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: I M on 2 Jan 2010 10:24 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:07:19 -0600, 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" > > Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase > >http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif And 1932, 1934, and 1952 were just as hot, at least before the books were cooked. My thoughts are "just why did anybody settle down where it gets so cold?". Most of the "civilized" industrial world has an average temperature lower than the published global average, and here we see idiot activists wanting us to reduce the amount of heating fuel used.
From: I M on 2 Jan 2010 10:44 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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). You are nuts, aren't you? :-) Decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and increasing low temperatures at night, how awful, how will you survive? The sun is peeking out now, it is still in the teens F, I am evaporating 3 gallons of water with a steam humidifier but I have blood in my nose from the dry air ( won't try to explain the issue of cold air exchange causing discomfort and disease now). >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 So it isn't getting hotter, it just isn't getting as cold? And somehow you are sure the whole world is suffering the same horrors? Can't you find a more useless agenda to pursue? What is this, applying the Peter Principle to the entire scientific world?
From: I M on 2 Jan 2010 10:47 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:00:50 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 Please check the name spelling, when I am joking I get it wrong on purpose, but you should never get it wrong in a reference.
From: Marvin the Martian on 2 Jan 2010 11:53 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:09:03 -0600, TUKA wrote: > According to who? GISS and CRU and the rest of those tainted by > Climategate? Not tainted. Utterly discredited as frauds, liars, even criminals for evading the Freedom of Information act. >> 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. That would be neat, since they destroyed it so no one could see it.
From: Marvin the Martian on 2 Jan 2010 12:00
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: < one big post hoc fallacy snipped > You know, real scientist try NOT to make a post hoc fallacy. Columbus got the Indians to feed him and his crew by telling them that if they didn't feed them, the gods would eat the moon. Columbus knew from his ephemerids that there was going to be a lunar eclipse. The Indians were totally fooled. "You're not feeding us, and the moon is being eaten. Ergo, your not feeding us has caused the moon to be eaten". Bad logic. Pity the Indians had never heard of logic. This is an example of what the AGWers are doing. Only since it's pretty damned obvious that mean global temperature ISN'T increasing, they now say that ANY CHANGE, up, down or sideways, is caused by man. It is so damned stupid that it would be funny that anyone would even utter such silliness, but people FALL for this foolishness. |