The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Bill Ward on 23 Nov 2008 10:47 On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:03:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 23 nov, 05:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:09:04 +0000, Eeyore wrote: >> >> > Bill Ward wrote: >> >> >> krw wrote: >> >> > bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com says... >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:13:45 -0800, a7yvm109gf5d1 wrote: >> >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> z wrote: >> >> >> >> > Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th >> >> >> >> > highest >> >> >> >> >> But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! >> >> >> >> >> Graham >> >> >> >> > That's absurd. Science works by self-correction mechanisms like >> >> >> > this. >> >> >> >> But that's exactly the point. They didn't correct themselves. >> >> >> They posted incorrect data which was found and corrected by >> >> >> amateurs, and it's not the first time. >> >> >> > Ever notice that all the "errors" are in one direction? >> >> >> Strange, isn't it? What are the odds on that happening by chance? >> >> > Ever heard of 'loaded dice' ? >> >> > I reckon it's the MORAL DUTY of every decent engineer and scientist >> > with a clear perspective to crush the AGW lie in 2009. >> >> > Also I'd like to see ANY politician or scientist who backed it barred >> > from office for not less than 10 years. And see the Nobel committee >> > withdraw Gore's fraudulent 'prize'. And his comic film sent to a >> > 'memory hole' except for one copy where we can examine how almost the >> > entire world was misled by a bunch of freaks, chancers and >> > opportunists. >> >> Oh, I don't know about censoring it. With the right laugh track, it >> might be a campy hit. In five years, it'll be a big joke, and no one >> will admit ever believing it, just like the now denied global cooling >> fiasco. > > The "global cooling fiasco" didn't envisage global cooling, but rather > local cooling around the North Atlantic if the Gulf Stream turned off - as > has happened in the recent geolgical past (search on Younger Dryas). > > The Gulf Stream was observed to have decreased by about 30% from earlier > flow rates, suggesting that it might be in the process of shutting down > completely > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398 Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm <begin excerpt> There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. <end excerpt> There's more... Here's the original, with graphics: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf > > but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing down > any more. > > Do try to get your facts right. Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish.
From: bill.sloman on 23 Nov 2008 11:03 On 23 nov, 03:56, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Whata Fool wrote: > > a7yvm109gf...(a)netzero.com wrote: > > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> z wrote: > > >> > Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th highest > > > >> But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! > > > >That's absurd. Science works by self-correction mechanisms like this. > > > No, science doesn't work by screwups caused by incompetents > > in a big rush to release the latest boring averaged numbers. > > Oh and trying to deny the MWP and LIA.http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm Check out http://www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 and get the corrected version of Loehle's paper. You will note that of his 18 proxy sites, only two are in the southern hemisphere, and both of those in South Africa. Of the remaining sixteen, two are in China and two in Indonesia, while the rest are spread around the North Atlantic. There's no sign of the medieval warm period and the little ice age in the Tasmanian tree-ring record so Loehle's claim to be reconstructing global temperature variation has to be viewed with a certain scepticism. It is noting the the journal - Energy and Environment - where Loehle published, is well known for publishing lots of contrarian papers. It is published by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvments Inc. which is funded by some 78 forest product companies. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/national_council_for_air_and_stream_improvement.html -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 23 Nov 2008 11:40 On 23 nov, 16:47, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:03:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 23 nov, 05:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:09:04 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > > >> > Bill Ward wrote: > > >> >> krw wrote: > >> >> > bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com says... > >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:13:45 -0800, a7yvm109gf5d1 wrote: > >> >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> z wrote: > >> >> >> >> > Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th > >> >> >> >> > highest > > >> >> >> >> But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! > > >> >> >> >> Graham > > >> >> >> > That's absurd. Science works by self-correction mechanisms like > >> >> >> > this. > > >> >> >> But that's exactly the point. They didn't correct themselves. > >> >> >> They posted incorrect data which was found and corrected by > >> >> >> amateurs, and it's not the first time. > > >> >> > Ever notice that all the "errors" are in one direction? > > >> >> Strange, isn't it? What are the odds on that happening by chance? > > >> > Ever heard of 'loaded dice' ? > > >> > I reckon it's the MORAL DUTY of every decent engineer and scientist > >> > with a clear perspective to crush the AGW lie in 2009. > > >> > Also I'd like to see ANY politician or scientist who backed it barred > >> > from office for not less than 10 years. And see the Nobel committee > >> > withdraw Gore's fraudulent 'prize'. And his comic film sent to a > >> > 'memory hole' except for one copy where we can examine how almost the > >> > entire world was misled by a bunch of freaks, chancers and > >> > opportunists. > > >> Oh, I don't know about censoring it. With the right laugh track, it > >> might be a campy hit. In five years, it'll be a big joke, and no one > >> will admit ever believing it, just like the now denied global cooling > >> fiasco. > > > The "global cooling fiasco" didn't envisage global cooling, but rather > > local cooling around the North Atlantic if the Gulf Stream turned off - as > > has happened in the recent geolgical past (search on Younger Dryas). > > > The Gulf Stream was observed to have decreased by about 30% from earlier > > flow rates, suggesting that it might be in the process of shutting down > > completely > > >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398 > > Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: > > http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm > > <begin excerpt> > > There are ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to > change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline > in food production with serious political implications for just about > every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, > perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact > are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the > North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas > parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia > where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the > monsoon. > > The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate > so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In > England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks > since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at > up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature > around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree a fraction that > in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most > devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more > than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in 13 > U.S. states. > > To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance > signs of fundamental changes in the worlds weather. The central fact is > that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, > the earths climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree > about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its > specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous > in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the > rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the > pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major > climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide > scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, > because the global patterns of food production and population that have > evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century. > > A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National > Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in > average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and > 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos > indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in > the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA > scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the > continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. > > <end excerpt> > > There's more... > > Here's the original, with graphics: > > http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf > > > but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing down > > any more. > > > Do try to get your facts right. > > Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish. Scarcely. The cooling was real enough, if insignificant - and probably had something to do with sulphur-dioxide-generated haze, which went away when we tackled acid rain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png I was giving you a little more credit than you deserve in your selection of "fiascos". The potential problem with the Gulf Stream has had a good deal of exposure recently which is more than can be said for the 1975 scare story, which got very little attention at the time. We did know - back then - that we were overdue for another Ice Age, but the story didn't include any convincing mechanism to explain the cooling (which the Gulf Stream story does have) which made it easier to dismiss as the premature alarmism that it has turned out to be. Anthropogenic global warming has much better experimental support (not that Eeyore can understand any of it). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Ward on 23 Nov 2008 13:12 On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:20:23 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 23 nov, 15:02, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: >> > > > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:21:04 +0000, Eeyore wrote: >> > > > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: >> > > > >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:00:00 +0000, Me wrote: ... >> > > > >> > Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications >> > > > >> > in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But >> > > > >> > whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the >> > > > >> > world's governments to embark on some of the most costly >> > > > >> > economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which >> > > > >> > may actually not exist, is a question which should give us >> > > > >> > all pause for thought. >> > > > >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/o... >> >> > > > >> Hear, Hear! >> >> > > > > Crikey ! You do know it's a right wing paper I hope ? >> > > > > ;~) >> >> > > > That's irrelevant when what they're saying is true. >> >> > > I was just pulling your leg for fun ! ;~) >> >> > > Yes, even right-wingers can be right some of the time. You know as >> > > Parliament debated the latest > Climate Change Bill here in the UK >> > > as snow fell on the roof for the first >> > time that early in the year > since 1922 it was our former >> > Conservative MP for St Albans who queried the basis of it all. > >> > Previously I had no respect for the man other than he helped my g/f >> > get her new car put right by BL > when the dealers couldn't. >> >> > > The Speaker of the House did what ? He told him to 'shut up' ! I >> > > thought Parliament was for > debate. >> >> > Informed debate. Your former MP for St. Albans seems to be as ill- >> > informed as you are, and the Speaker of the House does seem to be >> > better-informed (which wouldn't be difficult). >> >> The Slow Man wants to stifle debate. >> >> Yes, that fits the picture. > > I'd love it if Graham learned enough to take part in a real debate. All he > can manage is pointing to bogus and irrelevant authorities - and he hasn't > even bothered going that far here, since he is effectively setting himself > up as his own (thoroughly bogus) authority on what constitutes debate. Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly.
From: Bill Ward on 23 Nov 2008 13:26
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:40:57 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 23 nov, 16:47, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:03:45 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On 23 nov, 05:33, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:09:04 +0000, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> > Bill Ward wrote: >> >> >> >> krw wrote: >> >> >> > bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com says... >> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:13:45 -0800, a7yvm109gf5d1 wrote: >> >> >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> z wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as >> >> >> >> >> > 5th highest >> >> >> >> >> >> But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! >> >> >> >> >> >> Graham >> >> >> >> >> > That's absurd. Science works by self-correction mechanisms >> >> >> >> > like this. >> >> >> >> >> But that's exactly the point. They didn't correct themselves. >> >> >> >> They posted incorrect data which was found and corrected by >> >> >> >> amateurs, and it's not the first time. >> >> >> >> > Ever notice that all the "errors" are in one direction? >> >> >> >> Strange, isn't it? What are the odds on that happening by >> >> >> chance? >> >> >> > Ever heard of 'loaded dice' ? >> >> >> > I reckon it's the MORAL DUTY of every decent engineer and scientist >> >> > with a clear perspective to crush the AGW lie in 2009. >> >> >> > Also I'd like to see ANY politician or scientist who backed it >> >> > barred from office for not less than 10 years. And see the Nobel >> >> > committee withdraw Gore's fraudulent 'prize'. And his comic film >> >> > sent to a 'memory hole' except for one copy where we can examine >> >> > how almost the entire world was misled by a bunch of freaks, >> >> > chancers and opportunists. >> >> >> Oh, I don't know about censoring it. With the right laugh track, it >> >> might be a campy hit. In five years, it'll be a big joke, and no >> >> one will admit ever believing it, just like the now denied global >> >> cooling fiasco. >> >> > The "global cooling fiasco" didn't envisage global cooling, but rather >> > local cooling around the North Atlantic if the Gulf Stream turned off >> > - as has happened in the recent geolgical past (search on Younger >> > Dryas). >> >> > The Gulf Stream was observed to have decreased by about 30% from >> > earlier flow rates, suggesting that it might be in the process of >> > shutting down completely >> >> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398 >> >> Wrong fiasco. I meant this one: >> >> http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm >> >> <begin excerpt> >> >> There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun >> to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic >> decline in food production – with serious political implications for >> just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin >> quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel >> its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the >> U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient >> tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and >> Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains >> brought by the monsoon. >> >> The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate >> so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In >> England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two >> weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production >> estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the >> average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a >> degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and >> desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes >> ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half >> a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. >> >> To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance >> signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact >> is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild >> conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. >> Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, >> as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But >> they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce >> agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic >> change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting >> famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force >> economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent >> report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global >> patterns of food production and population that have evolved are >> implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” >> >> A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National >> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree >> in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 >> and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite >> photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow >> cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two >> NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in >> the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. >> >> <end excerpt> >> >> There's more... >> >> Here's the original, with graphics: >> >> http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf >> >> > but subsequent observations doesn't suggest that it is to slowing down >> > any more. >> >> > Do try to get your facts right. >> >> Right about now, you should be feeling a bit foolish. > > Scarcely. The cooling was real enough, if insignificant - and probably had > something to do with sulphur-dioxide-generated haze, which went away when > we tackled acid rain. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png > > I was giving you a little more credit than you deserve in your selection > of "fiascos". The potential problem with the Gulf Stream has had a good > deal of exposure recently which is more than can be said for the 1975 > scare story, which got very little attention at the time. We did know - > back then - that we were overdue for another Ice Age, but the story didn't > include any convincing mechanism to explain the cooling (which the Gulf > Stream story does have) which made it easier to dismiss as the premature > alarmism that it has turned out to be. > > Anthropogenic global warming has much better experimental support (not > that Eeyore can understand any of it). OK then, why don't you explain in your own words the science that you think Graham doesn't understand. Show us the data and analysis that convinces you that CO2 significantly affects surface temperatures. Remember that climate models yield only the results of the included assumptions, not data or evidence. |