Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Roving rabbit on 20 Feb 2010 16:29 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:14:48 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote: > >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >>> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the >>> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, >>> those details being: >>> >>> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. >> Lie #1 >> >>> 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. >> Lie #2 >> >>> 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. >> Lie #3 >> >>> 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. >> Lie #4 >> >>> 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. >> Lie #5 >> >> >>> Gawd, Humans are a gullible species. I can't believe you fell for AGW. >> Check that iphone app from www.skepticalscience.com, I love it. >> >> Q > > The "iPhone app" is still using Jones lies. Even Jones now admits that > there has been no warming since 1995. So, your "app" is just stupid > propaganda that made a fool out of you. Uh uh, Jones did not say that, you are lying again. Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 17:34 On 2/20/10 1:30 PM, Last Post wrote: > Then where is it [proof of global warming]? > Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 � 0.18 �C (1.33 � 0.32 �F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. > RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ > > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases > http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm > > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > > Global Warming (Overview from Wikipedia) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming > > NOAA Climate Monitoring > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > 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-trends.gif > > And accompanying Sea Level Rise > http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png >
From: jimp on 20 Feb 2010 18:02 In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/20/10 1:30 PM, Last Post wrote: >> Then where is it [proof of global warming]? >> > > Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's > near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected > continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 > ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. Now how would we know that to 2 decimal places when the reporting stations used have changed significantly in location, surroundings and number? I would suggest reading "How to Lie with Statistics" and "An Introduction to Experimentation". -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 18:31 On 2/20/10 5:02 PM, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/20/10 1:30 PM, Last Post wrote: >>> Then where is it [proof of global warming]? >>> >> >> Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's >> near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected >> continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 >> ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. > > Now how would we know that to 2 decimal places when the reporting stations > used have changed significantly in location, surroundings and number? > > I would suggest reading "How to Lie with Statistics" and "An Introduction > to Experimentation". > > From your comment I think it is you that needs to read your recommendations. I'll add Taylor's "An introduction to Error Analysis", Elzey's "A first Reader in Statistics" 2nd ed, and my 8th edition of Snedecor's "Statistical Methods".
From: I M on 20 Feb 2010 19:15
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:55:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 2/20/10 12:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:43:01 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >>> On 2/19/10 11:37 PM, Last Post wrote: >>>> ø The issue is really irrelevant. >>>> Nobody can control the wind >>>> Nobody can control the rain or snow >>>> Nobody (collectively) can control climate. Global temps are within >>>> natural variations Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation Get >>>> used to it!! >>> >>> >>> >>> Many of your arguments are addressed and rebutted in this document: >>> >>> http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1- >> Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf >>> >>> Give it a read and follow the references. >> >> More left wing sociopathic bullshit being passed off as science. >> > > Actually this is commentary backed up by science. >> http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf The subject matter is not science, it is slander, slander can not be science. |