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: Sam Wormley on 31 Dec 2009 17:05 On 12/31/09 3:22 PM, Spencer Spindrift wrote: > On Dec 29, 9:00 pm, "Ouroboros Rex"<i...(a)casual.com> wrote: >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote: >>>>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. > >>>> To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word >>>> salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this; >>>> IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often. >> >>>> You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the >>>> real problem. > >>> Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a >>> working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to >>> promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big >>> funded research projects for engineers and physicist. If you >>> "discover" hot fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone >>> is unemployed. No way are we going to get hot fusion because it would >>> kill the golden goose. >> > Why do all my posts on this topic disappear into cyberspace? Could it > be because I bring up the taboo subject of overpopulation as the true > cause of climate change and advocate a death rate solution? If this > mss. vanishes I'll become a conspiracy k00k! > > Spencer Primate I could be that your news server or your news client don't retain things for very long. Have you some real physics to discuss?
From: Benj on 31 Dec 2009 17:14 On Dec 29, 8:50 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Google is no reference to original data, Schmock! > > Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can > help one find references. Why are you being so childish? Why are you being such a Club of Rome shill? Plan on hitting the AGW money big? Why do you only use Google to reference your fellow shills including those obvious ones in the APS making such idiotic public statements as CO2 causing global warming as "incontrovertible". And yet even the IPCC has to wave hands and come up with equally nonsensical "feedback" theories to explain how CO2 is even capable of any significant change in climate. What is clear is that science has been taken over at the top through the likes of the leadership of the IPCC and APS for political purposes. And it is also clear that you, Sam the Sham, are part of that political effort. All of you non-science fraudsters quoting each other will fool nobody here. Take your "proof" to some Washington DC press conference instead. They'll eat it up.
From: I M on 31 Dec 2009 17:16 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:30:30 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/30/09 10:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> >> Global Warming has become a big joke, >> all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always >> been a joke. > > You really ought to be taking the global climate change > seriously. You keep saying that to everybody, every time it gets colder than normal everybody says it must be Global Warming. > Seriously! Why are you wasting your time > poking holes at it? I am not wasting my time, I am searching for truth in science, and not finding it in any of the AGW discussions or even on the major government or school lab sites. Do you consider me saying that GHGs are the only thing that cools the atmosphere is "poking holes in Global Warming alarmism"? >CO2 increase, That is not climate change. >Global Temperature increase, Sea Level >increase, are all consistent with each other. And you are totally convinced it will continue as long as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase? >Real >impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather >patterns, shifting seasons and melting ice. 1998, the supposedly warmest year seems to have been pretty food for agriculture. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-18218806.html And there will likely be years with more Atlantic hurricanes than 2009. >The global data CLEARLY shows: > >Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 > http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png > 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 That is the dumbest and least professional graphic on the subject, did you upload it? >And accompanying Sea Level Rise > >http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png With a large difference in sea level between the two oceans, any "measurement" should be just an estimate; You are always blowing off about how science is so settled, please explain the following statement and tell us how this is handled in global sea level measurements claimed to be precise; "In 1883 it was realized that the tide level at the Pacific side was almost 19 feet higher than the Atlantic side." http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/camerica/pncanal.htm [[[ Note that is 19 feet, not 1.9 ]]] >There are many sources of good data > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php Why not the hadcru that shows a plunging plot; http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html >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 > >Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change > http://hfranzen.org/ > http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf The claim that half the flux returns to Earth is bogus, is there some reason the AGW crowd can't write "surface", is it because they know that none of the high altitude flux makes it to the surface, it is absorbed on the way down and re-radiated, with most of it ending up being re-radiated again and again in the atmosphere and then to space. What will it take to get writers to say that the primary role of GreenHouse Gases is to cool the atmosphere and that almost all the GreenHouse Gas is due to water vapor in the troposphere, and to O2 and O3 in the stratosphere. Do you ever think a thought about things you didn't learn reading or listening to? Really, I have been attending presentations in college auditoriums and public halls since the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate Change is about the dumbest of all. Only one way to convince me, real easy, just give me a year warmer than 1998.
From: Benj on 31 Dec 2009 17:19 On Dec 29, 8:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s. > My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin! > > Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences > since the 1950s! You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it, that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs are "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of progress.
From: Sam Wormley on 31 Dec 2009 17:28
On 12/31/09 4:16 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > > Really, I have been attending presentations > in college auditoriums and public halls since > the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate > Change is about the dumbest of all. That make you one old fart, doesn't it! > Only one way to convince me, real easy, > just give me a year warmer than 1998. > Published in 2006 http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html |