Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 Next
Comments 70151 to 70200:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:43 PM on 15 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
apiratelooksat50 @14, to my knowledge, nobody on this site has called into question the credentials of any denier except when those credentials have been inflated. We call into question Monckton's credentials when he claims to have been a scientific adviser to Maggie Thatcher, or Watt's credentials when he claims to be a meteorologist (he was a TV weatherman). Beyond that we repeatedly and explicitly call them for bad science, or all to frequently, complete nonsense that they purvey. Therefore you have no point, nor a fig leaf to cover what I strongly suspect to have been your real intentions in post 10. -
John Hartz at 12:38 PM on 15 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
@Sasquatch/Pirate: Why are you posting comments under two distinct user names? -
DrTsk at 12:33 PM on 15 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
@14...This is not about majority of opinions. Global warming is about science and truth and fact, not opinions and subjective arguments. I think we should be using that line with the judge when we are in traffic violation. I guess in a "different" court 90 mph is not considered a violation huh?... -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:25 AM on 15 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
I am at least one skeptic that does not think that two years of declining sea level negates the long term trend. Maybe, just maybe, it is the start of a downward trend, but it appears unlikely. I don't know of any skeptics making a claim that sea level rise has ended. The only true statement about the decline is that it has declined for the past two years. -
dana1981 at 11:24 AM on 15 November 2011Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
I hate to say it, but I agree with Tom Curtis that Pielke Sr. seems to be an "anything but carbon" misinformer. The statements he made to those high school students were simply unacceptable, and he should be ashamed of himself. After skimming Tisdale's post, I also don't see where he claims average temperatures are cooling. Did I miss something? Regardless, Dr. Pielke's behavior here - misinforming high school students - is reprehensible. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:20 AM on 15 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Sphaer @ 11 and Biblio @ 12: My point is that Professor Bickmore's credentials would be called into question if his viewpoints differed from the vast majority of commenters on this site. -
Tom Curtis at 10:12 AM on 15 November 2011Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
Albatross @29, the solution to your conundrum is simple. The "hard core" of Pielke's research program, as with any other denier is "anything but Carbon". That being the case, any theory, no matter how bizzare, which attributes warming to a factor other than carbon containing gasses in the atmosphere is worthy of consideration and propagation. Of course, in calling it a research program, I need to note that because its hard core is so tenuous, it is incapable of being progressive (in Lakatos' sense), and is necessarily pseudoscience. -
Albatross at 10:00 AM on 15 November 2011Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 2
Dana, Dr. Roger Pielke senior seems to have bought this silly myth hook line and sinker, and worse yet he is feeding Tisdale's blog science to high-school students (see below). Pielke even thinks that it should be published in a journal. How someone with his credentials can be hoodwinked by this is very troubling. It is also odd that while trying to blame internal variability for most of the observed warming in the oceans since 1980, Pielke is also giving free (and uncritical) press to the bizarre claim by Scafetta et al. (2011) that up to 70% of the warming since 1970 is because of so-called "astronomical mechanisms". So according to Dr. Pielke well over 100% of the observed long-term warming is attributable to both internal and external oscillations. How does he reconcile these aforementioned mechanisms with his claims that land-use change has had a marked impact on global climate and temperatures? One does not even have to invoke land-use change or GHGs to explain the observed warming if he believes that Tisdale's and Scafetta's work are worthy of our attention. So either land-use change is not as important as Pielke claims or he is grossly overstating the importance of astronomical cycles and ENSO in explaining the observed long-term warming trend. But he also agrees that CO2 has caused ~30% of the warming. So it would be nice to see some accounting from Pielke. Let me start. Surface temperatures have increased by ~0.5 C since 1980 (start of satellite era): 0.30 C of observed warming according Scafetta et al. is from astronomical cycles (using their lower bound of 60%). 0.25 C from of observed warming according Scafetta et al. is from astronomical cycles (using 50%, my very conservative estimate of what Tisdale means by most, he does not get more specific than that as far as I can tell). We are already at 0.55 C....so what about: X C warming/cooling from land use change (Pielke?) X C warming from GHGs (Pielke?) X C warming from aerosol effects including black carbon (Pielke?) What is also odd though is that in recent discussions with SkS Pielke agreed with the IPCC TAR that solar contributed a positive forcing of 0.30 Wm-2, which is about 5% of his estimate of the total positive forcing since pre-industrial in 2001. That is a factor of ten lower than the claims made by Scafetta et al., yet Pielke advertises their number on his blog without question. These type of logical fallacies being committed by someone of Pielke's stature is truly embarrassing. And last but not least, shame on Dr. Pielke for misinforming and confusing High School students, and for directing Tisdale's site and for telling students that "For example, the global average temperature anomalies are cooling!", even after being told/shown repeatedly that we cannot say the planet is cooling. I'd like to know which school Pielke sent this to, they should be notified. IMO, his answers to the students was the very antithesis of pedagogy. Dr. Pielke is entitled to his opinions, but I must take strong exception when he uses his authority to impart his beliefs and misguided notions on impressionable minds to the point of misinforming them. I hope that the teacher at least uses Pielke's answers as an exercise in critical thinking, rather than taking Pielke's assertions at face value. -
skywatcher at 09:40 AM on 15 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #24
#1, much talk about extremes centres around the damaging extremes that can occur in the summers/winters of the year. Far less attention is paid when the extremes occur in the 'mild' intervening months. Your story follows on from the hottest April in UK recorded history too. Now had it been the hottest July, it would hit the headlines. When the weather patterns shift to favour unusual warmth, records are being broken/smashed in the UK. For cold, this is not the case. Even the extreme and 'perfect' winter set-ups of the past two years failed to get close the UK low temperature record, even though it would have been difficult to envisage more appropriate, well-timed or long-lived 'cold' set-up. Anecdotal, insufficient sample size etc, but still interesting to observe. #3: eugh! -
kampmannpeine at 08:42 AM on 15 November 2011BEST hides the decline in global temperature
unbelievable how this denialists work! -
kampmannpeine at 08:35 AM on 15 November 2011The BEST Summary
yeah, yesterday I listened to a talk of Prof. H.J.Schellnhuber (director of PIK in Potsdam, Germany - http://www.pik-potsdam.de) in Berlin, Germany, a lecture given within the Berlin lectures (Berliner Lektionen) at the Renaissance Theatre ... And just that he mentioned - a bit ironically ... moreover this talk was just gorgeous, prudent and wise ... a great man! I am very grateful, Dana1981, that you posted this comment here ... -
WheelsOC at 07:45 AM on 15 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Cornelius, it looks like that pattern corresponds roughly to La Nina periods of ENSO cycles. Also, techies might be aware that there's recently been severe flooding in Thailand, where most of the world's hard drives and hard drive motors are made. This has caused supply to plummet, prices to skyrocket, and widespread hoarding of HDDs over the last few weeks. Brick-and-mortar stores were insulated for a while, but their stocks are running low too and I've heard from many people who've had to spend half a day trying to scrounge up a drive at all. If you can find any place that has a 1-2TB HDD, expect to pay double what you would have over the summer. Major OEMs have already bought up most of the remaining supply, but even they might not be able to ship PCs in the volumes they were expecting due to the shortage. And the shortage is projected to continue far into next year before production is back to normal levels, not even taking into account a backlog of pent up demand. Besides the immediate human tragedy in these regional disasters, extreme flooding in major manufacturing areas has world-wide economic repercussions. And such flooding is expected to become more frequent in a warmer world. -
Jsquared at 06:07 AM on 15 November 2011Solar cycles cause global warming
The link under the figure above is broken. The paper can be found (at least today) at http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/tung_solar_svecse.pdf This is the first paper I've seen that successfully shows the correlation between the solar cycle and surface temperature. Lean and Rind [Geophys. Res. Letts 35, L18701 (2008)] certainly suggest that it's been true from 1600 to 1995 or so, and get similar numbers for the size of the effect. I'm one of those people on the wrong side of the paywalls, and I'd be very interested to know how well this work has been found to hold up. Since it's in the same direction as any effects due to cosmic rays, I think it might well mask those effects entirely.Response:[DB] Fixed link.
-
Patrick Kelly at 05:57 AM on 15 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
(-Snip-)Response:[DB] Good advice from the elder generations:
"If you having nothing nice to say, say nothing."
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:45 AM on 15 November 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples wrote: "Does this really constitute proof that CO2, increasing steadily from about 280ppm in 1800, is responsible?." No, of course not, it is impossible to prove any causal link via empirical means (Hume). Our understanding of physics is why we think CO2 is responsible (given the lack of change in other forcings), the observations corroborate that theory. BTW, CO2 levels have been rising approximately exponentially rather than "steadily". -
Fred Staples at 05:33 AM on 15 November 20119 Months After McLean
The UAH charts you have produced, DB, are exactly the same as the data I used for my regressions. We are (or I am, if you prefer) looking for evidence of AGW in the mid-troposhere to support the “higher is colder” theory, which would attribute any such warming to increasing CO2 concentrations. There are two data sources only, entirely independent, satellites and radio-sondes. The most obvious test would be to compare the two sets of data over the period 1979 to 1997. I have used the data from the HADAT site, and the regression for data at 5.56 kilometers gives a trend line of 0.175 degrees per century, not (nowhere near) significantly different from zero. In other words, it exactly confirms the UAH results – no temperature change over a period of 19 years, when CO2 concentrations increased by 15%. (-snip-)Response:[DB] "The UAH charts you have produced, DB, are exactly the same as the data I used for my regressions."
Care to point out where I used these supposed UAH charts? Perhaps I've forgotten what I've posted (after all, you've been wrong on so many things so far, I'd hate for this to be another).
"We are (or I am, if you prefer) looking for evidence of AGW in the mid-troposhere to support the “higher is colder” theory"
Yes, that would be "you". GHG, and their attendant warming observed typically produce tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, matching observations.
"The most obvious test would be to compare the two sets of data over the period 1979 to 1997."
Cherry-pick. Less than 20 years of data while ignoring the much larger datasets we have.
"no temperature change over a period of 19 years"
More cherries/IBID. Tiresome, very tiresome.
As for the rest, you waste all of our time. Unless you can contribute something positive to this dialogue other than regurgitated PRATT, your comments will cease to appear.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
dana1981 at 05:31 AM on 15 November 2011The BEST Summary
Hmm it seems nobody read Part 2 of 'Going Down the Up Escalator'! I addressed the step change myth there. I also put it into a rebuttal. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 04:58 AM on 15 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
The animated Gif of Global Sea Level Data is interesting - especially the page of "skeptic" data. Does anyone else notice a four(ish)year pattern between the intervals of falling sea-level? -
cynicus at 04:44 AM on 15 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Please allow me to ignore the long term trend and cherry-pick like a real skeptic (inverse skeptic actually) to show that sea levels are rising currently with a very alarming rate of ~40 mm per 2 years or 20 meters per century!
-
DSL at 04:44 AM on 15 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
jmorpuss, you can say anything you like, but if you expect to be taken seriously on this forum, you're going to need to explain and defend your propositions. Here. Pointing to websites is not effective, because the authors of those websites are not available (oh, were it that they were!) to discuss the science of their alternative theories (or simulacra as the case may be). If you've been convinced by these websites, then you must understand them well enough to be able to defend them, yes? So do it. (on the appropriate thread, of course) This site is about discussing the science, not simply pointing to it and saying, "look!" -
keithpickering at 04:33 AM on 15 November 2011Sea level fell in 2010
Lewis C and Rob: I computed these values from GRACE data back in September, commented here. My computations indicate that about 80% of the sea level decline between March 2010 and March 2011 was due to increased storage on land. -
michael sweet at 04:09 AM on 15 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #24
"At least some of the bark beetles survived". It will be interesting to see what survives in the rest of the world. Anyone for a jellyfish sandwich? -
John Hartz at 02:55 AM on 15 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #24
"Protestors of the Keystone Pipeline, fracking and other environmental concerns are finding common ground with the Occupy movement -- but there's more to the story." Source: "When It Comes to the Environment, Are We the 99 Percent or the 1 Percent?" Alternet, Nov 4, 2011 To access this through-provoking article, click here. -
John Hartz at 02:12 AM on 15 November 2011Australia Legislates an Emissions Trading Scheme
Suggested reading: “Carbon Trading May Be Ready for Its Next Act,” New York Times, Nov 14, 2011 To access this timely article, click here. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 15 November 2011The BEST Summary
pauls That is very much the point, while there are bound to be sequences that look like step changes, that doesn't mean that there has been a step change. This is why a statistical test should be used to determine if there is sufficient evidence for a step change before claiming that there has actually been one. For the 1995-2000 step change, it is pretty easy to see that the illusion is caused by the 1998 El-Nino spike, delete that bit of the plot and it looks like a linear trend model fits the data pretty well, without any suggestion of a step-change.At the end of the day, the key is self-skepticism, if someone wants to argue for a more complex model, without a good basis in physics (e.g. exponential increase in CO2 + logarithmic radiative forcing = linear warming), then you need to demonstrate that the data argue unequivocally for a more complex model.
-
Paul W at 00:54 AM on 15 November 2011The BEST Summary
@GreenCooling #9 I've been teaching counselling since 1984 and your point of - "how can I get through to people who refuse?" is a common question. Listening and thinking are the keys. Basically you can work with anyone who does not bother you. Once your bothered you can't be successful. The bother needs to be dealt with first. While a statement can easily be blocked, a question that gets the answer into the mind of the listener is better at getting past a block. You can question their assumptions. Once they are questioning their assumptions there is an opening to information about science or data. It can be a small opening that gets lost easily and back to questioning assumptions instead of giving information. In person it will work better if you like them and you listen well. It can take quite a while and is easier done with friends or people who you care about. -
pauls at 00:52 AM on 15 November 2011The BEST Summary
Dikran, I think it would be very unusual for a near-linear upward trending signal in noisy data not to contain occasional sequences which look like step functions. Then there are known variances associated with the '11-year' solar cycle, which increase the probability of seeing step functions as we go from minimum to maximum over a ~six year period - an oscillation within the upward trend. 1995-96 occurred during a solar minimum, 2001-2002 at a maximum: the exact period in which a step function has been posited. There's also a "step function" from about 1975 to 1980. Again, 1980 occurs at a solar maximum. -
muoncounter at 00:42 AM on 15 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Tom C#33: "draw cold air further south (or north) than was previously the case," Petoukhov and Semenov 2010 illustrates this point: Our simulations ... demonstrate that lower-troposphere heating over the B-K seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anticyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Perhaps this December 2010 illustration of a distended NS jet stream is also case in point. Prior discussion: Does cold weather disprove global warming? -
JMurphy at 00:01 AM on 15 November 2011SkS Weekly Digest #24
I bet there's nothing about this on WUWT or any of the other so-called skeptical websites which strangely seem to concentrate only on cold and snow :UK on course for mildest November in 300 years
I also bet that the first snow and cold temperature will be broadcast far and wide. But they never doubted the world was warming, honest... -
Tom Curtis at 23:48 PM on 14 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Kevin C @32, as Hansen says:"Figure 5 confirms that the actual occurrence of summers in the "hot" category (seasonal mean temperature anomaly exceeding +0.43 σ) has approximately reached the level of 67% required to make four sides of the dice red. The odds of a "cold" season or an "average" season now each correspond to one side of the six-sided dice, to a good approximation. However, note that the odds of an unusually cool Jun-Jul-Aug (by the standards of 1951-1980) have fallen more than the odds of having an unusually cold Dec-Jan-Feb. Comparable loading of the dice has occurred in winter, where "hot", i.e., mild, winters now occur almost two-thirds of the time. Figures 4 and 5 show that the "loading of the dice" is less in winter than in summer, despite the fact that warming has been larger in winter. Larger winter warming is more than offset by the fact that interannual variability is much larger in winter than in summer, as shown in Figure 2. Thus climate warming may not be as obvious to the public in winter as in summer, especially because snowfall amounts increase with global warming (in regions remaining cold enough for snow) and there is a tendency to equate heavy snowfall with harsh winter conditions, even if temperatures are not extremely low."
(My emphasis) Regarding Figure 2 he writes:"Interannual variability of surface temperature is larger in the winter hemisphere than in the summer and larger over land than over ocean (Figure 2). The basic reason for the large winter variability is the huge difference in temperature between low latitudes and high latitudes in winter. This allows the temperature at a given place to vary by tens of degrees depending on whether the wind is from the south or north. The latitudinal temperature gradient in summer is much smaller, thus providing less drive for exchange of air masses between middle latitudes and polar regions -- and when exchange occurs the effect on temperature is less than that caused by a winter 'polar express' of Arctic (or Antarctic) air delivered to middle latitudes."
To that I would add that there is a possibility that increased warmth leads to larger weather cells. That being the case they would draw cold air further south (or north) than was previously the case, further compensating for the increased warmth in winter. That is, air from 20 degrees North drawn down over the midwest may be warmer, but because of larger weather cells, air my now be drawing down from 15 degrees North. Of course, this last observation is just that, an observation I have made about Australian weather patterns. I do not know if any scientific research has been done on this. Consequently my observations are no more trustworthy than any other anecdote. -
monkeyorchid at 23:46 PM on 14 November 2011Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
Dr Milne's lecture is now posted and being abused on the denialist Bishop Hill blog. They are also openly attacking SKS on the comments below. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/14/richard-milne-on-the-divergence-problem.html Strangely they focus only on two small aspects of the lecture (tree rings, and the admission that Dr Milne is also an environmentalist). Yet they have the cheek to accuse SKS of cherry-picking! -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:25 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
BTW, there is also no real evidence that there was a step change 1995-2001 either, and I don't recall having seen an analysis that showed a statistically significant difference in the evidience for a step-change model over a linear trend model (which can be done). -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:22 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
Fred Staples The difference is statistical significance. The human eye is so good at detecting signals in noise that it all to often detects a signal that isn't actually there, but is just an artifact of the noise. Hence scientists use tests of statistical significance as an objective test of their claims. I have yet to see the details of a statistical test that shows there is statistically significant support for the hypothesis of a pause. -
Kevin C at 22:54 PM on 14 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Tom: That's very interesting because it is counterintuitive. A better insulated atmosphere leads to a reduced diurnal range and even more importantly reduced seasonal range - both of which are observed. My first reaction was to assume from this that extreme cold events should be disappearing faster than warm ones should be appearing. The fact that this reasoning fails presumably arises from changes in weather patterns? -
cynicus at 22:18 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
Fred Staples, this article doesn't claim that there is a "continuing upward trend on the step change from 1995 to 2001". The linear trend, as shown in Figure 1, is negative for this period, but we all know (or should know (Source)) that these short linear trends aren't statistically significant. Claiming cooling/pause/halt/suspension/etc. or extreme warming using such short linear trends is, as you say, absurd indeed. This point is made clear by showing the positive linear trend over the entire period 1973-2010, which is statistically significant. -
cynicus at 22:01 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
mandas, thanks for the additional info :-) 0.05 percent. Wow, no wonder "they" promote the immensely huge 30k number as significant... -
Fred Staples at 21:33 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
Bearing in mind that, from 1800 to 1940-ish we were emerging from the Little Ice Age, why is it wrong to argue for a pause in global (land-based ) temperatures from 2000 onwards, but right to claim a continuing upward trend on the step change from about 1995 to 2001. Both are equally absurd.Response:[DB] "Bearing in mind that, from 1800 to 1940-ish we were emerging from the Little Ice Age"
Incorrect. You fail to take into account the climatic dampening from the volcanic effects of the eruptions early in the 19th Century as well as changes in solar output over that time. You perpetuate a skeptic canard without looking into the literature.
"why is it wrong to argue for a pause in global (land-based ) temperatures from 2000 onwards"
PRATT.
"but right to claim a continuing upward trend on the step change from about 1995 to 2001"
Strawman. No one, other than fake-skeptics, are maintaining any fiction over unsupported "step changes". Such is considered by science to be "Climastrology". See also Dikran's subsequent comments re: significance testing.
"Both are equally absurd."
Unsupported conclusions based on no evidence are usually ignored. Given the obvious lack of investigation you put into this your comment here borders on derisive. Please ameliorate your tone.
-
JMurphy at 21:23 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
jmorpuss, I suggest you read what NASA has to say, instead of what you might have read on some conspiracy-type website about "micro burn holes" :what the astronauts are experiencing is space radiation zipping through their eyes like subatomic bullets. When a "bullet" strikes the retina, it triggers a false signal that the brain interprets as a flash of light.
Now, do you have anything to say about the subject of this post ? Any further diversions are off-topic.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Indeed, please no more discussion of cosmic rays, unless it is clearly relevant to a discussion of clouds and climate. -
jmorpuss at 20:36 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
JMurphy point taken on the may or may not part I agree that more info is reqired I was just trying to point out what science is playing with while most are distracted by global warming I provided a link @6 that may clear things up on climate change I'm a 1958 model and remember when man first went into space and one thing that stood out to me was the astronaughts saying how they kept seeing flashes of light and it seemed to be coming from inside their heads and when they investigated more they found micro burn holes in their visors that at the time they only put them down to some sort of partical that had travelled through the ship and through their brains you think they could have been neutrinos ?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please restrict the disucssion to issues that are on-topic and clearly related to climate. -
Riccardo at 19:58 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
I'd suggest to simply ignore jmorpuss comments. They are offtopic, add nothing to the discussion and above all he apparently takes tiny bit of physics at random and forces them into the climate discourse.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is good advice; if someone makes a post that has no relevance to the discussion, the best thing to do is to simply ignore it and not allow the discussion to be diverted. The moderators will deal with posts that contravene the comments policy, but please be patient and allow time for this to happen. -
JMurphy at 19:39 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
jmorpuss : "We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light." They may have travelled faster than the speed of light but, then again, they may not have. Do you accept something so easily, without any back-up evidence ? That would be irrational. But, anyway, what has that even got to do with Global Warming ? -
jmorpuss at 18:29 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
DSL @28 To create globale warming might be a bit hard to prove but climate change why not a bit of heat from a ionispheric heater in the right place and away you go weather modification We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light Anyway here is a link that [inflamatory snipped] http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.html It's about electrons ions and plasma Also here is a link to a video that shows what microwaves can do to CO2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 It mite be at the extream end but you can still cook a chook on low pulse rate You can denie this process is not taking place by voising your opinion and thats your right [more inflamatory snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Comments likely to irritate or annoy others participating in the discussion are not welcome, and are incontravention of the comments policy. Next time I will simply delete your post, rather than editing it. -
scaddenp at 18:05 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
muon - splorf! What a website. Just as well as I wasnt handling cats or coffee. Truly stunning what stories you tell when unfettered by measurements or physics. I won't waste my time on this one. -
mandas at 16:44 PM on 14 November 2011The BEST Summary
cynicus It's actually worse than that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, 41,289,000 people had a Bachelor’s Degree as their highest educational qualification, 15,357,000 had a Masters Degree, and 2,793,000 held a Doctoral Degree. In the UK, the figure is around 20% of the population, or around 12 million. The figures are similar in most western countries. However, in places like India, the percentages are much less, but with the much higher population numbers, the total number of people with university degrees is staggering – around 100 million. Source (US data): http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html So, what does this mean? Well, if we look at US figures alone, if everyone who signed the Oregon Petition held a legitimate university degree (but we know they don’t), then we can do a simple sum. The total number of university graduates is around 60 million. There were 31,000 signatories to the petition. This represents a staggering 0.05% of the population. But of course, the ‘Oregon Petition’ was open to anyone who wished to sign – you didn’t have to be in the US. So the figures are obviously much lower than 0.05% . You can make your own estimate if you like. -
barry1487 at 16:23 PM on 14 November 20111998 DIY Statistics
Came across this old thread in my wanderings, and the post from nofreewind showing us a graph with a declining trend from 1998. Here's what it looks like:It's more than a year later, so we can add another year's data to that 1998 trend line. The result:
Emphasising the point that short term data demonstrates the variability, not the trend.
-
DSL at 16:09 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
jmorpuss . . . what are you trying to say? That microwaves are causing global warming? Problem one: the stratosphere is cooling. Explain it. Btw, muon, that may be the silliest alt-theory website I've ever seen--not because the theory itself is not even wrong, and not because there's not a shred of evidence to support it, but because it's so well-crafted, so sincere, and so naive. It's like listening to a five-year old's patient, ten-minute explanation of how babies come into the world because women eat pebbles. The author should be placed in a steel cage match with Doug Cotton. I might pay to see that, if it was made available in a podcast. Sweet, oneiota. That one was featured in last month's trade pub New Trends in Snake Oil. -
villabolo at 16:02 PM on 14 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Best video on Global Warming I've ever seen. Nemesis, Punisher of Hubris. Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά, κυανώπι θεά, θύγατερ Δίκας, α κούφα φρυάγματα θνατών επέχεις αδάμαντι χαλινώι, έχθουσα δ’ ύβριν ολοάν βροτών μέλανα φθόνον εκτός ελαύνεις. υπό σον τροχόν άστατον αστιβή χαροπά μερόπων στρέφεται τύχα, λήθουσα δε παρ πόδα βαίνεις, γαυρούμενον αυχένα κλίνεις. υπό πήχυν αεί βίοτον μετρείς, νεύεις δ’ υπό κόλπον όφρυν αεί ζυγόν μετά χείρα κρατούσα. ίλαθι μάκαιρα δικασπόλε Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά. Νέμεσιν θεόν άδομεν αφθίταν, Νίκην τανυσίπτερον ομβρίμαν νημερτέα και πάρεδρον Δίκας, α ταν μεγαλανορίαν βροτών νεμεσώσα φέρεις κατά Tαρτάρου. In English translation: Nemesis, winged balancer of life, dark-faced goddess, daughter of Justice, who, with your unbending bridle, dominate the vain arrogance of men and, loathing man’s fatal vanity, obliterate black envy; beneath your wheel unstable and leaving no imprint, the fate of men is tossed; you who come unnoticed, in an instant, to subdue the insolent head. You measure life with your hand, and with frowning brows, hold the yoke. We glorify you, Nemesis, immortal goddess, Victory of the unfurled wings, powerful, infallible, who shares the altar of justice and, furious at human pride, casts Man into the abyss of Tartarus!
-
oneiota at 15:56 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
Sorry way OT but following on from 24 & 25 above Climastrology button required for this one as well....don't waste too much time there. -
dhogaza at 15:45 PM on 14 November 2011New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
"Sometimes you have to put the peaces together" Ahh, global warming is caused by microwaves and the fact that the cold war didn't turn into hot war, i.e. the peaces prevailed... -
Bibliovermis at 15:30 PM on 14 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
You don't have to be a climate scientist to acknowledge the validity of anthropogenic global warming anymore than you have to be a biologist to acknowledge the validity of evolution.
Prev 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 Next
