Arctic sea ice extent
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Doppler energy extraction: new solar cell technology
Next: Lunaroleum BP launch with cap&trade "last bailout of Wall St."
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jun 2010 15:19 On 6/25/10 11:39 AM, Chumley wrote: > > screw the red line, look at the dark green line from 2007 !! Earth was far > warmer in 2006 and 2007 than now, we have gotten colder. > > Look at the rising sea level and tell me it's just not people peeing more. http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 18:41 if "peeing" is including loss of organic matter in soils, and erosion thereby promoted, that is two things that would raise the level of the sea, iff it is accruing. thus quoth: Dr. Akasofu: One of the reasons that IARC is established in Alaska, the University of Alaska, is that we can observe climate change much more prominently than the rest of the world. The arctic is very sensitive to climate change because we have so many kinds of ice glaciers, sea ice, permafrostso they are sensitive to a climate change, and they're changing. So I think it's the best place to study climate change, much more so than in the tropics. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html thus&so: SF author D.Brin attests that the relative predictability of weather via computerized simulcara, attests to the soundness of the assumptions of the similar GCMs that are used for climate-a-changing; the latter is really quite rapid! thus&so: another factor is subsidence from erosion; deforestation is probably quite important around glaciers, two. > we also are pumping more water from bucket #2 because of deforestation and desertification. > > > http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full thus&so: I refer to the LAtribcoTimes report of the consortium study, November 2001. we must recall, Gore triggered BvG, by filing the first lawsuit, which overturned the normal, full count (a la Texas' lib-uh-ral rules) ... back in the day, before less than 2/5 of polling kiosks were ATMs. as I recall, I also saw the W.Post version, but not the Miami Herald one. [correction: I saw a byline about the Arkansas results, widely mis-attributed solely to Gore not going to the state to party, in the W.Post, three weeks after the primary election, to the effect that "they musta thought, they was votin' for Lyndon *Johnson*." > http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239 thus&so: I don't currently drive, but I support the payment of a fee for a Driver's License "ID," because I may want to drive, anyway, at some time, by (say) renting a van (or two Segways, chained-together .-) [NB: Shrubeneggar's footsie with the automobile registration fee, has been a big problem with state funding, beyond all of the other problems (that is, a.k.a. the Cargo Cult .-] anyway, a Voting Rights Act provision (Section 5, the Preclearance Rule) was removed in 2000 -- just in time for Gore to blow both of his feet, off, in electoral collegiate terms; then, they renewed the Act (and the Dems actually brought an amendment to the floor, voted-down, to extend the rule to all states & counties)!! > an ID is required. thus&so: you have given a condition of sufficiency, that words typed aroundhereinat could have been a trigger, but what will show a neccesity, that any one grokked a theorem of Arivaderci Petroleum? thus&so: are not dilation of time and length (in the direction of time-travellin' (sik), directly porportional? thus&so: how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the primes?... well, if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones, either. anyway, p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-) thus&so: well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure! --the duke of oil! Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases (GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini- tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is positive, it gives off more. Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following assump- tions: 1. Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy sources (i.e., coal) http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: Chumley on 28 Jun 2010 11:45 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:94CdnZm-l5NBz7vRnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/25/10 11:39 AM, Chumley wrote: > >> >> screw the red line, look at the dark green line from 2007 !! Earth was >> far >> warmer in 2006 and 2007 than now, we have gotten colder. >> >> > > Look at the rising sea level and tell me it's just not people > peeing more. > > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png > > that data is meaningless, wiki the weak law of large numbers
From: tadchem on 28 Jun 2010 17:14 On Jun 26, 3:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/25/10 11:39 AM, Chumley wrote: > > > > > screw the red line, look at the dark green line from 2007 !! Earth was far > > warmer in 2006 and 2007 than now, we have gotten colder. > > Look at the rising sea level and tell me it's just not people > peeing more. > > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... 2 millimeters a year is not exactly a flood. In fact it is right in line with the rise since the beginning of the meltdown that ended the younger dryas glaciation. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Benj on 28 Jun 2010 18:07
On Jun 26, 3:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Look at the rising sea level and tell me it's just not people > peeing more. > > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0... Sam do you remember the famous "mouse painting" faked cancer data incident? That man got drummed out of science for lying and faking data. And that is EXACTLY what YOU deserve. The likes of you have NO place in science. Faked data and fudged "explanations" designed to fool a gullible public isn't science. It isn't even ethical politics! Your chart that purports to show the "dangerous" "rising sea level" is of course completely normal and just represents the tail end of the ice age. Hey "Sam" once upon a time didn't you read about the ice age ending in a freshman book? So why don't we take a look at non-"carefully selected" data, shall we? http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png OH MY! Look at that! How different is the impression from chart you showed? Post-Galcial sea level rises are not accelerating from the industrial revolution! They are tapering off just as you'd expect from post-glacial temperature stabilization. "Sam Wormley" This shows your data is FAKE. It shows you to be a LIAR! It shows you purposely attempting to perpetrate FRAUD upon the public. The likes of you have NO place in science. If you are a teacher you need to be fired at once. If not, you need any degrees (if any) recinded by the granting institutions. And if you work in an industrial lab you should be at once transfered to the sales department. SHAME, SHAME ON YOU! You bring shame on all of us working in science. But have no fear "Sam", even without your job, credentials or credibility, you've STILL "got what it takes" to run for President of the United States! [or maybe manage a BP oil rig] |