Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
Roger Coppock
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
and
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3glSLOPE.jpg
The Land and Sea Surface Temperature data record an
accelerated temperature increase. Here, from Hadley
Centre, are the global surface temperatures from 1850
to 2010. Note that data for the last 17 years are all
above the linear trend. This is the result of an
accelerated warming.
Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
Regression statistics for the line in the graph at the
URL given above are:
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -8.797803 0.526408 -16.7 <2e-16
Year 0.004474 0.000273 16.4 4.95e-36
Residual standard error: 0.161 on 159 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.63
F-statistic: 269 on 1 and 159 DF, p-value: 4.95e-36
The 30-year rolling slopes for these data are graphed at
the URL given below:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3glSLOPE.jpg
Please note the rapid, 3.8 +- 0.2 K per century acceleration
of global warming rates starting in 1952.
Gordhill
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
>
> Please see:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
Looking at your graph ...
The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
to 1940.
So what caused the "accelerated warming" from 1910 to 1940 then?
And what's your point?
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
Gordhill
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Please see:
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
Looking at your graph ...
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
> > Please see:
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
> Looking at your graph ...
>
> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
> to 1940.
Learn to read everything provided before making foolish comments.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> Looking at your graph ...
> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
> to 1940.
Hmm. That is a property of an exponential curve.
Did you really mean to underline that?
--
Human activities such as agriculture and the burning of fossil fuels (coal,
oil and gas) produce additional greenhouse gases, which are accumulating in
the atmosphere.
-- Australian Coal Association website, Jan 2011
Gordhill
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message
news:4d51ece6$0$2445$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In sci.skeptic Gordhill <b...@oob.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Looking at your graph ...
>> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from
>> 1910
>> to 1940.
> ...
>
> Hmm. That is a property of an exponential curve.
Huh?
An exponential curve with a COOLING DIP from 1940 to 1975!
I'd like to see that!
Gordhill
> ...
>> Looking at your graph ...
>> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from
>> 1910
>> to 1940.
> ...
>
> Hmm. That is a property of an exponential curve.
Huh?
An exponential curve with a COOLING DIP from 1940 to 1975!
I'd like to see that!
Warmest Regards
Trawley Trash
"Gordhill" <b...@oob.com> wrote:
> Huh?
> An exponential curve with a COOLING DIP from 1940 to 1975!
>
> I'd like to see that!
Just use imaginary numbers...exp(i*pi)=-1 and all that stuff.
Last Post
ø Roger the Dodger is replete with making foolish
comments.
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
Last Post
> Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
> Please see:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
ø Roger the Dodger is using his own site to
promote the HadleyCRU frauds and has to
double the trouble.
— —
matt_sykes
So they have adjusted old data to show an increase in warming eh?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amazing. After all you've been told. Some people just have not got the
intelligence to learn.
Give an example of adjustment to show an increase in warming". The
data is adjusted on a monthly basis, necessarily and the adjustments
are public and explained by GISS and NASA. Show me where it has been
done deliberately to show warming.
rbarhill
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:277afa0c-25bc-4d19...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 8:07 pm, "Gordhill" <b...@oob.com> wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
> > Please see:
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
> Looking at your graph ...
>
> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
> to 1940.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm
"Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising
CO2."
======================================
There was MUCH LESS CO2 during 1910 TO 1940, yet the rate and extent of
warming exactly matches the warming from 1975 to 1998.
Therefore something other than CO2 caused both.
Most probably variations in global cloud cover driven by the sun.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Fallacy Name:
Oversimplification and Exaggeration
Alternative Names:
Fallacy of Reduction
Fallacy of Multiplication
Category:
Faulty Causation
Explanation:
The causation fallacies known as oversimplification and exaggeration
occur whenever the series of actual causes for an event are either
reduced or multiplied to the point where there is no longer a genuine,
causal connection between the alleged causes and the actual effect. In
other words, multiple causes are reduced to just one or a few
(oversimplification) or a couple of causes are multiplied into many
(exaggeration).
Also known as the "reductive fallacy" because it involves reducing the
number of causes, oversimplification seems to occur more often,
perhaps because there are so many ostensibly good reasons for
simplifying things.
--
Scientists of all kinds, including climate scientists, take courses in
statistics as part of their training. They know that one can not
diagnose a trend by looking at extrema. Indeed, many common statistical
procedures typically start by removing 'flukes" data points more than a
three or four standard deviations from the mean or trendline.
-- Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com>, 26 Jan 2011 20:09 -0800
rbarhill
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message
news:4d532f81$0$19225$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
"My advice to those trying to interprete data presented graphically would be
to use what Professor Harry Roberts, University of Chicago Graduate School
of Business, has described as the world's most powerful statistical analysis
tools - your eyes."
http://www.thehouseofoojah.com/news/index.php?more=95
k...@kymhorsell.com
ignoratio elenchi -- A fallacy that consists in disproving or proving
something different from what is in question or called for. It can also be
called the irrelevance fallacy.
--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
-- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
rbarhill
Internationally eminent statistician and prolific author Professor Harry
Roberts (1989) provides two fundamental rules for developing understanding
through use of data:
. First plot raw data, the unmanipulated raw measurements, without
conversion to ratios
. Second, get a feel for the data by scanning the raw data using what he
described as "the world's most powerful statistical analysis tools, your
eyes".
Look at the plot for context. Plots/ graphs provide context by enabling easy
distinction between inherent variation and process changes and by rapid
pictorial identification of trends.
k...@kymhorsell.com
something different from what is in question or called for. It can also be
called the irrelevance fallacy.
--
If there was no warming or cooling trend, then the chance of 2007
being tied with 1998 [130 year record!] would be quite high.
-- No Pressure <no.pressu...@gmail.com>, 11 Dec 2010 05:20:39 -0800
Desertphile
>
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
> >
> >
> > Please see:
> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
> Looking at your graph ...
>
> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
> to 1940.
Idiot. Were you home schooled?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> In sci.skeptic Gordhill <b...@oob.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Looking at your graph ...
> > The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from 1910
> > to 1940.
> ...
> Hmm. That is a property of an exponential curve.
> Did you really mean to underline that?
He doesn't even knmow enough to know he doesn't know enough.
rbarhill
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:gqe8l6dgeraq0ujqb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:07:08 +1100, "Gordhill" <b...@oob.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>> news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>> >
>> >
>> > Please see:
>> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
>> Looking at your graph ...
>>
>> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from
>> 1910
>> to 1940.
>
> Idiot. Were you home schooled?
Please be explicit.
What exactly are you trying to say, aside from calling me an idiot?
rbarhill
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:721666e4-36e1-4647...@l22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 7:08 pm, "rbarhill" <b...@bkk.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:277afa0c-25bc-4d19...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 8:07 pm, "Gordhill" <b...@oob.com> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
> > > Please see:
> > >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
> > Looking at your graph ...
>
> > The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from
> > 1910
> > to 1940.
>
>
> "Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising
> CO2."
> ======================================
>
> There was MUCH LESS CO2 during 1910 TO 1940, yet the rate and extent of
> warming exactly matches the warming from 1975 to 1998.
The reference I provided mentions the other causes. None of them are
causing the current warming, however.
======================================
So, exactly the same rate and extent of warming but a different cause?
Yeah right!
rbarhill
>
>>
>> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>> news:ecc00e19-3429-49d7...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>> >
>> >
>> > Please see:
>> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
>
>> Looking at your graph ...
>>
>> The "accelerated warming" from 1970 to 1998 EXACTLY matches that from
>> 1910
>> to 1940.
>
> Idiot. Were you home schooled?
Please be explicit.
What exactly are you trying to say, aside from calling me an idiot?
Warmest Regards
matt_sykes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show me where it hasnt shown warming!
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where what hasn't shown warming? I've got to show you something??
Isn't it you and yours that are questioning the data and saying that
it is wrong. "Show me where (adjustments have been made) deliberately
to show warming" was what I asked. It's a reasonable question, as you
are saying this is exactly what has happened.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> Show me where it hasnt shown warming!
There are lots of locations that don't show a trend.
But I'm guesssing you're looking more for cooling trends.
mysql> select stn.name,wmo.name from stn,regr,wmo where beta<0 and stn.stn=regr.stn and wmo.code=stn.cntry order by beta limit 10;
+---------------------------+------------------------------------+
| name | name |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------+
| YORK FACTORY | CANADA |
| MONGOLIAN STATION, EASTER | MONGOLIA |
| FES/CITY | MOROCCO |
| KASBA-TADLA | MOROCCO |
| DUBROVNIK-CILIPI | YUGOSLAVIA |
| BOWEN | AUSTRALIA |
| MAGYAROVAR HUNGARY | HUNGARY |
| AMUNDSEN-SCOTT | ANTARCTIC STATIONS (ALL COUNTRIES) |
| HABORO | JAPAN |
| MEININGEN | GERMANY |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------+
10 rows in set (1.13 sec)
mysql>
matt_sykes
The coconuts clearly.
> Isn't it you and yours that are questioning the data and saying that
> it is wrong. "Show me where (adjustments have been made) deliberately
> to show warming" was what I asked. It's a reasonable question, as you
> are saying this is exactly what has happened.- Hide quoted text -
matt_sykes
Yes, however allthe adjustments taken together always show a warming
trend, even though some individual stations might show cooling.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> trend, even though some individual stations might show cooling.
As you might expect just based on the number of locations with
a +ve, -ve and no trend.
mysql> select count(*) from regr ;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 6039 |
+----------+
mysql> select count(*)/6039 from regr where beta< -.01;
+---------------+
| count(*)/6039 |
+---------------+
| 0.0977 |
+---------------+
mysql> select count(*)/6039 from regr where beta> .01;
+---------------+
| count(*)/6039 |
+---------------+
| 0.3886 |
+---------------+
mysql> select count(*)/6039 from regr where abs(beta)<.01;
+---------------+
| count(*)/6039 |
+---------------+
| 0.5137 |
+---------------+
mysql>
--
$>This seems to be saying "in logic or philosphy an inverted if or circular
$>argument are no good -- but in science we have different standards".
$You're right. That's exactly what I'm saying.
-- Mike Franklin <mkfr...@msn.com>, 20 Nov 2010
Desertphile
> Yes, however all the adjustments taken together always show a warming
> trend, even though some individual stations might show cooling.
Because the trendis a global average. Very good. Welcome to the
side of reason.
George
> Yes, however allthe adjustments taken together always show a warming
> trend, even though some individual stations might show cooling.
And guess which ones won't be in the next 'global temperature' figures
Desertphile
> In sci.skeptic matt_sykes <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Show me where it hasnt shown warming!
>
>
> There are lots of locations that don't show a trend.
>
> But I'm guesssing you're looking more for cooling trends.
>
> mysql> select stn.name,wmo.name from stn,regr,wmo where beta<0 and stn.stn=regr.stn and wmo.code=stn.cntry order by beta limit 10;
> +---------------------------+------------------------------------+
> | name | name |
> +---------------------------+------------------------------------+
> | YORK FACTORY | CANADA |
> | MONGOLIAN STATION, EASTER | MONGOLIA |
> | FES/CITY | MOROCCO |
> | KASBA-TADLA | MOROCCO |
> | DUBROVNIK-CILIPI | YUGOSLAVIA |
> | BOWEN | AUSTRALIA |
> | MAGYAROVAR HUNGARY | HUNGARY |
> | AMUNDSEN-SCOTT | ANTARCTIC STATIONS (ALL COUNTRIES) |
> | HABORO | JAPAN |
> | MEININGEN | GERMANY |
> +---------------------------+------------------------------------+
> 10 rows in set (1.13 sec)
>
> mysql>
Cool! Maybe I will put the various climatology-related databases
on my Remote MySQL server and offer the data as a free service.
Desertphile
wrote:
All of the data is included, you silly goose.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> On 11 Feb 2011 10:29:30 GMT, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
>> mysql>
> Cool! Maybe I will put the various climatology-related databases
> on my Remote MySQL server and offer the data as a free service.
I hope it's a secure version. I see so many attempts to
run exploits on Wintox-based mysql I've decided to block mine off
even though it's OpenBSD-based. There's even the occassional
distributed attack from 50 zombies.
--
[Stage 1 denial:]
There have been floods before and there will be floods again. The
Austrailian floods weren't even record breaking.
[Later turns out Monkey judges all Australian floods by height of Brisbane R].
-- Monkey Clumps <spaceb...@yahoo.com>, 30 Jan 2011 15:13 -0800
rasterspace
islanding, and the associated, city-swamped weather-
stations, then, they'll have some data.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Feb 9, 1:42 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
> > Give an example of adjustment to show an increase in warming". The
> > data is adjusted on a monthly basis, necessarily and the adjustments
> > are public and explained by GISS and NASA. Show me where it has been
> > done deliberately to show warming.
>
> Show me where it hasnt shown warming!
ø Neither Roger the Dodger, Dawg Fish, nor Sykes
have the first clue
ø Woillard forecast 20 years of extreme violent
climate/weather as preamble to glaciation.
The trend will end sometime after 2050.
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
Desertphile
Idiot.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Sea surface temp trends around Australia
Sea surface temps around Australia show a consistent summer warming trend. Average waters have increased around 1C over the period 1900 to 2010.
Tasman Sea:
Coral Sea:
Northwestern waters:
Southern waters:
Southwestern waters:
Northern tropical waters:
Australian sea average:
[If I make history stop in 1899 things can not get worse:] Yes, but [Yasi was] not as bad as the cat 5 Mahina in 1899! And what about 1918 when Qld had TWO CAT 5 CYCLONES! The more things change the more they stay the same. -- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 3 Feb 2011 16:09 +1100
rasterspace
of urban heat islanding, or the alleged fudge-factor for it
that is used in the simulacra.
leona...@gmail.com
a triumverate of idiots incapable of distinguishing
fact from fiction
AGWFacts
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> Latest Hadley Global Temperature Data Show Accelerated Warming!
>
>
available.
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
they all are so negative in their first years?... I mean,
they're hard to read in the googlplex front-end to teh newsgroups, but
i could at least see *that*.
what is the IPCC's rhetorical or model characterization
of urban heat-islanding?
> >http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3glSLOPE.jpg
>
> > Please note the rapid, 3.8 +- 0.2 K per century acceleration
> > of global warming rates starting in 1952.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Princeton U., September 6-7, 2012.
Registration, tarvel & program:
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/sgp
1treePetrifiedForestLane
here are the five questions, from teh former head of Princeton's
Global Fluid Dynamics Lab:
What is the relative importance of the thermohaline and
wind-driven components of the oceanic circulation to Earth's climate?
[hint: see Philander's webpage]
Do condiitions in polar regions deermine conditions in the tropics,
or vise versa?
Is a permanent El Nino that changes the planetary albedo, possible?
[I say, no; it's just gone chaotic]
What tests can records of recurrent ice Age {sic] provide
for climate models?
Why is global warming so polarizing !?!
[heh; le tres bon mot]
> A symposium celebrating the contributions of S. George Philander,
> Princeton U., September 6-7, 2012.
>
> Registration, tarvel & program:
AGWFacts
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please note the rapid, 3.8 +- 0.2 K per century acceleration
> > > of global warming rates starting in 1952.
> >
> > available.
> they all are so negative in their first years?
a yearly dataset, which would indeed show lower temperatures at
the start and warmer temperatures at the end.
The CRUTEM4 dataset baseline is the average monthly regional (five
degree "square") temperature from year 1961 to year 1990. Negative
numbers show the average monthly regional temperature that is
below that average; postive numbers show a average monthly
regional increase above that average.
> ... I mean,
> they're hard to read in the googlplex front-end to teh newsgroups, but
> i could at least see *that*.
ala
"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote in message
news:b88eq71fr1cob4pdk...@4ax.com...
> The CRUTEM4 dataset baseline is the average monthly regional (five
> degree "square") temperature from year 1961 to year 1990. Negative
> numbers show the average monthly regional temperature that is
> below that average; postive numbers show a average monthly
> regional increase above that average.
By Rebecca Leber, ThinkProgress | Report
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/05/458478/frackers-outbid-farmers-for-water-in-colorado-drought/
Colorado is facing drought not seen since 2002, following the fourth-warmest
and third-least-snowy winter in US history. Colorado State University
scientists report that 98 percent of the state is facing these drought
conditions.
The drought comes after a record-breaking warm winter that left very low
"snowpack levels" in water basins. "Even though the reservoir levels are
still strong and northeast Colorado soil moisture is still pretty good, we
just don't usually start out quite this warm and dry at this time - so this
is very concerning," CSU climatologist Nolan Doesken said. "In 2002, things
didn't seem that bad at the end of March, as March had been quite cool, with
some snow."
Colorado's hydrofracking boom - a technology that heavily relies on water -
only adds additional strain as farmers and drillers bid for a scarce
resource:
At Colorado's premier auction for unallocated water this spring, companies
that provide water for hydraulic fracturing at well sites were top bidders
on supplies once claimed exclusively by farmers. [...]
State officials charged with promoting and regulating the energy industry
estimated that fracking required about 13,900 acre-feet in 2010. That's a
small share of the total water consumed in Colorado, about 0.08 percent.
However, this fast-growing share already exceeds the amount that the ski
industry draws from mountain rivers for making artificial snow. Each oil or
gas well drilled requires 500,000 to 5 million gallons of water.
A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report projected water needs
for fracking will increase to 18,700 acre-feet a year by 2015.
AGWFacts
Damn I wish I could attend. Thank you.
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
into universities these days." -- Catoni, thermometer denier
ala
> <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A symposium celebrating the contributions of S. George Philander,
>> Princeton U., September 6-7, 2012.
>>
>> Registration, tarvel & program:
>> www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/sgp
>
> http://aos.princeton.edu/philander/
>
> Damn I wish I could attend. Thank you.
>
fossil fuels back into the ocean
Florida raises questions about BP settlement
By Amanda Bronstad
The National Law Journal
The details of a proposed $7.8 billion settlement with BP PLC in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation have appeased numerous critics, but
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi continues to raise concerns about whether
the deal benefits all the affected residents in her state.
Bondi filed a statement of interest on April 13 asking U.S. District Judge
Carl Barbier to hold off on approving the deal until she and other parties
had adequate opportunity to voice their concerns.
The proposed settlement, which had yet to be filed in court for approval at
the time she filed her statement, appeared to limit compensation to
individuals and businesses along Florida's Gulf Coast, Bondi wrote,
eliminating recourse for thousands of the state's residents. She added that
the deal appeared to halt the claims process in violation of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, harming those who had yet to fully assess the damage
they suffered.
"I am greatly concerned that we lack substantial information about the
pending settlement that could have significant ramifications for Floridians
and could also, among other things, eliminate short-term, interim damage
claims," Bondi said.
On April 18, the plaintiffs steering committee in the multidistrict
litigation moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, divulging more
details about the deal. "We're reviewing the filing now," Jenn Meale, a
spokeswoman for Bondi, said on April 19.
Florida has been a particular thorn in the side of attorneys and
administrators involved in resolving oil spill claims. Last year, Bondi
advocated for an independent audit of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, the
$40 billion administrative fund paid for by BP. She also led a group
objecting to a proposed 6 percent "hold-back" fee assessed against those who
obtained claim settlements on or after Nov. 7, 2011, through the Gulf Coast
Claims Facility.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
I'll see if I can swing it -- I've never been to New Jersey.
> > Princeton U., September 6-7, 2012.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
it must be compared with the organic seeps of oil,
viz the Gulf is about one Exxon Valdez per annum, and
that is while we have been pumping it, like crazy.
the only possible quantification, that I know of, would
be lore of the Gabrieleno Indians in SoCal,
viz the Redondo Seep. unforuntaely, I missed a presentation,
I think at the Fowler Museum at UCLA,
about their use of "bitumen."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
> >http://aos.princeton.edu/philander/
The Symposium will be held in room #104 of the Carl A. Fields Center
on the Princeton University campus, Princeton, New Jersey.
Symposium attendance is free of charge, but registration is required
(deadline 3 August 2012). Wonderful hotel arrangements are also
available with a similar deadline. A subsidized fee will be charged
for the Symposium banquet, which will be held in Prospect house,
University campus on Thursday evening, 6 September 2012.
oriel36
wrote:
which are radically different than anything people have had to
consider before.It is a 21st century thing where imaging power allows
for planetary comparisons in order to create a new point of departure
for discussing and considering climate.Climate is still based on the
old idea of a hypothetical 'no tilt/no seasons' whereas the new
approach looks at planetary comparisons to abolish this older
perspective.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
Uranus has an almost polar climate due to its inclination,a planet
with 0 degree inclination would have an equatorial climate hence the
Earth's climate falls between these extremes and due to its
inclination is largely equatorial.
The answer as to what causes temperature fluctuations at different
orbital points and latitudes (the seasons) is a hugely complex topic
that hasn't even been touched yet and the old 'tilt causes the
seasons' not long suffices for 21st century purposes.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
oriel36
wrote:
> not even, even.
>
Must I treat you like a schoolboy ?.
The old hypothesis of 'no tilt/no seasons' was fine for its time but
when I see all these explanations that 'tilt causes the seasons' in
the 21st century I have to shake my head in dismay.
Uranus has a polar climate due to its inclination so everything can be
worked out from there as the change in perspective to replace 'no tilt/
no seasons' conception with the idea of an equatorial climate
completely changes the way seasonal temperature fluctuations are
approached and dealt with.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
why don't you go inside & use your little protractor?
thank you.
oriel36
swings between hemispheres would be extreme over large areas of the
planet and that is what defines a polar climate rather than the degree
of coldness,similarly if the Earth had a 0 degree inclination it would
have an equatorial climate and the only variations would be found in
the total length of the natural noon cycles.
Of course the majority of people wish to remain shouting assertions
and counter assertions across at each other on account of the idea
that humans can control the planet's temperature but this approach is
altogether different and in a way the ruckus over carbon dioxide is
advantageous ,I witnessed the appalling way they have treated the
simple outlines which link a rotational mechanism to plate tectonics
so the dreadful CO2 conclusion distracts the crude mind from even
going near the new explanation for the seasons and why natural noon
cycles vary.
So, we haven't touched the answer as to what causes the seasons yet
but simply adjusted the perspective away from the older 'no tilt/no
seasons' conception that has been with us since Copernicus.The
conclusion so far is that the Earth has a largely equatorial climate
but that really answers nothing until the interaction between daily
and orbital motions are brought in and that is when the real work
begins.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Milankovitch, in it; thank you.
oriel36
wrote:
> Milankovitch, in it; thank you.
>
period and if you conclude the Earth turns once each day and every day
you will be among the few people on the planet who accepts this fact
because the modeling community doesn't - they accept a ridiculous 1465
rotations in 1461 days.As groupthink brought the world the dreadful
idea of human control over the planet's temperature,it cannot reason
itself out of that conclusion nor can it be reasoned with.
As for Milankovitch,it takes a single observation of another planet to
dispense with that idea and immediately begin with a new and
productive way to look at why we experience the seasons,why the Earth
has a largely equatorial climate,why natural noon cycles vary and all
that science which is presently not being done -
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The polar coordinates act like a beacon for the orbital behavior of a
planet and the North and South poles of the Earth turn in a circle/
cycle to the central Sun each year just as people may see the same
thing in that sequence of images above.
The only way climate investigations will become productive is through
opening up the flow between astronomy and terrestrial sciences and if
a society,through inaction and indecision,can't act on the awful idea
that the Earth doesn't turn once in 24 hours then it is not just
science that is in deep trouble but Western civilization itself .
1treePetrifiedForestLane
you.
oriel36
wrote:
> you.
everyone here that when there is not the slightest reaction to the
great scientific tragedy of all - not this climate business which is a
mere symptom of the underlying problem but to the loss of the flow of
information between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects at the
most basic level of them all.
The Earth turns once in 24 hours and turns 1461 times (365 times for 3
years and 366 times for 1 year) in the same time it makes 4 circuits
of the Sun.In over a decade there hasn't been one intelligent
individual with the courage and the integrity to acknowledge that,not
once.If the heart does not sink based on this tragic situation then
the hearts of readers must be as cold as ice.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
fine.... now,
get your little protractor out,
go outside & stick it in the ground in a sunny spot,
and don't move til you've got the datum!
> The Earth turns once in 24 hours and turns 1461 times (365 times for 3
> years and 366 times for 1 year) in the same time it makes 4 circuits
> of the Sun.
on the topic to which I changed the header. or,
change the header to a new, abstruse topic,
such as the one you rant-on about. or,
start another item, and I will make fun of it, therein.
oriel36
wrote:
where human being control the planet's temperature.
'Global warming theory' tells you nothing about climate ,what is does
tell you is the emergence of computer modeling based on a preconceived
conclusion hence it is a new phenomena built of an older one -
specifically the use of watches to model planetary dynamics and
cosmological structure with the same catastrophic results.It may be
the pastime for overgrown schoolboys with lifestyles but take away the
financial incentive and the issue will disappear rapidly even if it
has turned into a lucrative issue for political and social agendas.
Galileo,like so many others, sounded out a warning about the general
aspects of groupthink,cults,herd mentalities or any tendency towards
absurd conclusions cobbled together using spurious assertions or
neglecting serious inputs for the results are always the same -
" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo
Considering the damage this 'global warming' business has done to our
race so far and without the slightest sign that people comprehend it
all boils down to 'modeling',not the technical ins and outs of the the
thing,but the blind reliance on mechanical thinking that absolutely
destroyed the flow of information from planetary dynamics into
terrestrial sciences,something which began in the late 17th century
and now called the 'scientific method'.
nicolas.f...@gmail.com
> ignoratio elenchi -- A fallacy that consists in disproving or proving
> something different from what is in question or called for. It can also be
> called the irrelevance fallacy.
>
> --
> Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
> have no tolerance for ambiguity.
> -- BO...@27-32-240-172.static.tpgi.com.au [86 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
"Scientists are always changing their story": that's called progress ... the reinterpretation, refinement or revision of a theory in light of new observations
"as a Conservative, I have no tolerance for ambiguity.": So I take it that you dont quite understand the meaning of uncertainty and the various methods used to quantify it ...