rise. Why do you
tell lies like this, Logan? Why do you demonstrate such contempt and
hatred for Jesus as to tell lies that help polluters trash the planet?
Folks wishing to examine the data for sea level can click on this
link:
Data for the mean global temperature anomaly may be found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
Scroll to the bottom and click on the link that says:
The Annual Global Land Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)
Data for the last ten years are:
x y
1999 0.6760
2000 0.5175
2001 0.7204
2002 0.8309
2003 0.7713
2004 0.7078
2005 0.9558
2006 0.8161
2007 0.9807
2008 0.7771
The equation for the slope of the linear regression of these data is
slope = (sum(xi*yi-10*xm*ym)/(sum(xi^2-n*xm^2)
Where xi is the i’th value of x, yi is the i’th value of y, xm is the
mean value of x and ym is the mean value of y.
The slope of these data is *positive* and equals 0.3 Kelvin per
decade.
The variance of the slope is given by:
Variance = (sigma^2)/(sum(xi-xm)^2, where “sigma” in this case is the
standard deviation of the data from the least-squares linear fit.
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance and equals
0.51 Kelvin per decade.
The probability that the slope is positive is given by:
ga(x) = (1/(root(variance*2*pi)))*exp((-1/2)*((x-slope)^2)/variance)
In this equation “variance” is the variance of the slope (calculated
above) and “x” is a dummy variable of integration. Evaluating the
integral we have:
ga(x) = 0.72, which is the probability that the slope is positive.
Now an even more important point – the measured mean global
temperature anomaly is positive *even* *though* the past decade has
seen a steady *decrease* in mean solar radiation that has occurred as
part of the normal solar sunspot cycle. In fact, since 1999 the mean
solar irradiance has dropped by 0.2 W/m^2 – yet the mean global
temperature has continued to *rise.*
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
> >The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
>
> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
>
> No ... but he's made millions as their spokesman
During the same time the polluting industries that have a vested
interest in trashing the science of Global Warming have made hundreds
of billions of dollars.
So if you are basing your wacked-out conspiracy theories on where the
financial motive is -- it's clear it's with the deniers.
The science of global warming, however, is very clear -- and even a
fifth grader can understand it.
SwordoZ
Due to a cylical interaction occuring within nature itself keeping in
balance the earth's environment.
> Keep up with the news. Stop wasting your time attacking reality.
The reality is that a certain percentage of intellegensia within the science
of climatology are in concert with progressive political zealots who are
making a whole lot of something about nothing in the name of wealth
distribution and the drum major leading the parade is Al Gore who has raked
in untold millions of dollars in this venture.
That is reality and the center piece of the whole debate concerning GW.
SwordoZ
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h55qi5l6kat7td1cg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:19:02 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
>>> Or as it is actually happening,
>>Are you saying at the same time the artic is freezing it is melting as
>>well?
> As in those ice road truckers driving their artics across the ice?
LOL! Want to try again? Are you capable of a more intellectually
stimulating reply than that?
thomas p.
Gosh, that must be why we have had so much rain in December and above zero
temperatures until the past few days, or why my grass is still growing.
Thanks for the explanation.
>
>
> By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
>> days.
>
> And you believe that it supports your GW theory because its
> "expected" to melt in a couple of days?
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly made no such
claim, nor is global warming my theory.
>
> Everyone then should be prepared to take off woolies, their wooly
> hats as well as coats then ... right?
They should? Why?
thomas p.
All because we had one, single snow storm in one region of a small country?
Gosh, that is amazing! Such fun facts you have to offer. In the meantime
the ice
continues to melt, and the oceans continue to rise; and Gore is still not a
meteorologist.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
The earth's environment always adjusts. The question is how much this
adjustment will affect humans. How disruptive will it be if the earth is
warmer by five or ten degrees than it is today? Who will die? Who will
start wars.
Nature doesn't care about humans.
>> Keep up with the news. Stop wasting your time attacking reality.
>
>The reality is that a certain percentage of intellegensia within the science
>of climatology are in concert with progressive political zealots who are
>making a whole lot of something about nothing in the name of wealth
>distribution and the drum major leading the parade is Al Gore who has raked
>in untold millions of dollars in this venture.
>
>That is reality and the center piece of the whole debate concerning GW.
You haven't bothered to learn anything about climatology.
Why are you trying to be more of a fool than Rush Limbaugh?
SwordoZ
On Dec 18, 9:36 pm, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
> >The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> No ... but he's made millions as their spokesman
>During the same time the polluting industries that have >a vested
>interest in trashing the science of Global Warming >have made hundreds
>of billions of dollars.
Apparently you enjoy demonizing and biting the hand that feeds you.
>So if you are basing your wacked-out conspiracy >theories on where the
>financial motive is -- it's clear it's with the deniers.
No ... but I believe your a jelly bean zealot jealous of the hundreds of
billions made by those so called "polluting" industries.
>The science of global warming, however, is very clear >-- and even a
>fifth grader can understand it.
Yea ... as clear as mud which fifth graders enjoy making.
You rhetoric sounds eerily familiar ... am I arguing with big Al Gore? :)
SwordoZ
You asked and received. What is Gore then?
SwordoZ
Nature takes care of itself and it's own in it's own way.
>How disruptive will it be if the earth is
> warmer by five or ten degrees than it is today?
How far in the future do you believe this to be?
>Who will die?
That's natures problem ... science is not nature ... is it?
>Who will
> start wars.
That now is in man's hands ... not natures.
> Nature doesn't care about humans.
If nature doesn't care then why are we discussing this issue ... we should
have been dead long ago.
>>> Keep up with the news. Stop wasting your time attacking reality.
>>
>>The reality is that a certain percentage of intellegensia within the
>>science
>>of climatology are in concert with progressive political zealots who are
>>making a whole lot of something about nothing in the name of wealth
>>distribution and the drum major leading the parade is Al Gore who has
>>raked
>>in untold millions of dollars in this venture.
>>That is reality and the center piece of the whole debate concerning GW.
> You haven't bothered to learn anything about climatology.
I haven't .... what am I supposed to learn about it?
> Why are you trying to be more of a fool than Rush Limbaugh?
Rush Limbaugh? What has Rush Limbaugh got to do with this discussion?
SwordoZ
We've had normal cold weather and a snowstorm presntly. Is that due to GW?
>> By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
>>> days.
>> And you believe that it supports your GW theory because its
>> "expected" to melt in a couple of days?
> Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly made no
> such claim, nor is global warming my theory.
If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
>> Everyone then should be prepared to take off woolies, their wooly
>> hats as well as coats then ... right?
> They should? Why?
As you stated previously ... "I certainly made no such claim, nor is global
warming my theory". Well ... your in the wrong discussion then.
SwordoZ
On Dec 19, 8:56 am, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > I guess the concepts of summer and winter elude you.
> Not in the least ... that's a fact of the cyclical nature of the
> environment
> which surrounds this human experience ... just as the sun rises in the
> morning and sets in the evening.
> Natures predictability is out of the realm of human concepts. :)
>I predict that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere will
be about 15 degrees warmer in 6 months than it is right >now.
Oh! Where did you learn that concept ... in fifth grade??
>I predict there will be two high tides and two low >tides during the
>next (approximately) 24 hours.
Isn't it amazing how nature works like a clock ... never wavers?
>I predict that deer will have fawns in the spring.
Did nature teach you that or science?
>I predict that the earth's continents will continue to >move via the
>mechanism called continental drift.
How many centimeters a year?
>And I predict that doubling/tripling the concentration >of CO2 in the
>atmosphere will cause the mean global temperature to >rise.
Do you have the factual data to show how close we are to that?
>The science that predicts global warming, like the >science that
>predicts tides, is really simple. I've posted examples >before -- you
>just ignored them. I've posted them (again) below.
No ... it's not that simple.
It�s an established fact that atmospheric gases warm planets. For
example, Mercury, which lacks a substantial atmosphere, has an average
surface temperature of 167 Celsius while Venus, which has a thick
atmosphere of CO2, has an average surface temperature of 464 Celsius.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/mercury.htm
Thus Venus is much, much hotter than Mercury even though Mercury (at
just 0.387 AU from the sun) is nearly twice as close to the sun as
Venus (0.723 AU). All because of Venus� thick atmosphere of CO2; it�s
nearly 300 Celsius hotter than Mercury even though it receives 3.5
times *less* solar radiation per square meter than Mercury.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Solar/soldata2.html#c2
This is an amazing demonstration of the way surface temperature is
affected by planetary atmospheres, and it needs to be kept as a
>backdrop to the discussion about global warming in >which advocates of
>polluting industries try to argue that doubling/tripling >the
>concentration of CO2 in earth�s atmosphere won�t >have any effect on
>earth�s mean global temperature.
Isn't it amazing how we learn from outside our immediate natural
environment.
>Now, as any fifth grader knows,
Since when?
>incoming solar radiation is absorbed
>by the Earth and then re-radiated at longer wave->lengths. The
<snip to end>
Your common sense?
Steve Hayes
Well what else can you say about a freezing truck?
SwordoZ
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:24:18 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h55qi5l6kat7td1cg...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:19:02 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
>>>>> Or as it is actually happening,
>>>>Are you saying at the same time the artic is freezing it is melting as
>>>>well?
>>> As in those ice road truckers driving their artics across the ice?
>>LOL! Want to try again? Are you capable of a more intellectually
>>stimulating reply than that?
> Well what else can you say about a freezing truck?
<laughing> It's colder than cold. cya :)
Steve Hayes
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qa5ri511fsbr8r2g4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:24:18 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
>>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:h55qi5l6kat7td1cg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:19:02 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Or as it is actually happening,
>>>>>Are you saying at the same time the artic is freezing it is melting as
>>>>>well?
>>>> As in those ice road truckers driving their artics across the ice?
>>>LOL! Want to try again? Are you capable of a more intellectually
>>>stimulating reply than that?
>> Well what else can you say about a freezing truck?
>
><laughing> It's colder than cold. cya :)
They've been having problems with freezing cold trains between the UK and
France -- I don't know if the same problem affects artics or rigid trucks as
well, probably not diesels.
The trains have been travelling through freezing cold countryside and so get
cold. Then they duck into the warm moist air in the channel tunnel and
moisture condenses in the electrical equipment, and the trains come to a
standstill until they dry out.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Just an example of an ignorant blowhard who doesn't care a bit about
evidence.
thomas p.
"SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4b2d6aa9$0$14928$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
Ask a meteorologist.
>
>
>>> By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
>>>> days.
>>> And you believe that it supports your GW theory because its
>>> "expected" to melt in a couple of days?
>
>> Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly made no
>> such claim, nor is global warming my theory.
>
> If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
No doubt. Furthermore San Francisco is very hilly.
>
>
>>> Everyone then should be prepared to take off woolies, their wooly
>>> hats as well as coats then ... right?
>> They should? Why?
>
> As you stated previously ... "I certainly made no such claim, nor is
> global warming my theory". Well ... your in the wrong discussion then.
>
>
Don't forget San Francisco.
thomas p.
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> skrev i meddelelsen
news:srdri51cktgt14o6i...@4ax.com...
Or about any actual discussion.
SwordoZ
Reply appreciated ... "what am I supposed to learn about it?"
>>> Why are you trying to be more of a fool than Rush Limbaugh?
>>Rush Limbaugh? What has Rush Limbaugh got to do with this discussion?
Reply appreciated .... "what has Rush Limbaugh got to do with this
discussion?"
> Just an example of an ignorant blowhard
Nothing new under the sun concerning liberal tendencies is there ...
liberalism usually ends up reverting to name calling.
>who doesn't care a bit about evidence.
Your evidence in support of that statement ... I'm willing to discuss your
evidence as follows.
Present evidence as to ....
(1) WHO the GW reasearcher is who presented the evidence [in question]?
(2) WHERE did the GW research take place and accessibility to the
evidence [in question] presented?
(3) WHAT is the evidentary calculations by which the GW evidence [in
question] was derived?
(4) HOW were the evidentary calculations applied and formulated to reach
the GW evidence [in question] as presented?
(5) WHEN was the evidence [in question] formulated and concluded?
I believe others as well as I want to learn about this hot button topic
which others on this forum such as yourself likewise passionately believe
in. I believe also that others on the sidelines who have questions
concerning the "evidence" being discussed be given the courtesy to reply and
responded to as well.
soz
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > What did Gore do besides make himself a millionaire?
> > >The scientific validity of global warming doesn't depend on Gore, who
> > is a spokesman, not a scientist.
> > No ... but he's made millions as their spokesman
> >During the same time the polluting industries that have >a vested
> >interest in trashing the science of Global Warming >have made hundreds
> >of billions of dollars.
>
> Apparently you enjoy demonizing and biting the hand that feeds you.
You are the person that equates making money with doing it for
nefarious purposes. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the
polluting industries that oppose the science of global warming are
making a helluvalot more money than those you criticize.
Thanks for making it clear that you are a spokesperson for those
industries. For all we know, you are on their payroll.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > I predict that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere will
> > be about 15 degrees warmer in 6 months than it is right >now.
>
> Oh! Where did you learn that concept ... in fifth grade??
Yes, actually. And that example nicely illustrates that absurdity of
your assertion that
"Natures [sic] predictability is out of the realm of human
concepts." [SwordoZ]
> >I predict there will be two high tides and two low >tides during the
> >next (approximately) 24 hours.
That's another example that nicely illustrates the absurdity of your
assertion that things in nature cannot be predicted.
<snip>
> >And I predict that doubling/tripling the concentration >of CO2 in the
> >atmosphere will cause the mean global temperature to >rise.
>
> Do you have the factual data to show how close we are to that?
Yeah, I do. I've posted it before and you just ignored it. I've
posted it again (below). The fifth graders following this discussion
will be able to understand it.
I'm not sure about you.
Now, as any fifth grader knows, incoming solar radiation is absorbed
by the Earth and then re-radiated at longer wave-lengths. The
This gives the following:
Okay, at this point I suspect that all the fifth graders are still
eagerly reading along, and that 36.5% of the heads of the Global
Warming deniers have exploded or are spinning in circles. Now let’s
look a little more closely at the specific impact that doubling/
tripling the concentration of C02 can be expected to have.
Light traversing the atmosphere is absorbed by successive molecules.
Mathematically we have the following equation for the absorbed
fraction of the out-going radiation:
f(v) = 1- exp(-lambda*c*gcoll(v))
Where v = frequency, lamda = wavelength, c = concentration of the
absorbing molecule.
The total absorption is given by integration and is:
k(c) = integral(v1,v2,f(v))
Where the integration is over the spectral width (v1,v2) of the
absorption band. For small atmospheric concentrations (which applies
to CO2) k(c) behaves as
k(c) = k0 +m*root(c)
The main absorption line in CO2 (near wavelengths emitted by earth) is
at at a wavelength of 15 microns and corresponds to a frequency of
2*10^13 Hz. It has a central peak and two attenuated shoulders. The
width of the band is about 2.8*10^12 Hz. Although the absorption band
is relatively narrow it lines up very closely with the peak emission
of the earth, which is just slightly shorter than 2*10^13 Hz.
The contribution from this line is found by integration:
Integral(0, infinity, I(v,T)*k(c)) = 43 W/m^2
Where the integral is from 0 to infinity, and I(v,T) is the spectral
distribution of earth's emission, as given by the Plank distribution,
at T = 288K.
We compare this with the total energy density:
Integral(0, infinity, I(v,T)) = 389 W/m^2
Thus the total contribution from the CO2 absorption line is 43/389 or
11%.
From this we can see that CO2 is not the dominant source of greenhouse
heating (water is) but it is a *significant* source. In all their
hand waving the global warming deniers (who don’t seem half as smart
as a typical fifth grader) basically assert that something that's
responsible for 11% of greenhouse heating can't possibly have an
impact on mean global temperature.
What bunk!
Now let's look at the increase in temperature that we can expect from
increasing CO2 concentration from 290 ppm to 385 ppm (the measured
increase between 1880 and 2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
We have:
deltaI/I = 4*deltaT/T. Furthermore, because of the overlap with the
H2O absorption at low frequencies we'll only take into account the
high-frequency half of the absorption band. We'll also use a cut-off
at high frequencies to account for the oxygen absorption band (high
cut-off frequency = 3*10^13 Hz). The corresponding contribution is
Integral(2*10^13Hz, 3*10^13 Hz, I(v,T)k(v)) = 25 W/m^2
Reducing the concentration to 290/385 and repeating the integration
yields 22 W/m^2
Thus deltaT = (1/4)*((25-22)/389)*255K = 0.5K
Well, what do you know? The calculated increase in mean global
temperature is 0.5K -- remarkably in agreement with measured mean
global increase in temperature.
Again -- this is a simple calculation. Any fifth grader can do it.
Many others *have* done it. Here are a few more links of interest:
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of “Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science”
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwaynea Anderson
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b2d31aa$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...> SwordoZ wrote:
> >> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4b2c8870$0$36564$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> >>> SwordoZ wrote:
> >>>> "John Manning" <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
>
> news:LI2dncovy5Vn7rbW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> >>>>> Teresita wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <i6qli55asi8od3bmh5t7k4u5r4458fr...@4ax.com>, Free
> >>>>>> Lunch says...
> >>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2009 18:25:49 -0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com>
> You asked and received. What is Gore then?
Gore is a spokesman, not a scientist.
Here's a helpful link regarding the scientific consensus on
global warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
So let's summarize:
1) We have right-wing religious wackos that says global warming is a
fraud.
2) We have a whole bunch of scientific organizations that say global
warming is real.
Who should folks believe? The scientists or the wackos?
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:srdri51cktgt14o6i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:53:50 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote
> > in alt.atheism:
> >>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>news:dreqi5pre26c1t9dl...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:12:04 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote
> >>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>>>news:moopi51ma2106ocf0...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:41:39 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote
> >>>>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>>>news:LI2dncovy5Vn7rbW...@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>> Teresita wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <i6qli55asi8od3bmh5t7k4u5r4458fr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> >>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2009 18:25:49 -0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com>
Global warming science is the product of thousands of researchers.
That's part of what makes the whacked-out conspiracy stories of the
anti-science GW deniers so implausible.
> (2) WHERE did the GW research take place and accessibility to the
> evidence [in question] presented?
The evidence for GW is gathered by hundreds of researchers. That's
part of what makes the whacked-out conspiracy stories of the anti-
science GW deniers so implausible.
> (3) WHAT is the evidentary calculations by which the GW evidence [in
> question] was derived?
I've posted simple ones for you -- ones so simple that even a fifth
grader could understand them.
You ignored them. Here's the link:
> (4) HOW were the evidentary calculations applied and formulated to reach
> the GW evidence [in question] as presented?
>
> (5) WHEN was the evidence [in question] formulated and concluded?
Wait a minute -- you're on record asserting that the science of global
warming is a fraud, and you haven't even bothered to study it and find
out remotely what it is, and how it works?
> I believe others as well as I want to learn about this hot button topic
You might try reading the posts to which you've been responding.
Now I've got some questions for you:
1) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why is Venus the
hottest planet in the solar system, even though it's much further from
the sun than Mercury?
2) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why is the surface
temperature of the earth 33K warmer than it's thermal emission spectra
as seen from space?
3) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why has the earth's
mean temperature been going up the last decade, even though mean solar
irradiance has gone down?
4) Since CO2 is known to absorb infrared radiation at wavelengths
emitted by earth, how can doubling/tripling the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere not raise mean global temperature?
5) If Global Warming is such a fraud, why do GW deniers (like Logan
Sacket) feel compelled to lie about the science and the data?
6) Why are so many of the GW deniers associated with the same
international companies that make hundreds of billions of dollars
polluting the atmosphere with CO2
Steve Hayes
<duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You are the person that equates making money with doing it for
>nefarious purposes. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the
>polluting industries that oppose the science of global warming are
>making a helluvalot more money than those you criticize.
>
>Thanks for making it clear that you are a spokesperson for those
>industries. For all we know, you are on their payroll.
I suspect that quite a lot of the people who post this sort of stuff are on
the payroll.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Why are you trying to be more of a fool than Rush Limbaugh?
>
> Rush Limbaugh? What has Rush Limbaugh got to do with this discussion?
Well, for one thing you and Logan Sacket seem to get your talking
points from Rush. For example, here's what Rush said on February 27,
2008:
"All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's
GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global
temperatures have dropped big-time."
Rush is lying, of course. Mean global temperature has continued to
increase during the last decade. More importantly, temperatures have
gone *up* as mean solar irradiance has gone *down.*
The nature of Rush Limbaugh's lie can be verified by looking at data
for the mean global temperature anomaly, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
slope = (sum(xi*yi-10*xm*ym)/(sum(xi^2-n*xm^2)
The probability that the slope is positive is given by integrating the
probability function,
ga(x) = (1/(root(variance*2*pi)))*exp((-1/2)*((x-slope)^2)/variance)
In this equation “variance” is the variance of the slope (calculated
above) and “x” is a dummy variable of integration. Evaluating the
integral we have:
ga(x) = 0.72, which is the probability that the slope is positive.
Now an even more important point – the measured mean global
temperature anomaly is positive *even* *though* the past decade has
seen a steady *decrease* in mean solar radiation that has occurred as
part of the normal solar sunspot cycle. In fact, since 1999 the mean
solar irradiance has dropped by 0.2 W/m^2 – yet the mean global
temperature has continued to *rise.*
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
This shows the unmistakable fact that the earth is warming as a result
of increased concentrations of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere.
<snip to end>
SwordoZ
> Ask a meteorologist.
What am I to do if they tell me to go ask ... "thomas p."
>>>> By the way that snow is expected to melt in a couple of
>>>>> days.
>>>> And you believe that it supports your GW theory because its
>>>> "expected" to melt in a couple of days?
>>> Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly made no
>>> such claim, nor is global warming my theory.
>> If it quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
> No doubt. Furthermore San Francisco is very hilly.
Funny and hilly.
>>>> Everyone then should be prepared to take off woolies, their wooly
>>>> hats as well as coats then ... right?
>>> They should? Why?
>> As you stated previously ... "I certainly made no such claim, nor is
>> global warming my theory". Well ... your in the wrong discussion then.
> Don't forget San Francisco.
Yea ... don't forget if it quacks like a duck .. it must be a duck. :)
soz
SwordoZ
Jump in with your evidence or your welcome to reply to questions I asked.
soz
Duwaynea Anderson
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b2ddf9b$0$36559$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> skrev i meddelelsen
>
> news:srdri51cktgt14o6i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:53:50 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote
> >> in alt.atheism:
> >>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>>news:dreqi5pre26c1t9dl...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:12:04 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote
> >>>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:moopi51ma2106ocf0...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:41:39 -0500, "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net>
> >>>>>> wrote
> >>>>>> in alt.atheism:
> >>>>>>>news:LI2dncovy5Vn7rbW...@giganews.com...
> >>>>>>>> Teresita wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <i6qli55asi8od3bmh5t7k4u5r4458fr...@4ax.com>, Free
> >>>>>>>>> Lunch
> >>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2009 18:25:49 -0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com>
Still waiting for "SwordoZ" to answer these:
1) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why is Venus the
hottest planet in the solar system, even though it's much further from
the sun than Mercury?
2) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why is the surface
temperature of the earth 33K warmer than it's thermal emission spectra
as seen from space?
3) If there's no such thing as Global Warming, why has the earth's
mean temperature been going up the last decade, even though mean solar
irradiance has gone down?
4) Since CO2 is known to absorb infrared radiation at wavelengths
emitted by earth, how can doubling/tripling the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere not raise mean global temperature?
5) If Global Warming is such a fraud, why do GW deniers (like Logan
Sacket) feel compelled to lie about the science and the data?
6) Why are so many of the GW deniers associated with the same
international companies that make hundreds of billions of dollars
polluting the atmosphere with CO2
<snip to end>
AZ Nomad
>> Ask a meteorologist.
See then men in white.
thomas p.
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnhivio6.i...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
They are likely quite close to him.