A Convenient Falsehood: Global Warming Is a Hoax*
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The crystals at the center of Earth RIDICULOUS Please learn some True Geology instead of raving on idiocies
Next: Aether Displacement
From: Surfer on 21 May 2010 02:03 On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddy <nonsmoking1(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On May 20, 9:39�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:10:54 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >A Convenient Falsehood: Global Warming Is a Hoax* >> >> >Bob Hansen's presentation at the French National Assembly >> > �http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf >> >> > � 18 May, 2010 >> >> Here is some additional information. >> >> Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing >> (See graph at right)http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ >> Larger image herehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn >> >> Global sea level rise has acceleratedhttp://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ >> >> Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water >> due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. >> The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows: >> >> 1870 - 1990 � �1.7 mm/year >> 1993 - 2010 � �3.26 mm/year >> >> Giant Antarctic glacier is thinninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm >> >> In addition: >> >> The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasinghttp://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gifhttp://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif >> >> This above graphs show that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost >> entirely above the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were >> evenly balanced above and below the axis. > >How did they measure the 1.7 mm per year? > They calculated the figure by looking at historical records. > >How did they measure sea level in 1890? > Here is a paper that was written back in 1866 Discussion of Tide Observations at Bristol T. G. Bunt Philosophical Transactions Received October 24,--Read December 6, 1866 http://www.jstor.org/pss/108965 Among other things it says: "The observations employed in this discussion are those that have been taken by the Bristol Self-registering Tide-Gauge, which has been kept steadily at work, with a few occassional interruptions, from the period of its erection in 1837, to the present time". > > Frankly I doubt the methodology. > I havn't studied it. But if the first automated system was installed in 1837, there would have been 50 years in which to identify and fix problems before the measurements in 1890. > >There is no such thing as the thermal expansion of the ocen. Because water does not expand >when it is heated. in the range of 32 to 86 F. Most ocean water falls >into that range. > You are wrong I am afraid. The maximum density of water occurs at +4 degrees C (about 39 F). Above that temperature it steadily expands (and becomes less dense) as the temperature increases. There is a graph of water density versus temperature here. http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/limno/LecPhy/DensTemp.gif
From: Dawlish on 21 May 2010 02:13 On May 21, 1:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A Convenient Falsehood: Global Warming Is a Hoax* > > Bob Hansen's presentation at the French National Assembly > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf > > 18 May, 2010 Here's the present temperatures. Knowing these, now tell me now GW is a hoax: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
From: Surfer on 21 May 2010 02:59 On Thu, 20 May 2010 23:01:28 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >On May 21, 12:39�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> Here is some additional information. >> >> Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing >> (See graph at right)http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ >> Larger image herehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn > >Yes, Ice and glaciers have been decreasing. Graph goes back at least >1800. Did you get the memo? The ice age is over! > >> Global sea level rise has acceleratedhttp://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ >> >> Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water >> due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. >> The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows: >> >> 1870 - 1990 � �1.7 mm/year >> 1993 - 2010 � �3.26 mm/year > >HIGHLY suspect data brought to you by the same people who "lost" the >priceless data and images of mankind's first trip to the moon! >Satellite data for last period show NO change from previous recent >periods and NO change since before industrial revolution. > > >> Giant Antarctic glacier is thinninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm > >Probably. See Ice age memo. > >> In addition: >> >> The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasing http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif >> >> This above graphs show that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost >> entirely above the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were >> evenly balanced above and below the axis. > >Interesting graph. Of course the KEY item which you made the mistake >of including is the effect of volcanic eruptions. > Well, for the sake of balance it was only fair to include those. > > Note how "blue" areas coincide with large vulcanism. Note how the recent red area has >NO volcanic cooling to pull the graph down. Duh. > Yes. Large vulcanism seems to have pulled troposphere temperature down at times in the past. However, the large vulcanism shown on the graph didn't do anything to reduce rising sea levels or melting of arctic ice. So the long term increase in temperature must be caused by something other than reduction in vulcanism. >And note that NONE of this data substantiates the bogus claim that CO2 >as a greenhouse gas can have ANY significant effect on global >temperature. It can't. > Experts sometimes get things wrong. But in this case a majority are providing clear warnings that rising levels of CO2 are a risk. And it is not only temperature. Coral Reefs May Start Dissolving When Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Doubles http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309162125.htm CO2 and phosphate availability control the toxicity of the harmful bloom dinoflagellate Karlodinium veneficum http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/co2-and-phosphate-availability-control-the-toxicity-of-the-harmful-bloom-dinoflagellate-karlodinium-veneficum/ carbon dioxide interferes with plants� ability to convert nitrate into protein resulting in lower nutritional yield. http://indymedia.org.au/2010/05/14/rising-carbon-emissions-threaten-crop-yields-and-food-security > >It's a lie. It's a scam designed to grab trillions of "cap and trade" dollars. > Hansen isn't recommending "cap and trade'. Here is his position. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf <Start extract> It is not my job to suggest policy, and I certainly will not interfere in French politics. However, I would like to note that we, the world, desperately need some nation to stand up and tell the other nations the truth: we cannot solve the climate/energy problem without a rising price on carbon, a tax. Cap-and-trade with offsets will not work. And China and India will never accept a cap � why should they, as long as their per capita emissions are much smaller than the West?* There needs to be a steadily rising price on carbon, with the money collected distributed to the public. I think that it is my job as a scientist to connect the dots all the way with scientific objectivity using all empirical evidence. And it is my job, as a father and grandfather concerned about young people, future generations, and the other species that share our planet, to point out that the path the world is on, if we stay on it, guarantees that we will push the climate system beyond tipping points. This is a moral issue, a matter of intergenerational injustice. Because of the inertia and slow response of the climate system, our generation burns most of the fossil fuels and reaps the benefits while future generations bear the costs. We, the older generations and our governments, cannot pretend that we do not understand this situation � we must accept responsibility. <End extract>
From: erschroedinger on 21 May 2010 10:17 On May 21, 12:56 am, Steady Eddy <nonsmoki...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On May 20, 9:39 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:10:54 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >A Convenient Falsehood: Global Warming Is a Hoax* > > > >Bob Hansen's presentation at the French National Assembly > > > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf > > > > 18 May, 2010 > > > Here is some additional information. > > > Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing > > (See graph at right)http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ > > Larger image herehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires..pn > > > Global sea level rise has acceleratedhttp://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ > > > Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water > > due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. > > The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows: > > > 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year > > 1993 - 2010 3.26 mm/year > > > Giant Antarctic glacier is thinninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm > > > In addition: > > > The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasinghttp://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gifhttp://www.... > > > This above graphs show that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost > > entirely above the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were > > evenly balanced above and below the axis. > > How did they measure the 1.7 mm per year? Satellite altimeters, as you've been told before. Tidal strain gauges too. >How did they measure sea > level in 1890? Frankly I doubt the methodology. Good. We doubt your intelligence. >There is no such thing > as the thermal expansion of the ocen. See what I mean about your intelligence? >Because water does not expand > when it is heated. Atoms do not exist. The world is flat. >in the range of 32 to 86 F. Most ocean water falls > into that range. > > This case is closed
From: erschroedinger on 21 May 2010 10:18
On May 21, 2:01 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 21, 12:39 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > > Here is some additional information. > > > Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing > > (See graph at right)http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ > > Larger image herehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires..pn > > Yes, Ice and glaciers have been decreasing. Graph goes back at least > 1800. Did you get the memo? The ice age is over! Glaciers are accelerating their melt. > > > Global sea level rise has acceleratedhttp://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ > > > Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water > > due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. > > The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows: > > > 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year > > 1993 - 2010 3.26 mm/year > > HIGHLY suspect data brought to you by the same people who "lost" the > priceless data and images of mankind's first trip to the moon! Highly suspect you're an idiot. > Satellite data for last period show NO change from previous recent > periods and NO change since before industrial revolution. See what I mean about you being an idiot? > > > Giant Antarctic glacier is thinninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm > > Probably. See Ice age memo. > > > In addition: > > > The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasinghttp://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gifhttp://www.... > > > This above graphs show that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost > > entirely above the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were > > evenly balanced above and below the axis. > > Interesting graph. Of course the KEY item which you made the mistake > of including is the effect of volcanic eruptions. Note how "blue" > areas coincide with large vulcanism. Note how the recent red area has > NO volcanic cooling to pull the graph down. Duh. Huh? That makes no sense. > > And note that NONE of this data substantiates the bogus claim that CO2 > as a greenhouse gas can have ANY significant effect on global > temperature. It can't. It's a lie. How does it feel, being so stupid? >It's a scam designed to grab > trillions of "cap and trade" dollars. One might as well "bounce a > basketball" to save the planet! It'll be great! Lots of action to > show you really CARE about the planet! Lots of media coverage to > "educate" the public about saving the planet. And NOTHING done to > solve any REAL problems. Has anyone noticed that the Gulf of Mexico is > covered with Oil? Do I need to remind you that the ocean houses the > beginning of the food chain that keeps us all alive. Are you all > idiots? Oh wait. I'm bouncing a basketball to clean the Gulf of > Mexico! Grab a basketball and help me do it! Learn some basic science. Your ignorance is appalling. |