A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Brain Locus as Radio Re: Precision definition of life versus nonlife Chapt 21 #255 Atom Totality #27 Brain Locus theory
From: Claudius Denk on 3 Aug 2010 02:01 Sam, Sam, Sam, None of these involve direct measurement. Do they Sam? C'mon Sam. Just make the retraction and get it over with. Don't extend the agony. On Aug 2, 8:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 4:41 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > > > Sam, > > > Don't you think you should make a retraction? > > http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html > > CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level > increase, are all consistent with each other. Real > impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather > patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting. > > The global data CLEARLY shows: > > Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 > http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg > http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm > > Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > > http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend... > > And accompanying Sea Level Rise > > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... > > There are many sources of good data > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > 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/... > > Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change > http://hfranzen.org/ > http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
From: leonard78sp on 3 Aug 2010 10:51 On Aug 3, 1:03 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 11:07 PM, leonard7...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Ø There is > > no significant CO2 increase, zero sea level > > rise, and no global temp increase. > > So you keep saying! I wonder why all these measurements > of CO2 increase, temperature increase and sea level > increase say otherwise. Ø It's your gullibility, Worm. You are a sucker for anything that has AGW in it. When push comes to shove your 5 cites are all frauds, and some are based on fraudulent data provided by NOAA, GISS/NASA, Hadley/CRU, and MET There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds.
From: Sirius on 3 Aug 2010 13:47 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:29:44 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote : > NEWS: Weather or Not?: Last Winter's Record Snow Driven by Short-Term > Meteorologic Patterns, Not Long-Term Climate Change A new study helps to > explain how extraordinary snowfalls occur despite global warming > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weather-or-not-last- winte&sc=DD_20100802 This kind of article is exactly what drew my attention on the fact that AGW (to distinguish from GW) is not scientific, but a pseudo-science. Rains are scarce this year, it's AGW. Floods next year, it's AGW. More hurricanes this year, AGW. Less next year, AGW again. AGW entirely explains everything and its opposite. Nothing can falsify AGW. AGW is an hysteria, not a scientific theory.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 21:11 On 8/3/10 12:47 PM, Sirius wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:29:44 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote : > >> NEWS: Weather or Not?: Last Winter's Record Snow Driven by Short-Term >> Meteorologic Patterns, Not Long-Term Climate Change A new study helps to >> explain how extraordinary snowfalls occur despite global warming >> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weather-or-not-last- > winte&sc=DD_20100802 > > This kind of article is exactly what drew my attention on the fact that > AGW (to distinguish from GW) is not scientific, but a pseudo-science. > Rains are scarce this year, it's AGW. Floods next year, it's AGW. More > hurricanes this year, AGW. Less next year, AGW again. AGW entirely > explains everything and its opposite. You got it right...the climatological records clearly show that weather is more erratic during period of warming.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 21:12
On 8/3/10 9:51 AM, leonard78sp(a)gmail.com wrote: > It's your gullibility, Worm. You are a sucker > for anything that has AGW in it. When push > comes to shove your 5 cites are all frauds, and > some are based on fraudulent data provided by > NOAA, GISS/NASA, Hadley/CRU, and MET Fool easily, Leonard? |