|
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
"NotNow" wrote in message
... Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm Scientists? You're relying on scientists??? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you? Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science. Wake up, Loogy. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm Common dreams? You've got that right. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm Common dreams? You've got that right. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model, that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm Common dreams? You've got that right. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model, that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING. By golly, maybe there IS a way to 'prove' pigs can fly! -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast. Click on the Senate Testimony link. http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...tions-not-co2/ Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo# Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are Earth's heat sink. As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. It's very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. This surface water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with respect to the actual local and/or global temperature. We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is the Sun. It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences, mass coronal ejections and solar flares. The high magnetic energy components of these various solar events are very coincident with Earth weather and weather patterns. One of the more interesting studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it, studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather patterns. It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles - basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. Oddly, these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term Earth weather patterns. Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm Common dreams? You've got that right. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model, that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING. Er..that's what a mathematical/statistical model is supposed to do. By manipulating variables, you obtain different results - that's why it's called a model. You're taking a given set of parameters and varying them to obtain a result. Now can you develop a model that will produce the results you want? Certainly - it's easy enough to do if the parameters and data sets are limited and confined to already established results. A good exampe is Dr Michael Mann's GRL paper (the infamous "hockey stick"), which, in one scientific coup, overturned the whole of climate history. It was an essentially overlaid "graph" based on past temperature max/mins and a set of tree ring data that was tightly controlled. Within these limited data sets, Mann purportedly used a standard analysis methodology called Principal Component Analysis which is a fairly standard type of evaluative tool. PCA utilizes a technique called normalization in which all data sets are normalized within certain parameters. What Mann did was supress the data that did not support his theory and enhanced the data that did. It was totally improper, unethical and unscientific. When the data used, even as limited as it was, is normalized within accepted parameters, the hockey stick goes away. So my point is that you can build a model using standard techniques that will produce a unknown result or you can build a model using parameters outside the accepted technique pool to produce a wanted result. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:49:04 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal... CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997. We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization. Well, supposedly he covered that by saying, "Don't kill the messenger..." The Plum has the same philosophy. Anything can be said, but don't attack the one who made up the bull****. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. Hello? Anybody home? |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 4, 6:14*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. Hello? Anybody home? The resident omniscient one must but be preoccupied. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
|
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On 11/5/09 8:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. Hello? Anybody home? Bugger is looking up the definition of science. Is that what you studied in the marines? I mean, it isn't as if you studied science in college, right? |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 4, 6:29*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you? Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science. Wake up, Loogy. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H There you go, THATS proof positive.....NOT..... |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 4, 7:13*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast. Click on the Senate Testimony link. http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...s-70-of-global... Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo# Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are Earth's heat sink. As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. *It's very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. *This surface water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with respect to the actual local and/or global temperature. We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is the Sun. *It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences, mass coronal ejections and solar flares. *The high magnetic energy components of these various solar events are very coincident with Earth weather and weather patterns. *One of the more interesting studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it, studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather patterns. *It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles - basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. *Oddly, these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term Earth weather patterns. Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sure enough! Now, tell me in the above where it scientifically states without a doubt that man has not aided in global warming. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 4, 9:49*pm, BAR wrote:
In article , says... Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal... CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997. We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization. Uh, Common dreams did nothing more than put the data, BY OTHERS on it's sight.: Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:38:19 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: Sure enough! Now, tell me in the above where it scientifically states without a doubt that man has not aided in global warming. Never mind. Unfortunate - I thought you'd want to actually talk some science and maybe we could have come to some sort of conclusion. I'm not playing the semantics game with you. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Loogypicker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 5, 11:04*am, Keith Nuttle wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. *In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the * settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. *The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Loogy: Are you asking someone to prove a negative? |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
In article 1ea92096-0803-421c-ae9d-d5dbc4ab9014
@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 5, 11:04*am, Keith Nuttle wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. *In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the * settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. *The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Loogy: Are you asking someone to prove a negative? It seems that is a big part of his offense on this issue. Part of the problem is partisanship. He seems to trust "his" scientists over any others, his are right, everyone else is wrong. At least we stopped hearing the "settled science" bull****... For now anyway. -- Wafa free again. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:38:19 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker wrote: Sure enough! Now, tell me in the above where it scientifically states without a doubt that man has not aided in global warming. Never mind. Unfortunate - I thought you'd want to actually talk some science and maybe we could have come to some sort of conclusion. I'm not playing the semantics game with you. "semantics"???? It's the whole argument! |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Tosk wrote:
In article 1ea92096-0803-421c-ae9d-d5dbc4ab9014 @k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 5, 11:04 am, Keith Nuttle wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Loogy: Are you asking someone to prove a negative? It seems that is a big part of his offense on this issue. Part of the problem is partisanship. He seems to trust "his" scientists over any others, his are right, everyone else is wrong. At least we stopped hearing the "settled science" bull****... For now anyway. No, it's not proving a negative. Show me your "science" that states that A) Global Warming is not occuring B) Man's pollution has no affect on global warming. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Frogwatch wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:04 am, Keith Nuttle wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Loogy: Are you asking someone to prove a negative? No. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Again, (and again) no one is saying that cyclic warming/cooling events haven't taken place. BUT, there is lots of data that shows a direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming. It just amazes me that some just shove this data under the table and instead let the republican party talking heads act as their scientists. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Again, (and again) no one is saying that cyclic warming/cooling events haven't taken place. BUT, there is lots of data that shows a direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming. It just amazes me that some just shove this data under the table and instead let the republican party talking heads act as their scientists. These same long term studies show that the changing Carbon Dioxide levels were occurring long before man, started to build the current society. Carbon Dioxide levels are cyclic just like the temperatures. Even the privative climate computer models can not explain the cooling that has occurred in the past 10 years when the Carbon dioxide levels are supposedly raising. IF man knew EVER VARIABLE affecting the climate and he had a SUFFICIENTLY SOPHISTICATED computer model that showed global warming then we should act, until then anything we do is likely to make the situation worst as we don't know what we are doing. We have picked a couple of dozen variables out of millions and are trying to predict the future. It is like me modeling the stock market on my 386 laptop and betting a a million dollars on stocks that my computer says is going up. |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:26:08 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Tosk wrote: In article 1ea92096-0803-421c-ae9d-d5dbc4ab9014 @k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 5, 11:04 am, Keith Nuttle wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Nov 4, 6:14 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact on global warming. If you follow all of the long term sciences such as Archeology, Paleontology, etc. you will see that all of them show the long term cyclic variation in the climate. In fact from those same sciences, the climate is now at a 100k year peak, and is about to take the plunge to a much colder climate. One of the recent studies that confirmed this trend was the study of the settlement in what is now the English Channel and the North Sea. If these algorian and obamodytes really believed in global warming they would be supporting the operations of nuclear plant, be 100% behind the construction of new nuclear plants, and not closing the western waste storage facility. The only possible conclusion from their actions is that climate change is nothing more that a new way to tax the American Voter. Loogy: Are you asking someone to prove a negative? It seems that is a big part of his offense on this issue. Part of the problem is partisanship. He seems to trust "his" scientists over any others, his are right, everyone else is wrong. At least we stopped hearing the "settled science" bull****... For now anyway. No, it's not proving a negative. Show me your "science" that states that A) Global Warming is not occuring B) Man's pollution has no affect on global warming. Loogy, don't the words 'not' and 'no' imply negativity? How can you possibly say you aren't asking for the proof of a negative? If and when you figure out how to do that, let jps know so he can 'prove' there is no God. -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:40:44 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote: On Nov 4, 9:49*pm, BAR wrote: In article , says... Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. *http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal... CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997. We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization. Uh, Common dreams did nothing more than put the data, BY OTHERS on it's sight.: Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Wonder why it wasn't published. Couldn't they pay someone to publish it? Your cite had a definite anti-Bush sentiment not normally found in scientific studies. Did you notice that also? -- Loogy says: Conservative = Good Liberal = Bad I agree. John H |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
|
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
|
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
|
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... No, it's not proving a negative. Show me your "science" that states that A) Global Warming is not occuring Aren't we in cooling phase. My HAVC system only puts out hot or cold, not both at the same time. B) Man's pollution has no affect on global warming. Everytime I exhale or fart am I polluting? Yes. Every time. I'm sure there's a treatment to minimize the latter. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast. Click on the Senate Testimony link. http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...tions-not-co2/ Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo# Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are Earth's heat sink. As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. It's very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. This surface water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with respect to the actual local and/or global temperature. We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is the Sun. It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences, mass coronal ejections and solar flares. The high magnetic energy components of these various solar events are very coincident with Earth weather and weather patterns. One of the more interesting studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it, studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather patterns. It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles - basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. Oddly, these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term Earth weather patterns. Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. Is that what caused the various warm periods and cold periods (greenland settlements, little ice age etc)? I've been wondering what caused those cycles. del |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
wrote in message
... On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote: I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric. As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies fail will fix all of that. It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again. How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or will it be a country like Pakistan? I think we are going to be so economically stressed that we will have to cut back on our foreign military adventures and stop being the middle east policeman. A war will start over there that will quickly go nuclear, the rest of the world will be sucked in to try and stop it and there you go. Where does it start? There are already 3 known nuclear powers in that area and perhaps a couple more knocking on the door. Who know if there are any Soviet weapons on the market that could pop up anywhere. . Take your pick. In real life, it won't take many "nuclear volcanos" to turn back the global warming clock. Compared to even the most crude devices we have now, Nagasaki was just a firecracker. We also knew enough to do air bursts in Japan. I wouldn't count on the current bunch of up and coming nuclear powers to be that sophisticated. Ground bursts are a whole lot dirtier. The only way to prevent a nuclear war among other countries, such as Pak. and India is to be involved. We don't need to be the policeman, but we do need to be a fair arbiter of the truth. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:29:14 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote: Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation I'll condense it for you. 1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2] 1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase. 1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right] 1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3] 1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4] 2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast. Click on the Senate Testimony link. http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...tions-not-co2/ Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo# Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are Earth's heat sink. As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. It's very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. This surface water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with respect to the actual local and/or global temperature. We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is the Sun. It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences, mass coronal ejections and solar flares. The high magnetic energy components of these various solar events are very coincident with Earth weather and weather patterns. One of the more interesting studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it, studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather patterns. It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry pattern in the Northern Hemisphere. There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles - basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. Oddly, these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term Earth weather patterns. Ok, your turn - let's talk some science. Is that what caused the various warm periods and cold periods (greenland settlements, little ice age etc)? I've been wondering what caused those cycles. Normal variations. All oceans have periods of oscillation. What causes these oscillations is primarily solar cycles and orbital extremes. There has been some research that indicates that even minor variations in "top spin" of Earth's axial rotation can cause fluctuations can move the major ocean currents by a couple of hundred miles temporarily. There have been times when you can spot tropical fish, of the sort one sees in the Caribbean, swimming around Fort Adams at the mouth of Narragansett Bay - all due to a shift in the Gulf Stream further inshore. One of the big concerns now is about Arctic Ice and it's so called "retreat". While the global warming crowd is pushing the concept of greenhouse effect, and is the idea that is being pushed hard by the alarmists, some research suggests that this too is part of a normal long term pattern when older ice is replaced by newer ice. Of course this occurs on a larger time scale than 20/30 years. When you investigate a litter in terms of solar activity and Earth's own orbital variations in obliquity and eccentricity due to precession. There also is some newer research into insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variations. Previously, it was thought because of our deep and thick atmosphere, the insolation effect wasn't as pronounced as it would be on planets like Mars and/or Jupiter, but that may be a false assumption given the current solar minimum and it's obvious effects on tropospheric weather patterns. Admittedly, pollution does have some effect at the surface, but it's a huge deep atmosphere with lots going on - the pollution from emissions may be exactly that - pollution with affects humans in other ways, but have little to no effect on the greenhouse effect. I suspect we're going to see some very interesting results very soon in atmospheric modeling as there are some new ways of analyzing deep field data sets coming on line very soon. The atmosphere may not be as complex to model as previously thought and these new techniques may sound the death knell for global warming. Wouldn't that be amusing. :) |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man
On Nov 5, 6:49*pm, BAR wrote:
In article , says... No, it's not proving a negative. Show me your "science" that states that A) Global Warming is not occuring Aren't we in cooling phase. My HAVC system only puts out hot or cold, not both at the same time. B) Man's pollution has no affect on global warming. Everytime I exhale or fart am I polluting? Are you really that ****ing stupid? |
Okay, for the few that still thinks global warming isn't man made:
wrote in message
... On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:54:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:10:26 -0500, John H. wrote: I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric. As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies fail will fix all of that. It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again. How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or will it be a country like Pakistan? I think we are going to be so economically stressed that we will have to cut back on our foreign military adventures and stop being the middle east policeman. A war will start over there that will quickly go nuclear, the rest of the world will be sucked in to try and stop it and there you go. Where does it start? There are already 3 known nuclear powers in that area and perhaps a couple more knocking on the door. Who know if there are any Soviet weapons on the market that could pop up anywhere. . Take your pick. In real life, it won't take many "nuclear volcanos" to turn back the global warming clock. Compared to even the most crude devices we have now, Nagasaki was just a firecracker. We also knew enough to do air bursts in Japan. I wouldn't count on the current bunch of up and coming nuclear powers to be that sophisticated. Ground bursts are a whole lot dirtier. The only way to prevent a nuclear war among other countries, such as Pak. and India is to be involved. We don't need to be the policeman, but we do need to be a fair arbiter of the truth. I bet one of the parties will be Israel. Pakistan and India have hammered out a working peace, really only arguing about a little patch neither are willing to die over. The real center point in a nuclear war in the middle east will be Israel. The only question would be, who shoots first. If the US was economically or politically not strong enough to back Israel up in a conventional war, they might resort to a nuclear counter attack. If that spilled over into Russia on Iran's northern border, it could really get ugly fast. I bet you're right if Iran gets too close to having a nuke. I don't think it would start as a conventional war. It might start as a pre-emptive strike at nuclear facilities in Iran, but if the Israelis do what they did with Iraq's powerplant, then nothing might escalate. But, I don't believe that would be easy to do in Iran, since they've got their facilities spread out all over and I believe they're hardened sites. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com