Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
God hates "The Greatest Hoax"
0 views
Skip to first unread message
bwilson4web
Mar 26, 2012, 1:00:37 AM3/26/12
to
I was amused to watch James Inhofe discuss his book with Rachel Maddow
only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
"globally warmer" winter. <grins>
Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax. <LOL>
Bob WIlson
only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
"globally warmer" winter. <grins>
Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax. <LOL>
Bob WIlson
Ron Hammon
Apr 9, 2012, 10:18:10 PM4/9/12
to
But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When it's warmer, it's
Global Warming. Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game.
Ron Hammon
MikeC
Apr 9, 2012, 11:42:05 PM4/9/12
to
expect more chaos from it in the long run. Adjustments will be observed
in a lot of local systems such as you describe. Cold air masses can be
dry or moist, if moist these masses can transfer moisture for heat much
the way as you are describing for unusually cold. This is indeed climate
change caused by global warming as that fits to a T the observed and
changing conditions in scope and duration.
Additionally, if you have warmer masses of air at the several levels;
ground level, lower, and then higher altitudes -you will have an
increase in moisture retention and its release as rain, snow, whatever,
depending on the local conditions.
The localities are both broad and massive, dynamically speaking. Add in
energy 'sinks' such as surface water, the top few inches of ground and
the air above these energy absorbing, or sand, and you will see how this
all works to retain the energy for more gradual release at later times.
We are in those times now and will continue to see the effects build as
you have described.
Warmer air is energetic air. Pressure gradients cause work to occur,
this work is seen as ways to remove or store this extra heat, that is
energy which can not be re-radiated efficiently since the system is
already radiating as much as it can. The system will just have to store
that extra little bit for a while, just a little while of course then
becomes extended and that energy will have a greater impact locally due
to the localized nature of any energy sinks within the system.
When you inject heat into any gas you increase the pressure of that gas.
With the decreasing ability to transfer heat into the near-by space via
radiation due to less molecules being present at that boundary to effect
the heat transfer you can see a small part of the overall problem. How
do you throw heat away faster then is possible?
If you rapidly remove heat from such a system you will find similar
examples of shifting events and conditions.
Turning a 'fan' off has no effect on the air masses it was pushing and
those it had pushed already.
The friction of moving air is just one of many such energy sinks.
Transfer is toward greater entropy, chaos, coolness. When the ability of
the 'normal sinks' to spread the wealth for later distribution falls
short of current levels then you will see newer sinks, new to us I mean.
This has happened before of course.
Areas of the greatest moisture potential can or will cause increases in
these already over crowded energy sinks, which in turn drives the energy
into new and different 'sinks' even if only for the short duration of a
small part of any weather cycle which in turn has effects on the
durations, directions of movement, composition and impact on any weather
system then in play or building and shaping towards tomorrow's weather.
The trees do not cause the breeze. That energy transfer is to the trees
not from them and the rotating earth.
Slightly warming the waters of the oceans has the following results.
Water with salt can carry more heat away from the air and land masses,
decrease that level of salt say, with more ice pack melt, and you will
increase the level of gases in the air near the water as the water can
no longer retain these dissolved gases to the same degree. This in turn
increases air pressure at seal level and the partial pressure of the
system will seek equilibrium at a lower level for each of the released
gases.
These simple little examples should help you to think of the entire
system as it really works, as it has been working and will continue to
work. We are certain the earth is getting more radiance than it can
dissipate in the fashions we have measured. The sun plays the greatest
part in our problem as you know, but the usage of a sun-shield is not
allowed. We have no umbrella to shade our planet.
As to 'human' vs 'natural' contributions to these questions, I have only
to point out the following.
If grant monies are what interested science why wouldn't these
scrambling folks be better at the deception you imply? Do you really
think such a broad brush is required? Are only some of them in on the
'gag' and the rest just sheep? Is there any way you can tell at a glance
which of them is taking money fraudulently with the support of well
meaning but gullible 'others' being hoodwinked by that self same
charlatan. Is it just a gut feeling or do you really have proof which
has NOT been debunked so far. Please double check any facts since I want
to believe you are sincere and not being duped by someone with an agenda
you might not know of or share.
As a skeptic, do you think we need more accurate and conditioned
observations, weighted, noise reduced data, and better simulations in
which to plug these datums. Are all these questions really needed, can
you please provide proof that warming of our planet is NOT occurring?
This is your first hurdle to clear.
Facts are what science requires, results today are tomorrow's data
points, wouldn't you say?
--
Mike C
Ron Hammon
Apr 10, 2012, 2:58:19 PM4/10/12
to
falsify the idea of Global Warming? How about 40 years with no evidence
of a warmer globe?
Did you REALLY say: "Provide proof that warming of our planet is NOT
occurring?" This is the stupidest thing you've ever posted!
Ron Hammon
MikeC
Apr 10, 2012, 10:45:26 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 1:58 PM, Ron Hammon wrote:
<Snip, refer to the prior post, there were no inline remarks by Ron>
> Any "scientific" theory MUST BE falsifiable.
I agree that any proof of theory must be falsifiable as well as fit well
enough to explain the data points and observations that are current to
date; additionally, it needs to make predictions which are testable.
Many of those predictions might be well into the future though, so most
of the current 'proof of concept' re fitting data to such a theory draw
upon weighted ordering of the existing fossil ice record, tree ring
data, sediments and their spacings within undisturbed distributions,
there are more even than I have mentioned. Simple Carbon-14 dating has a
broad range of 'years in question' when used to determine the age of the
specific rings since those interior rings are considered to be 'age
static' with little chance of being concurrently living over the many
years, and any 'breathing impact' happened on those rings sections well
into the past. Plug in these data and those others I have not mentioned
and you can forecast in reverse as it were. This is a small part of what
has been done as you know.
But, you can't just count the rings, examine the width and test the
materials, there is also the impression and experience of that person or
persons making the tree ring 'speak' of the history. There are a lot of
tree rings and a lot of locations throughout the globe already tested
and determinations have been made as to the provenance of the resulting
data. Yet you question these many, many, data points I guess. Are the
many experts and several teams of experts all wrong headed, liars, or
worse?
> What would YOU propose to falsify the idea of Global Warming?
There are others who have done this Ron, do you want me to do your
research for you, or is your mind made up?
> How about 40 years with no evidence of a warmer globe?
Are you asserting there are no data points (or is that there are not
enough), either raw or those data which are processed and weighted by
some normative 'trick', to show global warming is occurring?
I have seen the many posts you have made re global warming, in fact, I
probably have those many years of your posts in my archives or I could
use google groups, if needed, for any research of your opinions and the
few facts you have based that opinion upon.
What I am asking from you is proof rather than your opinions, surely you
are basing those opinions on more than just a few facts; you have facts
which are greater in scope than a few decades worth of winter months
temps in a few cities, right?
Is there any chance lake wind effects might play into temps taken in the
city of Chicago or the city of Detroit? As I pointed out, water, both in
the air and near the surface is a heat sink of substantial range,
dependent on salinity, acidity, turbid or lee, calm or rough and those
other factors not mentioned herein.
There is always water and moisture present on our earth, even in those
areas which lack the great amount of dampness which is present
elsewhere. The small amount of dew carried in the air close to the
ground contributes greatly, even if in a desert, as the morning sun
causes it to vaporize and join the moisture in the air being lofted from
the surface.
> Did you REALLY say: "Provide proof that warming of our planet is NOT
> occurring?" This is the stupidest thing you've ever posted!
Ok, try this then, back up your assertion of global warming being, as
you said, 'a rigged game', with these two choices you are providing below.
> "We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's
> unusually COLD weather.
> But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When
> it's warmer, it's Global Warming.
> Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game."
You do know global warming is synonymous with climate change, in fact
climate change is one of the predictions, isn't it...
I addressed each of these points of yours, and at some length, in clear
terms. You can respond to those points I have made can't you? These
points you raise do not make for any proof on their own, you understand,
which is why I chose to address them specifically in the other post.
Exactly how much you wish to explain and the research you engage to
answer my questions is entirely up to you, of course, I was asking for
your proof that your statement(s) stand on their own, upon what footing
have you built this set of assertions, nothing more and nothing less.
Do you know for a fact that the the ice packs, summer ice, winter ice
laid down, glacial losses, etc. are NOT decreasing? It has has been
measured; are those lies as well?
Injection of energy into any system will tend to increase the chaos,
heat is only one of the forms of energy being injected into our global
weather system.
Do you have any problem with that set of statements above?
--
Mike C
<Snip, refer to the prior post, there were no inline remarks by Ron>
> Any "scientific" theory MUST BE falsifiable.
enough to explain the data points and observations that are current to
date; additionally, it needs to make predictions which are testable.
Many of those predictions might be well into the future though, so most
of the current 'proof of concept' re fitting data to such a theory draw
upon weighted ordering of the existing fossil ice record, tree ring
data, sediments and their spacings within undisturbed distributions,
there are more even than I have mentioned. Simple Carbon-14 dating has a
broad range of 'years in question' when used to determine the age of the
specific rings since those interior rings are considered to be 'age
static' with little chance of being concurrently living over the many
years, and any 'breathing impact' happened on those rings sections well
into the past. Plug in these data and those others I have not mentioned
and you can forecast in reverse as it were. This is a small part of what
has been done as you know.
But, you can't just count the rings, examine the width and test the
materials, there is also the impression and experience of that person or
persons making the tree ring 'speak' of the history. There are a lot of
tree rings and a lot of locations throughout the globe already tested
and determinations have been made as to the provenance of the resulting
data. Yet you question these many, many, data points I guess. Are the
many experts and several teams of experts all wrong headed, liars, or
worse?
> What would YOU propose to falsify the idea of Global Warming?
research for you, or is your mind made up?
> How about 40 years with no evidence of a warmer globe?
enough), either raw or those data which are processed and weighted by
some normative 'trick', to show global warming is occurring?
I have seen the many posts you have made re global warming, in fact, I
probably have those many years of your posts in my archives or I could
use google groups, if needed, for any research of your opinions and the
few facts you have based that opinion upon.
What I am asking from you is proof rather than your opinions, surely you
are basing those opinions on more than just a few facts; you have facts
which are greater in scope than a few decades worth of winter months
temps in a few cities, right?
Is there any chance lake wind effects might play into temps taken in the
city of Chicago or the city of Detroit? As I pointed out, water, both in
the air and near the surface is a heat sink of substantial range,
dependent on salinity, acidity, turbid or lee, calm or rough and those
other factors not mentioned herein.
There is always water and moisture present on our earth, even in those
areas which lack the great amount of dampness which is present
elsewhere. The small amount of dew carried in the air close to the
ground contributes greatly, even if in a desert, as the morning sun
causes it to vaporize and join the moisture in the air being lofted from
the surface.
> Did you REALLY say: "Provide proof that warming of our planet is NOT
> occurring?" This is the stupidest thing you've ever posted!
you said, 'a rigged game', with these two choices you are providing below.
> "We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's
> unusually COLD weather.
> But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When
> it's warmer, it's Global Warming.
> Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game."
climate change is one of the predictions, isn't it...
I addressed each of these points of yours, and at some length, in clear
terms. You can respond to those points I have made can't you? These
points you raise do not make for any proof on their own, you understand,
which is why I chose to address them specifically in the other post.
Exactly how much you wish to explain and the research you engage to
answer my questions is entirely up to you, of course, I was asking for
your proof that your statement(s) stand on their own, upon what footing
have you built this set of assertions, nothing more and nothing less.
Do you know for a fact that the the ice packs, summer ice, winter ice
laid down, glacial losses, etc. are NOT decreasing? It has has been
measured; are those lies as well?
Injection of energy into any system will tend to increase the chaos,
heat is only one of the forms of energy being injected into our global
weather system.
Do you have any problem with that set of statements above?
--
Mike C
bwilson4web
Apr 11, 2012, 9:26:21 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 9, 9:18 pm, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
> bwilson4web wrote:
>
> > I was amused to watch James Inhofe discuss his book with Rachel Maddow
> > only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
> > days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
> > "globally warmer" winter. <grins>
>
> > Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
> > that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax. <LOL>
>
. . .
> bwilson4web wrote:
>
> > I was amused to watch James Inhofe discuss his book with Rachel Maddow
> > only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
> > days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
> > "globally warmer" winter. <grins>
>
> > Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
> > that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax. <LOL>
>
>
> We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's unusually COLD weather.
Correct because hoax claimant James Inhofe didn't go on his book tour
> We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's unusually COLD weather.
until last month . . . the same month that 6,000 records were broken.
> But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When it's warmer, it's
> Global Warming. Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game.
Bob Wilson
Ron Hammon
Apr 12, 2012, 10:53:34 PM4/12/12
to
MikeC wrote:
>
> On 4/9/2012 9:18 PM, Ron Hammon wrote:
> > bwilson4web wrote:
> >>
> >> I was amused to watch James Inhofe discuss his book with Rachel Maddow
> >> only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
> >> days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
> >> "globally warmer" winter.<grins>
> >>
> >> Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
> >> that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax.<LOL>
> >>
> >> Bob WIlson
> >
> > We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's unusually COLD weather.
> > But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When it's warmer, it's
> > Global Warming. Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game.
> >
> > Ron Hammon
>
snip
>
> On 4/9/2012 9:18 PM, Ron Hammon wrote:
> > bwilson4web wrote:
> >>
> >> I was amused to watch James Inhofe discuss his book with Rachel Maddow
> >> only to have reports about 6,000 weather records broken in the next
> >> days. It seems this has been a rather mild, one might even say
> >> "globally warmer" winter.<grins>
> >>
> >> Who knew thermometers are part of the world-wide, global conspiracy
> >> that James claims is promoting the global warming hoax.<LOL>
> >>
> >> Bob WIlson
> >
> > We didn't hear a peep from you about last year's unusually COLD weather.
> > But, when it's colder, it's Climate Change. When it's warmer, it's
> > Global Warming. Skeptic's can't win when playing a rigged game.
> >
> > Ron Hammon
>
>
> As a skeptic, do you think we need more accurate and conditioned
> observations, weighted, noise reduced data, and better simulations in
> which to plug these datums. Are all these questions really needed, can
> you please provide proof that warming of our planet is NOT occurring?
> This is your first hurdle to clear.
>
People are learning not to be so gullible! "50 Top Astronauts,
Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning
NASA Into A Laughing Stock!"
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/
Ron Hammon
MikeC
Apr 13, 2012, 1:10:13 PM4/13/12
to
please. So I shall ask again for you to state your facts which lead you
to the conclusion you have stated, i.e., there is "a rigged game" about
which you and several, or hundreds, or even tens of thousands, of others
know for a fact and that we others are actively seeking to deny any
existence.
Tell us Ron, is the earth getting increasingly hotter by receiving more
than can be lost to space --in terms of solar radiance; how about in
terms of any outpouring normally held in by the crust of the Earth; is
the Earth becoming warmer?
> People are learning not to be so gullible! "50 Top
> Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming
> Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!"
carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change
are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of
empirical data."</blockquote>
...
<blockquote>"The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of
climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective
assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or
public statements."</blockquote>
...
<blockquote>"Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated
3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making
unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic
impact on climate change."</blockquote>
me again...
Ron, nowhere have I said you have to seek others to provide those facts
for your currently held 'beliefs', additionally I have not claimed CO2
is a forcing gas, nor have I claimed mankind is causing the warming from
activities only their presence have caused to happen*. So you tossing
this url out there is rather sad... Please, tell us why you personally
think the Earth is NOT warming more than it can release to space, use
simple words please and try hard to not stray from any specific answer.
Mike C
*Read my initial post well enough to pick out all the typos, there are
many, too many in fact. If you read it that well you will be able to see
I never claimed (not even once) a case for CO2 forcing nor AGW. But this
is not about my 'beliefs' it is about your stated conclusions backed, I
hope, by something more than simple belief.
MikeC
Apr 13, 2012, 6:21:18 PM4/13/12
to
On 4/12/2012 9:53 PM, Ron Hammon wrote:
<snip>
> http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-top-astronauts-scientists-engineers-sign-letter-claiming-giss-is-turning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock/
<snip>
I also found a rebuttal of sorts at this url... when I was researching
something unrelated to your expressed view.
http://www.universetoday.com/94550/letter-to-nasa-is-common-ploy-in-climate-change-denial/
Mike C
Ron Hammon
Apr 14, 2012, 10:44:05 AM4/14/12
to
so that every possible outcome leads to the same result, the game is
rigged. In this case, if a Winter is cold, or a Summer mild, then it's
Climate Change (Global Warming). If a Winter is warm, or a Summer hot,
then it's Global Warming (Climate Change). When we had the 2 year
drought, it was Climatew Change. When this was followed by 2 wet years,
it was Climate Change. There is no way to falsify the very UNscientific
claim. One might as well say that earthquakes cause floods because a
flood, somewhere, soon follows every earhtquake. There's your "proof".
> Tell us Ron, is the earth getting increasingly hotter by receiving more
> than can be lost to space --in terms of solar radiance; how about in
> terms of any outpouring normally held in by the crust of the Earth; is
> the Earth becoming warmer?
>
I haven't noticed Hartselle getting warmer. If you making that bold
claim, that the world is changing, back it up with some REAL evidence
(an almost impossible task), or I cry, "bullshit" to Chicken Little.
Even if the world is warming a bit, so what? The world changes. That's
what it has done over and over through time, WITHOUT our help. You think
you're going to "fix" the world's course? How arrogant is this view?
We're just fleas on an elephant's back.
Ron Hammon
bwilson4web
Apr 15, 2012, 11:36:04 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 14, 9:44 am, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
. . .
> Even if the world is warming a bit, so what? The world changes. . . .
Neil deGrasse Tyson suggested on the Bill Maher show that those who
believe the world is getting warmer should invest where it pays off it
the world gets warmer and those who believe otherwise, should invest
in their beliefs. It was the same show where 80 year old, Bob Lutz
said that is why he bought property in Key West as he doesn't believe
the sea level will rise.
So you pays your money and takes your chances. But Neil also pointed
out there has been a northern migration of flora and fauna. They are
voting with their paws, claws, and seed pods and there sure have been
a lot of armadillo road-kill lately.
Bob Wilson
. . .
> Even if the world is warming a bit, so what? The world changes. . . .
Neil deGrasse Tyson suggested on the Bill Maher show that those who
believe the world is getting warmer should invest where it pays off it
the world gets warmer and those who believe otherwise, should invest
in their beliefs. It was the same show where 80 year old, Bob Lutz
said that is why he bought property in Key West as he doesn't believe
the sea level will rise.
So you pays your money and takes your chances. But Neil also pointed
out there has been a northern migration of flora and fauna. They are
voting with their paws, claws, and seed pods and there sure have been
a lot of armadillo road-kill lately.
Bob Wilson
0 new messages