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: dannas on 21 May 2010 11:19 <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8852a46b-981e-4ce0-8e19-df8cf22427ec(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... 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 accurate is a Satellites Orbit ? 1 mm ???? How do they AVERAGE ALL SEA WAVES to show 1.7 mm ??? THEY CANNOT.
From: dannas on 21 May 2010 12:24 "Surfer" <no(a)spam.net> wrote in message news:fnbcv51neg0c1uacaqrosvslmkm06juumv(a)4ax.com... > 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 WRONG, YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, the presentation is NOT SCIENCE, it is political conjecture. Review the "weak law of large numbers" DUMBASS
From: Sam Wormley on 21 May 2010 16:15 On 5/20/10 11:56 PM, Steady Eddy wrote: > How did they measure the 1.7 mm per year? How did they measure sea > level in 1890? Frankly I doubt the methodology. 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. > > This case is closed You never learn anything if you close your mind so quickly!
From: Sam Wormley on 21 May 2010 16:38 On 5/21/10 1:13 AM, Dawlish wrote: > 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 > Daytime high temperatures are decreasing in Iowa over the last ten years because of the increased dewpoints resulting from global climate change. Here's some data from Iowa State University http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html More from University of Iowa http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
From: Trawley Trash on 21 May 2010 14:59
On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Steady Eddy <nonsmoking1(a)comcast.net> wrote: > How did they measure the 1.7 mm per year? How did they measure sea > level in 1890? Frankly I doubt the methodology. They have tide gage measurements going back before 1890. Since 1992 they have satellite data. The problem is that the tide gages show 1.7 mm per year and the satellites show 3.2. That does not mean acceleration; it probably indicates a difference in measurement technique. I found one site that showed how they calibrated the satellites. They used an average of 23 tide gages for which they had continuous records. So the satellite data is not any more accurate than the calibration: an average of 23 tide gages. The problem is that the land on which the tide gages sit moves up and down due to natural geological processes. For land to rise or fall a few inches in a century is normal. If you are old enough to have grandchildren you can refer to some familiar landmark and see it. When I look at the satellite data by itself, there is no visible acceleration. Ten years ago I assessed the probable sea rise in the 21st century at one foot (40 cm). Now it looks more like nine inches (30 cm). This will be of concern to some low lying areas, but by and large it is no catastrophe. Suitable modifications to dikes and levees are all that is needed. > 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. Water does expand. We are talking about a millimeter change in depth over an average of maybe a kilometer. That is not the sort of change we would ordinarily notice. The problem is that the temperature of the oceans is not constant, but it varies with depth. Near the bottom the temperature range is narrower. I hope they are not taking the average temperature change from the amount needed to agree with the satellites. Long term drift in the satellite data is a very real possibility because of the way they were calibrated. To calculate the thermal expansion of the oceans we must first measure the temperature of the oceans at depth. This is not a trivial problem. Satellite measurements of surface temperature are not adequate. I do not believe the ocean temperatures have been measured to the necessary three-dimensional resolution to solve this problem. I am open to correction however. |