Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?
From: TUKA on 2 Jan 2010 09:09 On 2010-01-02, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/2/10 8:01 AM, TUKA wrote: >> On 2010-01-02, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local >>>> or global temperatures, please get off my back >>>> unless the weather at least gets up to normal, >>>> the present projected length of this cold spell >>>> is extraordinary. >>>> >>>> You and woger have the cool Pacific to >>>> moderate your weather, I am right in the >>>> path of the Alberta Clippers. >>>> >>> >>> You do like to complain about the cold weather! >>> You probably wish there was.... wait for it.... >>> Global Warming! >>> >> >> What? Wait until all the current predictors are in their graves? >> >> If they couldn't predict the current cooling, then they can't predict >> future heating either. >> > > 1998, 2005 and 2007 being the three hottest years recently > doesn't support your claim of "cooling" According to who? GISS and CRU and the rest of those tainted by Climategate? > > Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > > http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif > Until they release the raw data, no one can believe that. -- An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
From: I M on 2 Jan 2010 09:41 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local >> or global temperatures, please get off my back >> unless the weather at least gets up to normal, >> the present projected length of this cold spell >> is extraordinary. >> >> You and woger have the cool Pacific to >> moderate your weather, I am right in the >> path of the Alberta Clippers. > > You do like to complain about the cold weather! > You probably wish there was.... wait for it.... > Global Warming! No, just local warming, I have no desire to control or affect the lives and comfort of others. This location traditionally had a couple of 100 degree days a year, this year the high for the year was 92, not really enough to dry out the swamp paths.
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jan 2010 09:53 On 1/2/10 8:41 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: >>> There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local >>> or global temperatures, please get off my back >>> unless the weather at least gets up to normal, >>> the present projected length of this cold spell >>> is extraordinary. >>> >>> You and woger have the cool Pacific to >>> moderate your weather, I am right in the >>> path of the Alberta Clippers. >> >> You do like to complain about the cold weather! >> You probably wish there was.... wait for it.... >> Global Warming! > > No, just local warming, I have no desire to > control or affect the lives and comfort of others. > > This location traditionally had a couple > of 100 degree days a year, this year the high > for the year was 92, not really enough to dry > out the swamp paths. > Can't say for your location, but in Iowa one result of global warming is an increase in rainfall and an increase in relative humidity and dewpoint. That has the effect of decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and increasing low temperaturs at night (less cooling). Here's some data from Iowa State University http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html More from University of Iowa http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
From: I M on 2 Jan 2010 09:54 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:47:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/2/10 7:26 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:50:17 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> > >>> >>> Ref: http://dichionary.reference.com/search?q=parrot >>> >>> par·rot >>> >>> 1. One who teaches or instructs; one whose business or occupation >>> is to instruct others; an instructor; a tutor. >>> >>> 2. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, >>> especially a natural or physical science. >>> >>> Source: The American Heritige® Dichionary of the English Language, >>> Fourth Edition >>> Copyright © 2000 by Houghtin Mifflen Company. >>> Published by Houghtin Mifflen Company. All rights reserved. >> >> >> And you teach totally certain science? >> > > Science is a process... and does not strive to claim "certainty". And AGW is a process, to pull the wool over the eyes of people that don't suspect the do-gooders are actually high powered con men. If Hansen were to use raw weather data, I could try to understand what is going on, but as long as every number is modified for one reason or another, I have no confidence, and that makes me more of a skeptic than I would normally be when my observations do not match the published data. For 35 years it was thought radar could detect an aircraft approaching, then all of a sudden, things changed. How could so many have been so .... what word should I use?
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jan 2010 10:00
On 1/2/10 8:54 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: > > If Hansen were to use raw weather data, > I could try to understand what is going on, > but as long as every number is modified for > one reason or another, I have no confidence, > and that makes me more of a skeptic than > I would normally be when my observations > do not match the published data. Speaking of your buddy, Hanson, here are slides from Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf |