AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: kdthrge on 27 Jul 2007 23:57 On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Server 13" <i...(a)casual.com> wrote: > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1185532131.143087.214820(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 9:42 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 26, 7:10 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > There is a realm in which the theory of CO2 caused global warming can > >> > be tested. > > >> Yes, > >> it 'passes' tests every day in direct measurements. > >> Increasing forcing from CO2 is directly measured > >> by infrared spectrophotometer on a regular basis. > > >> Here is an organization doing some of the measurements. > >> Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program: > > >>http://www.arm.gov/ > > >> Here is a history of recent greenhouse gas forcing: > > >>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ > > > That is AWFULLY funny. > > > You have this word, 'forcing', which does not exist in thermodynamics > > but which is invented by grenhouse theory and you claim that it is > > measured directly. You cannot by this means measure a temperature > > increase according to anything that is measured about specific > > frequencies of infrared. > > > But when you put it to the test, in the ice cores where there is > > available record of temperature and record of CO2 relative > > concentration changes, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF CO2 > > AFFECTING TEMPERATURE. (the actual levels of CO2 in the ice cores are > > depressed 30 - 50 %) > > > We are talking about TEMPERATURE. Not your illdefined term of > > 'forcing' which is often used to only refer to the final temperature > > effect of your presumed dynamics but is NOT MEASURED IN THESE > > READINGS. > > > Your idea here is that radiation from the atmosphere is recorded on > > the ground that is returned by GHGs. But you only make this claim with > > the trace gases in which the variation of their concentrations can not > > be measured at different values, with reference to EFFECT ON > > TEMPERATURE. > > > If this is done with water vapor, it entirely falls apart. Great > > differences in water vapor and the associated effect on atmospheric > > radiation cannot in any way be correlated to any EFFECT ON > > TEMPERATURE. > > > Roger is a sore loser. He will not acknowledge defeat. Like some > > spoiled brat that everyone remembers from childhood. I bet nobody > > plays checkers with him, since he surely throws the board everytime he > > loses and then claims later to have won. The rest of AGWists are > > mental clones of Poppycock, which gives them confidence in their > > unsupported beliefs. > > As usual, lies and irrelevancy from beginning to end from > science-word-salad boy.- http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/ec49f2199bbd075a/16ef4f88d42588ea?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fec49f2199bbd075a%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_16ef4f88d42588ea So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. Even at the times that temperature and CO2 are both rising, no effect can be discerned on the temperature gradient from the increasing CO2. When the temperature drops occur, there is very little correlation. Only the very long term diminishment. This proves no cause of temperature fluctuation from CO2. Proves another cause of temperature fluctuation which means any measured current temperature fluctuation is NOT CO2 caused and is a most invalid and criminal to perpetrate the fraudulent theoretical science that seeks to promote this non-scientific belief. Normal evasiveness from actual topic or science of the fraudists of AGW. Why don't you repeat again from memory of your propaganda slogans, that there is a 98% consensus among scientists of AGW??? That should help you to maintain your hysteria of a flaming atmosphere,,, all caused because we want to live our lives in a modern way and enjoy the use of energy which we derive from fuels. KDeatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney.
From: lorad474 on 28 Jul 2007 00:27 On Jul 27, 8:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Server 13" <i...(a)casual.com> wrote: > > > > > > > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:1185532131.143087.214820(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jul 26, 9:42 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 26, 7:10 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> > There is a realm in which the theory of CO2 caused global warming can > > >> > be tested. > > > >> Yes, > > >> it 'passes' tests every day in direct measurements. > > >> Increasing forcing from CO2 is directly measured > > >> by infrared spectrophotometer on a regular basis. > > > >> Here is an organization doing some of the measurements. > > >> Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program: > > > >>http://www.arm.gov/ > > > >> Here is a history of recent greenhouse gas forcing: > > > >>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ > > > > That is AWFULLY funny. > > > > You have this word, 'forcing', which does not exist in thermodynamics > > > but which is invented by grenhouse theory and you claim that it is > > > measured directly. You cannot by this means measure a temperature > > > increase according to anything that is measured about specific > > > frequencies of infrared. > > > > But when you put it to the test, in the ice cores where there is > > > available record of temperature and record of CO2 relative > > > concentration changes, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF CO2 > > > AFFECTING TEMPERATURE. (the actual levels of CO2 in the ice cores are > > > depressed 30 - 50 %) > > > > We are talking about TEMPERATURE. Not your illdefined term of > > > 'forcing' which is often used to only refer to the final temperature > > > effect of your presumed dynamics but is NOT MEASURED IN THESE > > > READINGS. > > > > Your idea here is that radiation from the atmosphere is recorded on > > > the ground that is returned by GHGs. But you only make this claim with > > > the trace gases in which the variation of their concentrations can not > > > be measured at different values, with reference to EFFECT ON > > > TEMPERATURE. > > > > If this is done with water vapor, it entirely falls apart. Great > > > differences in water vapor and the associated effect on atmospheric > > > radiation cannot in any way be correlated to any EFFECT ON > > > TEMPERATURE. > > > > Roger is a sore loser. He will not acknowledge defeat. Like some > > > spoiled brat that everyone remembers from childhood. I bet nobody > > > plays checkers with him, since he surely throws the board everytime he > > > loses and then claims later to have won. The rest of AGWists are > > > mental clones of Poppycock, which gives them confidence in their > > > unsupported beliefs. > > > As usual, lies and irrelevancy from beginning to end from > > science-word-salad boy.- > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr... > So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > Even at the times that temperature and CO2 are both rising, no effect > can be discerned on the temperature gradient from the increasing CO2. > > When the temperature drops occur, there is very little correlation. > Only the very long term diminishment. > > This proves no cause of temperature fluctuation from CO2. > > Proves another cause of temperature fluctuation which means any > measured current temperature fluctuation is NOT CO2 caused and is a > most invalid and criminal to perpetrate the fraudulent theoretical > science that seeks to promote this non-scientific belief. > > Normal evasiveness from actual topic or science of the fraudists of > AGW. Why don't you repeat again from memory of your propaganda > slogans, that there is a 98% consensus among scientists of AGW??? > > That should help you to maintain your hysteria of a flaming > atmosphere,,, all caused because we want to live our lives in a > modern > way and enjoy the use of energy which we derive from fuels. > > KDeatherage > CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an > air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney. The global warming phenomenon is real and proved. The CO2 you can do with whatever you want to.
From: Benj on 28 Jul 2007 02:14 lorad...(a)cs.com wrote: > > > CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an > > air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney. > > The global warming phenomenon is real and proved. > The CO2 you can do with whatever you want to. Yes, global warming IS real and proved! But what about that "A" that seems to have crept in there? And why is there this constant media and political scam underway? The usual "report" typically starts with some kind of statement that all reputable scientist agree that Global Warming is real. And then there is a quick bait and switch where the subject switches to CO2 with a STRONG implication that reputable scientists ALSO agree that CO2 IS the cause of the agreed upon global warming! Which of course is a lie. OK, they don't actually come out and tell a lie. They just use clever wording to place ideas in the gullible publics head. If pressed they can always go to the literal meaning of the words they used. But such propaganda techniques are lies and completely disingenuous. I ask why? Why is this story being "sold" so hard? Why are politicians like Algore behind the lie so strongly? Now that CO2 has been throughly discredited (we are supposed to forget about all the "responsible" people who lied about that to us) we see them casting about for a new boogeyman. Now it seems to be ground-level ozone. What is clear to those of us with political experience, the conclusion to be reached and sold was decided long ago and now it's just a matter of finding a "plausible" story to sell it. If you have to change the sales pitch to sell the product, that's OK so long as it works! I guess the argument is going to be: "forget we lied about CO2, that is in the past! But you can believe us now with this NEW storyline! Yeah, sure. Believing politicians! THAT'S a GOOD ONE!
From: owl on 28 Jul 2007 02:18 On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. The lag only relates to the emergence from the glaciation temperature trough. The estimates have a range, and 800 is the best guess so far - one oceanic cycle. > Even at the times that temperature and CO2 are both rising, no effect > can be discerned on the temperature gradient from the increasing CO2. Well, if you put it that way, you've just disproved the albedo effect as well. Unless you want to restart the science, three major factors were at work - Milankovich cycles, albedo changes, and rising greenhouse gas effects. The ice core records (correlated for the Antarctic and Greenland) lay it out as a gentle nudge warming effect in the Antarctic, then GHGs start rising, then deglaciation in the northern Hemisphere proceeds. It makes sense, but it sure puts a bee in the bonnet of the 'no GHG-effect' argument, because Milankovich on its own doesn't appear to cause the globe to roll over so its effect can refocus on the north (there's no reversal in the trend in the Antarctic), and the major northern albedo effect can't self-start. It could, however, be responding to step 2 - the greenhouse effect. The other irritation is the GRIP data pointing to some short-term sudden fluctuations in temperature increases - I'd be tempted to lean towards airborne sources for the kind of thing. > When the temperature drops occur, there is very little correlation. > Only the very long term diminishment. Not sure where you got that from, but the work of Cuffey and Vimieux might interest you:- "Using a model that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150kyr and r2 = 0.84 for the period 350-150kyr ago." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Natur.412..523C > This proves no cause of temperature fluctuation from CO2. It doesn't prove no cause. The pattern match of temp and GHG is there, isn't it? You're attempting to make the relationship either temperature drives CO2 level, or it's all one big, happy, co- incidence. If temperature drives CO2 in the way you describe, the Sahara Desert made it to Stockholm about the year 1200 ... what's for desert? (I'll leave the one big happy co-incidence up for grabs.) > Proves another cause of temperature fluctuation which means any > measured current temperature fluctuation is NOT CO2 caused and is a > most invalid and criminal to perpetrate the fraudulent theoretical > science that seeks to promote this non-scientific belief. On the other hand, you could be wrong. In which case, your paranoid hysterical resort to claims of criminal fraud and a required global conspiracy to pull it off ... might be ill-advised. hth. > Normal evasiveness from actual topic or science of the fraudists of > AGW. Why don't you repeat again from memory of your propaganda > slogans, that there is a 98% consensus among scientists of AGW??? Don't need to - but you need to relate the accurate number back to Orestes review. hth. > That should help you to maintain your hysteria of a flaming > atmosphere,,, all caused because we want to live our lives in a > modern way and enjoy the use of energy which we derive from fuels. Awww, is moooshee-woooshee having a bad day ... > KDeatherage > CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an > air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney. You're getting warmer...
From: Peter Muehlbauer on 28 Jul 2007 02:34
"owl" <churchslc(a)hotmail.com> wrote > "Using a model that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate > for the covariation of CO2 and temperature *shudder* |