Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 19:50 On 2/20/10 6:15 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:55:05 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> >> >> 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. > A) Global warming: • Al Global temperature cannot be calculated because of unreliable measurements • A2 Global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island effect • A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al "hockey stick" curve) has proved to be incorrect • A4 Satellite data show no warming of the troposphere In contrast to model predictions • A5 Sea level isn't rising everywhere • A6 There Is no apparent Increase of extreme events • A7 In earlier times the climate was much warmer than today B) Forcing factors: • B1 Other factors have potent ally caused the present warming • B2 Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, CO2 is unimportant • B3 Climate change is driven by the sun • B4 Climate change is driven by cosmic rays • 05 Anthropogenic CO, emissions are much smaller than natural CO2 emissions • B6 Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gases than human activities • B7 There was global cooling between 1940 and 1970 although CO2 concentration increased C) Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Cl CO2 measurements In Ice cores are not reliable • C2 CO2 increase is just the result of temperature change • C3 CO2 is just a fertilizer for plants and therefore positive • C4 The observed increase in CO, IS much smaller than assumed In climate models • C5 The greenhouse effect of CO, is small because CO, absorption bands are saturated > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf
From: jimp on 20 Feb 2010 21:32 Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 you comment I think it is you that needs to read your > recommendations. I'll add Taylors' "An introduction to Error > Analysis", Elzey's "A first Reader in Statistics" 2nd ed, and > my 8th edition od Snedecor's "Statistical Methods". I read them a long time ago as well as spent some time involved the concepts of accuracy, repeatability, and the resolution of instrumentation, which is why I laugh at your numbers. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 23:39 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:29:02 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote: > 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 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn- Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data- organised.html Begin Quote: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By Jonathan Petre Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010 * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing * There has been no global warming since 1995 * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes End quote. Don't worry, you can always cover up that you're a liar by pretending to be pig-ignorant and unable to tie two concepts together. It appears you are quite credible in that regard, and can really pull off "stupid" as a cover for being a lying troll.
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 23:42 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:00:11 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/20/10 12:45 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> Now Jones even ADMITS there has been no warming since 1995, so you >> don't even have the "correlation proves causation" fallacy as an >> excuse. > > Of course, you are wrong Marvin! There certainly have been global > warming since 1995--That's in that data. You are in denial and not > even questioning your reasoning. > I keep pointing out the utter stupidity in your quoting the damned lies of the frauds to vindicate the damned lies of the frauds. Jones admits there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn- Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data- organised.html "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" Deal with it instead of being a denial bot.
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 23:44
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:09:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/20/10 1:23 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > > >> Don't mess with Sam Wormley. >> You'll get phrenic distortion and have to pay your doctor after a while >> of reading his BS. >> That isn't worth the issue. > > It might even be worth not posting at all to sci.physics and > sci.astro.amateur, as Wormley counters with science references. Are you really that delusional? |