Hackers Catch Prove Global Warming Fraud
in [Physics]
|
From: Marvin the Martian on 24 Nov 2009 21:42 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > Can understand the science? > > Can you understand the science, Marvin? Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be obvious bullshit to any real scientist. 1) The Chemistry of equilibrium said we didn't put the CO2 there. 2) "Correlation proves causation" is a fallacy. 3) Appeal to consensus is a fallacy. 4) Appeal to authority is a fallacy. 5) There is a stronger correlation to solar cycle, and there is NO WAY CO2 can be a cause of solar cycle. It MUST be an effect to a common cause. 6) Svensmark proved the common cause in two famous papers. His hypothesis predicted, and was consistent with the last 4.5 BILLION years of climate data. Those were just some of the points I hit on. Posers pretending to be scientist like yourself only come back with stupid snide remarks, while running away from the scientific issues. When faced with the smoking gun proving it was all a fraud, all you can do is cast some insults to defend this stupid lie.
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Nov 2009 23:16 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > > >> Can understand the science? >> >> Can you understand the science, Marvin? > > Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be > obvious bullshit to any real scientist. > The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been known for a long time. You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously, Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php Also from today's meeting I attended: Presentation of Dr. Eugene S. Takleâs White Paper, âAssessment of Potential Impacts of Climate Changes on Iowa Using Current Trends and Future Projectionsâ.
From: Bernd Felsche on 25 Nov 2009 10:44 Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >Marvin the Martian wrote: >> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be >> obvious bullshit to any real scientist. > The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been > known for a long time. > You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously, > Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at. > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php Seriously? From 1079108576.txt of the leaked FOIA emails: In 2004 > Chick Keller wrote: ... >> I also think people need to come to understand that the >> scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don't >> understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea >> interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect >> effects. The list is long. ... 1255523796.txt 14 Oct 2009 Kevin Trenberth: How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! 1255530325.txt 14 Oct 2009 Michael Mann responding: Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it? 1255532032.txt 14 Oct 2009 From: Michael Mann <mann(a)meteo.psu.edu> To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert(a)ucar.edu> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be disagreement, mike On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Mike Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it. Kevin 1255550975.txt 14 Oct 2009 Tom Wigley: Kevin, I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking. Well, as long as "the science is settled". "Travesty" is too flattering a word. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Nov 2009 10:56 Bernd Felsche wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Marvin the Martian wrote: > >>> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be >>> obvious bullshit to any real scientist. > >> The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been >> known for a long time. > >> You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously, >> Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at. >> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > Seriously? > > From 1079108576.txt of the leaked FOIA emails: > In 2004 > > Chick Keller wrote: > ... > >> I also think people need to come to understand that the > >> scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don't > >> understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea > >> interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect > >> effects. The list is long. ... > > 1255523796.txt 14 Oct 2009 > Kevin Trenberth: > How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are > no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether > clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not > close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can > not account for what is happening in the climate system > makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as > we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! > It is a travesty! > > 1255530325.txt 14 Oct 2009 > Michael Mann responding: > Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I > sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface > cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the > CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within > it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises > the interesting question, is there something going on here > w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with > the modes of internal variability that leads to similar > temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure > that this has been addressed--has it? > > 1255532032.txt 14 Oct 2009 > From: Michael Mann <mann(a)meteo.psu.edu> > To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert(a)ucar.edu> > Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate > > thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is > asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature > anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections > of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been > fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we > can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the > danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, > so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to > clarify where we all agree, and where there may be > disagreement, > > mike > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, > Kevin Trenberth wrote: > > Mike > Here are some of the issues as I see them: > Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. > What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We > know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and > a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El > Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? > Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are > major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with > ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina > (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change > overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra > rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation > rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land > temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting > evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and > should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track > it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately > wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are > also lacking although some of that may be related to the > ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is > not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes > back to haunt us later and so we should know about it. > Kevin > > 1255550975.txt 14 Oct 2009 > Tom Wigley: > > Kevin, > > I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't > account for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say > "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going". In > my eyes these are two different things -- the second relates > to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is > still lacking. > > Well, as long as "the science is settled". > > "Travesty" is too flattering a word. What does the real science say, Bernd? I take it you hadn't heard--Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec Abstract The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia. Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
From: Marvin the Martian on 25 Nov 2009 20:44
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:16:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34:24 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> >>> Can understand the science? >>> >>> Can you understand the science, Marvin? >> >> Yes. I explained some of the many reasons why global warming should be >> obvious bullshit to any real scientist. >> >> > The greenhouse gas effect of CO2, O3, CH4, H2O and N2O have been > known for a long time. And it has been known a long time that of those, only H2O has any significant greenhouse potential. The others add trivial amounts of warming. It's like saying that because Sodium is paramagnetic, it clings to a common electromagnet. No. This is non-science. Physics deals with numbers. Frauds deal in lies, distortions and half truths. > You really ought to start taking global climate change seriously, > Marvin. Here is a resource for you to look at. > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > Also from today's meeting I attended: Presentation of Dr. Eugene S. > Takle's White Paper, “Assessment of Potential Impacts of Climate > Changes on Iowa Using Current Trends and Future Projections”. Gibberish. The latter is one big "appeal to effects" fallacy based on a lie. |