Re: Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book
leona...@gmail.com
> Leon wrote:
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes...
>
> > "Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan."
>
> To the warmers, Al Gore is a God. His word is pure scientific
> truth. It's impossible for a warmer to question what Gore says.
>
> This is understandable because he said the science is settled.
>
> His insistence that there will be more hurricanes tends to be a load
> of hogwash. But a it doesn't matter. The warmers will lap up any
> shit that he decides to spread.
• Actually, there will be "more hurricanes" but not
for any reason gore might conceive.
•
In 1979, Dr Genevieve Woillard, a paleologist,
concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a
warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the
beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago,
took "less than 20 years." Her observations led her to
conclude we may be in a similar period of rapid
climatic change.
Research has shown that this 20-year period is one in
which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on humanity.
If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard and
others who studied past ice ages are any indication of
the pace of glaciation, once it starts, the transition
period is a mere 20 years or so. And we may be well
into that 20-year period now. Woillard estimated that
the period before that final 20 years — when the earth
began gearing up for an end to the interglacial period
— could be as long as 150 years and as short as 75
years."
According to Woillard's studies and those of other
paleological climate researchers, the transition
between interglacial and glacial periods is one of
increasing violence — more volcanic eruptions,
storms, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
> --------------http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-li...
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in
> hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal
> scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
>
> Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of
> hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist
> Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.
>
> --------------http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080122_warmeroceans.html
>
> Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls
>
> A warming global ocean — influencing the winds that shear off the tops
> of developing storms — could mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking
> the United States according to new findings by NOAA climate scientists.
> Furthermore, the relative warming role of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic
> oceans is important for determining Atlantic hurricane activity.
>
> The article, to be published on January 23 in Geophysical Research Letters,
> uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures
> is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical
> wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The
> increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S.
> landfalling hurricanes.
• That part is to be welcomed but does not effect
the many hurricanes that stay in the Caribean,
So and Central America, or the typhoons, and
tornados.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
leona...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
>
> You.
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
>
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
>
> >... Kool-Aid drinkers
>
> Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
• Those who would call others, "moron"
need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
*us*
wrote:
>...moron ...
That's your best excuse for your inability to learn science.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The burden of providing evidence falls on
You.
You have no data.
Others do have data that you can't dispute,
because you have no data.
You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
You do that without any valid basis.
>... Kool-Aid drinkers
Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Last Post
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>...moron ...
>
> That's your best excuse for your inability to learn science.
•• Those who would call others, "moron"
need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The burden of providing evidence falls on
> > the AGW Alarmist cabal
>
> You have no data.
>
> Others do have data that you can't dispute,
> because you have no data.
> You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
> and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
> You do that without any valid basis.
• ROTFLMAO
>
> Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
• Those who would call others, "moron"
leona...@gmail.com
> On 1/2/2010 2:26 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
> > I prefer physics to propaganda. Surely you don't take that link
> > seriously. Did you notice there was no mention of LTE, lapse rate,
> > convection, or latent heat? Some believe cloud formation and
> > precipitation might play an important role in the climate system.
> > Leaving them out because they're impossible to model seems like a very
> > short-sighted approach.
>
> Sorry if your personal hot buttons didn't get the prominence you think
> they deserve, but the relevant principles are clearly shown in the energy
> budget diagram. This is all in contrast to the cluster of labeled cartoon
> bubbles you offered as an explanation, lol.
>
> > Radiative transfer alone just doesn't fit reality.
>
> Right. And nobody has ever said it did as far as I know. Likewise your
> precious LTE, convection, and water vapor alone don't fit reality.
>
>
> Lol, the explanation is based on well-established science. Typically, you
> retreat to the stolen emails rather than address the actual principles.
>
> > Irrelevant. Those compounds are continuously exchanged with the ocean.
>
> Bullshit, you must not be able to understand the physics. GHG concentration
> increases as emissions rise due to human contributions to the carbon cycle.
>
> Note the phrase "water vapor, therefore, has a negligibly small GWP".
• I hope your tempers have cooled by now
• The answer is simpler than either of you grasp.
• Forget about greenhouse gasses per se.
Tyndall, in the lab, found that CO2 absorbs
solar energy. At the same time he found that
H2O vapour blocks radiative energy.
Now since all of the atmospheric CO2 arrives
in the clouds embedded in H2O and remains
there for a few days until the clouds meet a
cold front when H2O + CO2 + a trace of NO2
precipitate to earth and become fertilizer.
• Even if the CO2 could absorb energy, the time
frame is too short.
There is a lot of bullshit floating around
masquerading as science. Much of it is
based on faked numbers. Mann and Briffa
were not the first to cherry pick critical data.
The team that programmed the first climate
model did a real number on the CO2 levels
which started in 1820. They ignored all pre
pre 1850 and omitted anything over 250.
Among those omissions were several well
over 400. I believe that current CO2 levels
are barely 50 ppm over the 1900 average.
That is if you believe the mauna loa
'adjustments'
You can see the real McCoy in my post @
Message-ID: <bc421438-9c9a-420a-8151-
dd28d4...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
My interest in climate was spurred when I
studied under the late great Thomas Griffith
Taylor and he showed us pix of his first trip
to the South Pole.
I do not believe for even one second that
anthropogenic global warming exists.
It is 13,000 years since the end of the last
glaciation. We are due for the next one to
begin. I have lots of references supporting
that, but I must go to bed now.
Good night.
*us*
>...would call others, "moron"
>need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
You sure advertise your problem, there, a lot.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:50:55 -0800 (PST), "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...moron ...
That's your best excuse for your inability to learn science.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:23:47 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The burden of providing evidence falls on
You.
You have no data.
Others do have data that you can't dispute,
because you have no data.
You want to perpetrate waste and pollution
and harm to life, so corporatists can profit.
You do that without any valid basis.
>... Kool-Aid drinkers
Exxon is pissing down your throat, moron.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm