|
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:02:52 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:54:27 +0700, wrote: On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:03:47 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:32:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:03:51 PM UTC-8, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:09:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd wrote: On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:17:57 PM UTC-8, Gunner Asch wrote: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/0...-for-58-years/ Fascinating...really fascinating..... No, irrelevant. You don't ignore the heat capacity of oceans, soil, and dismiss the temperature of lower atmosphere that's in contact with the oceans and soil, if you want a temperature measurement. That upper-atmosphere data is of such a tiny bit of matter, by comparison, that it can be safely ignored. The temperature of the vacuum of space is measurable; it can't tell you anything about global warming, either. Yet the global temperature has remained unchanged for 58 yrs.. In the last 58 years I recall, it has been cold every winter and warm every summer. What planet are you from? Were you dropped on your head recently, or did you have a stroke? Off your meds? Or simply a Global Warming Zealot who is ****y about the data I provided? Gunner Perhaps he was dropped on his head, or at least it appears that someone was.The reference you gave (above) only shows Troposphere temperatures and a second graph for radiosonde temperatures from 5,000 to 40,000 ft. Air temperature, in other words. Yes and? Or are you thinking that ground temperature will be vastly different and "more accurate" than corresponding air temperatures? Lets see ...big industrial area..lots of pavement parking lots and black asphalt...its going to read very hot..yet across the street...snow on the ground .. So what will the air temperature be above the area? Hummm? I assume that you will be properly amazed to discover that the ground temperature, on a parking lot as you describe, is dissipated very rapidly as one gains altitude and the formula temp loss = ~3.5 degrees (F) per 1000 ft. is generally fairly accurate for altitudes up to about 40,000 ft. So your radiosonde temperatures taken at 40,000 ft will have very little relationship to what the temperature on the surface of your parking lot is. You might try the old example of frying an egg on the pavement. I've actually seen it done in San Antonio during a particularly hot spell. Now if your example of all the high temperature above a red hot parking lot is accurate then people would be frying as they walked across it to get in their car. But more to the point Gunner. You really don't have to ask such stupid questions. The Internet is there and you have access to it and the amazing amounts of information it contains.. What is really surprising is how adept you seem to be in ignoring it. Given that most recording thermometers have been located in ...urban areas, airports just off the flight lines, on asphalt parking lots rather than in rural areas ...what do YOU think the temp readings will show? Humm? The boffins call those areas.."heat islands". Given that until recently, most measurements were made smack dab in the middle of those "heat islands"...just how realistic do you think they are? Hummm? Lets look at an infrared photo from above the Boston area shall we? http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rs...urban_area.png So tell me...which part of the photo has the correct overall temperature? Hummm? Snicker.... http://www.urbanheatislands.com/\ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/1...-temperatures/ You may wish to read this article by a very respected meterologist http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=0ahUKEwib55Xz7bXLAhVG0GMKHe2UAOUQFggxMAM &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friendsofscience.org%2Fasset s%2Fdocuments%2FFoS_Urban%2520Heat%2520Island.pdf& usg=AFQjCNF1MWDH7FlW8-4F-zibGg1Qk-mghw&sig2=kLkf1w7gAXVA_kGsfoCCMw Sorry about the long link..I dont know how to shorten it. Its a PDF file. Get back to me AFTER you read it. And even worse, both charts show a very distinct temperature change from year to year. Of course there is a temperature change from year to year. No two years are ever the same. And? Its the long term average that is used..not one year to the next. Im a dummy...but even I know that. Do you really think that air temperature at 40,000 ft. is a realistic indication of global, or any other sort of, warming? Especially when it varies every year? Yep. Or are you claiming that the temperature measured in downtown Boston should be the calibration point? Really? They say that "Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise", but apparently actually reading one's references before opening one's mouth helps a lot in the "Wise" department. So does knowing something about the subject. Apparently you seem to jump on and wave around data points you have no comprehension about. If Im the self admitted dummy...son..you are as stupid as a stone statue. Gunner --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Cheers, Schweik |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
|
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:06 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message m... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:r102eb14b6vttsoq5offq6q8s30jfpoq79@4ax. com... On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news:n0h1ebl2nmu7l7d4qm61vf4hugvh1fl6cs@4a x.com... On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why was he spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? And if his movie was realistic, why did the Brits ban it from showing in UK schools? And if polar bears were drowning, why didn't they just move with the ice? ;) P.S: Algore finally admitted that was entirely CGI and that he made up the polar bear story. Then again, I just saw another picture of a dead polar bear captioned on yet another AGWK story recently. sigh They just don't get it. Now, your answer: Check the rest of the Earth. When one area loses ice, ice builds in another area. It happens the same way each year with the seasons, but that's called "weather", which is what people are reacting to. Earth is between ice ages and will continue to warm (or remain stable like the past decade+) until the next ice age. Also see these books: _State of Fear_ The excellent fictional book by Michael Crichton which first led me to question the media and global alarmists. _The Skeptical Environmentalist_ Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace) _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_ Chris Horner _Terrestrial Energy_ William Tucker _Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media_ Patrick J. Michaels _Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_ by Peter Huber _Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_ Patrick J. Michaels _The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_ Senator James Inhofe _The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_ Tim Ball _Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax_ Larry Bell http://joannenova.com.au/ What's your point here, Jim? Did you follow the sources quoted in that story? "Everywhere we look, the climate change signal for extreme heat events is becoming stronger," said Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia and lead author of the study. "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." -- "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences": Andrew D. King. -- Ed Huntress How have you practiced reducing your personal carbon footprint before you are forced to? Do you even have a clothesline? Why should I care? And what does it have to do with my question? -- Ed Huntress Have you swallowed the Left's voodoo that these AGW restrictions you support will only punish those evil rich folks who supply you with the energy you depend on, without affecting you personally? --jsw Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science? This is what prompted my question: You've generally been on the anti-AGM side of these discussions, but then you post a link to an article that says, to repeat: "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." This, in an article titled "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences." So this is the question: Have you changed your position, or did you do a Gunner and not read the article you linked to? -- Ed Huntress I can't confirm or deny the validity of AGW. Neither can anyone else in this NG. But it's sometimes entertaining to watch them try. I merely call out the blatant deceptions of its fervent acolytes... In this case, what you were "calling out" was unclear -- unless it's all of Larry's claims and citations. You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." ...while trying to learn to live with the shortages and restrictions that will surely happen if you ever get all you demand. Is there something I'm demanding? If so, I'm unaware of it. This means needing less rather than having more. It looks to me like we have more than ever before. I'm not complaining about it. -- Ed Huntress --jsw You AGW believers collectively. This is what the experts know you should be doing to reduce your personal carbon footprint: http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/ They forgot about hanging laundry outdoors, the heater in an electric dryer is a huge unnecessary waste. Since you have a lathe you can convert round trash barrels ($12 at HD) into inexpensive rain barrels ($100 at HD) and avoid watering your lawn with treated drinking water by threading the barbed end of a hose coupler and mounting it in the lower side wall, with an O ring on the outside and the appropriate stainless nut and washer on the inside. Landscaping fabric over hardware cloth across the top will keep out gutter debris and mosquitos. During the winter I store chainsaw chips and chopped-up tree branches from the yard in the barrels, to use as kindling. Pressing on and clamping a short piece of hose onto the barbs inside might be enough to make the watertight seal, but the inside bottom of the barrel is a difficult place to apply much force. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:46:06 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:45:10 -0800 (PST), whit3rd wrote: On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 5:27:18 PM UTC-8, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why was he spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? Not pertinent to global climate. Observations of glaciation and ice ARE pertinent. Yes indeed they are. Also see these books: [long list] Einstein once was confronted with a pamphlet, 'One Hundred Authors Against Einstein', and mused, "Why a hundred? If I am wrong, one is enough." He didn't bother to read the material, I trust. The fact is, you can get a vanity-press book published for a few dollars, and written for a few cents a word, by a polished prose craftsman. It doesn't have meet any kind of scrutiny or undergo any fact checking. So, find me a bit of writing on the subject IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE, if you expect to be taken seriously. I actually did. You didnt much like it. Gunner If you "actually did" how did you overlook the facts of the matter? Or do you automatically assume that any notion that occurs to you must be a "fact". -- Cheers, Schweik |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:45:49 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message .. . Lets look at an infrared photo from above the Boston area shall we? http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rs...urban_area.png So tell me...which part of the photo has the correct overall temperature? Hummm? Snicker.... http://www.urbanheatislands.com/\ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/1...-temperatures/ If you can follow it, this article explains how CO2 dominates the heat radiation lost to space from the upper atmosphere at certain wavelengths, allowing us to measure its contribution to Earth's energy flow without the confusion from other sources that the maps show. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 "At these levels there is little water vapour and CO2 dominates the energy loss." "Therefore the main physics arguement supporting enhanced global warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 is the in height and thereby lower temperature of the effective radiating level of the atmosphere to space." "As we rise up in the atmosphere so the density falls exponentially and only at heights of 8-9 kms does the atmosphere then become transparent in the main CO2 bands allowing energy loss direct to space." "Feedback Effects" exposes the main weakness of AGW theory, the unproven assumption that water will amplify the admittedly tiny contribution of CO2 to global warming. This is analogous to measuring rainfall by observing the water flowing over a dam. There are too many ways that water can enter the lake, but only one way for it to leave, and the output has to balance the input; the lake can't store much extra water because a small rise in its level greatly increases the flow over the dam. Similarly measuring CO2's radiative emission into space with satellites bypasses the complication of all the ways CO2 receives and -briefly- stores heat from the Earth. CO2 can't permanently trap heat, only modulate its release. --jsw Be that as it may, ice core studies virtually prove that increases in temperature and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been occurring at the same time for something like 400,000 years. While this may not "prove" cause and effect they would certainly make one think that there might be a relationship. -- cheers, John B. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"John B." wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:45:49 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message . .. Lets look at an infrared photo from above the Boston area shall we? http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rs...urban_area.png So tell me...which part of the photo has the correct overall temperature? Hummm? Snicker.... http://www.urbanheatislands.com/\ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/1...-temperatures/ If you can follow it, this article explains how CO2 dominates the heat radiation lost to space from the upper atmosphere at certain wavelengths, allowing us to measure its contribution to Earth's energy flow without the confusion from other sources that the maps show. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 "At these levels there is little water vapour and CO2 dominates the energy loss." "Therefore the main physics arguement supporting enhanced global warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 is the in height and thereby lower temperature of the effective radiating level of the atmosphere to space." "As we rise up in the atmosphere so the density falls exponentially and only at heights of 8-9 kms does the atmosphere then become transparent in the main CO2 bands allowing energy loss direct to space." "Feedback Effects" exposes the main weakness of AGW theory, the unproven assumption that water will amplify the admittedly tiny contribution of CO2 to global warming. This is analogous to measuring rainfall by observing the water flowing over a dam. There are too many ways that water can enter the lake, but only one way for it to leave, and the output has to balance the input; the lake can't store much extra water because a small rise in its level greatly increases the flow over the dam. Similarly measuring CO2's radiative emission into space with satellites bypasses the complication of all the ways CO2 receives and -briefly- stores heat from the Earth. CO2 can't permanently trap heat, only modulate its release. --jsw Be that as it may, ice core studies virtually prove that increases in temperature and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been occurring at the same time for something like 400,000 years. While this may not "prove" cause and effect they would certainly make one think that there might be a relationship. -- cheers, John B. It certainly doesn't prove there was an industrial society filling the air with CO2 400,000 years ago. We can safely assume that the temperature and CO2 variations were natural. http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html I want to see the questions researched honestly and openly, instead of suppressing data that doesn't support prejudices. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." Are you faulting me for -not- suppressing evidence? --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On 3/10/2016 4:03 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Oh , so we ignorant children should just shut up and go play while our "betters" decide what's best for us ? Look asshole , just because I don't have a Phd behind my name doesn't mean I'm stupid . I can read with good comprehension , and just because I believe the sources that disagree with the ADMITTED LIARS doing research on global warming doesn't mean I'm ignorant . It actually *does* mean you're ignorant, because your disagreement is based on ignorance and really stupid politics. You have no *factual* basis for disagreement. You simply look at this in a simplistic, and simple-minded, good guys / bad guys way. Leftists say that global warming is real and anthropogenic, and being a stupid right-wing knuckle-dragger, you reflexively disagree. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:00:54 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." Are you faulting me for -not- suppressing evidence? --jsw Go back to my question: "What is your point?" The evidence in your link is all in favor of AGW. You posted it in response to Larry's anti-AGW comments and his bibliography of denial books. So I asked, reasonably, if you had changed your position. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:00:54 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." Are you faulting me for -not- suppressing evidence? --jsw Go back to my question: "What is your point?" The evidence in your link is all in favor of AGW. You posted it in response to Larry's anti-AGW comments and his bibliography of denial books. So I asked, reasonably, if you had changed your position. -- Ed Huntress My position was never that AGW was false, you had to make it that to be an easier target. I've been exposing the evidence tampering on the pro-AGW side because I'd like to see this important matter investigated impartially. The Believer faction behaves as though dissent against AGW dogma is a personal challenge to the image of superiority they awarded themselves for demonizing the big energy companies. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:06 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message om... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:r102eb14b6vttsoq5offq6q8s30jfpoq79@4ax .com... On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news:n0h1ebl2nmu7l7d4qm61vf4hugvh1fl6cs@4 ax.com... On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why was he spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? And if his movie was realistic, why did the Brits ban it from showing in UK schools? And if polar bears were drowning, why didn't they just move with the ice? ;) P.S: Algore finally admitted that was entirely CGI and that he made up the polar bear story. Then again, I just saw another picture of a dead polar bear captioned on yet another AGWK story recently. sigh They just don't get it. Now, your answer: Check the rest of the Earth. When one area loses ice, ice builds in another area. It happens the same way each year with the seasons, but that's called "weather", which is what people are reacting to. Earth is between ice ages and will continue to warm (or remain stable like the past decade+) until the next ice age. Also see these books: _State of Fear_ The excellent fictional book by Michael Crichton which first led me to question the media and global alarmists. _The Skeptical Environmentalist_ Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace) _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_ Chris Horner _Terrestrial Energy_ William Tucker _Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media_ Patrick J. Michaels _Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_ by Peter Huber _Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_ Patrick J. Michaels _The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_ Senator James Inhofe _The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_ Tim Ball _Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax_ Larry Bell http://joannenova.com.au/ What's your point here, Jim? Did you follow the sources quoted in that story? "Everywhere we look, the climate change signal for extreme heat events is becoming stronger," said Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia and lead author of the study. "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." -- "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences": Andrew D. King. -- Ed Huntress How have you practiced reducing your personal carbon footprint before you are forced to? Do you even have a clothesline? Why should I care? And what does it have to do with my question? -- Ed Huntress Have you swallowed the Left's voodoo that these AGW restrictions you support will only punish those evil rich folks who supply you with the energy you depend on, without affecting you personally? --jsw Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science? This is what prompted my question: You've generally been on the anti-AGM side of these discussions, but then you post a link to an article that says, to repeat: "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." This, in an article titled "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences." So this is the question: Have you changed your position, or did you do a Gunner and not read the article you linked to? -- Ed Huntress I can't confirm or deny the validity of AGW. Neither can anyone else in this NG. But it's sometimes entertaining to watch them try. I merely call out the blatant deceptions of its fervent acolytes... In this case, what you were "calling out" was unclear -- unless it's all of Larry's claims and citations. You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." ...while trying to learn to live with the shortages and restrictions that will surely happen if you ever get all you demand. Is there something I'm demanding? If so, I'm unaware of it. This means needing less rather than having more. It looks to me like we have more than ever before. I'm not complaining about it. -- Ed Huntress --jsw You AGW believers collectively. Let's make something clear: I'm not a "believer" in much of anything. I go with the preponderance of evidence, and I either have it or I don't. In this case, I don't have any. Neither does anyone else on this NG. You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together. My neighbor down the street, a retired PhD meteorologist who was the voice of marine broadcasts for NOAA in NYC for a couple of decades, laughed when I asked him about climatology. He doesn't know, either. But, unlike the people arguing here, he's smart enough, and knowledgable enough, to know that he doesn't know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion. And he did weather every day. So don't lump me with "believers." Believers and disbelievers are mostly delusional fools who can't stand the anxiety of not knowing, so they convince themselves that they do in order to give themselves some anxiety relief and someone to blame -- for anything. I think my opinion on this is very close to that of whoyakidding. The only thing we have to work with is our experience with science and scientists in general, and some knowledge about how often they are right or not. When 95% of them agree on something, they're usually right. So I put my money on the winners. That doesn't mean I "believe." It means I rely on the only rational tool I have to make a decision, should I have to make one. For the most part, I don't have to. This is what the experts know you should be doing to reduce your personal carbon footprint: http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/ If you aren't one of the "AGW believers, collectively," why would you bother? They forgot about hanging laundry outdoors, the heater in an electric dryer is a huge unnecessary waste. I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g Since you have a lathe you can convert round trash barrels ($12 at HD) into inexpensive rain barrels ($100 at HD) and avoid watering your lawn with treated drinking water by threading the barbed end of a hose coupler and mounting it in the lower side wall, with an O ring on the outside and the appropriate stainless nut and washer on the inside. Landscaping fabric over hardware cloth across the top will keep out gutter debris and mosquitos. I'll bet it would. During the winter I store chainsaw chips and chopped-up tree branches from the yard in the barrels, to use as kindling. Pressing on and clamping a short piece of hose onto the barbs inside might be enough to make the watertight seal, but the inside bottom of the barrel is a difficult place to apply much force. --jsw You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer, collectively or individually. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On 3/10/2016 6:36 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:00:54 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." Are you faulting me for -not- suppressing evidence? --jsw Go back to my question: "What is your point?" The evidence in your link is all in favor of AGW. You posted it in response to Larry's anti-AGW comments and his bibliography of denial books. So I asked, reasonably, if you had changed your position. -- Ed Huntress My position was never that AGW was false, you had to make it that to be an easier target. I've been exposing the evidence tampering on the pro-AGW side because I'd like to see this important matter investigated impartially. The Believer faction behaves as though dissent against AGW dogma is a personal challenge to the image of superiority they awarded themselves for demonizing the big energy companies. You're right about that much. There *is* a Believer faction, and they consider any questioning of their dogma in about the same way as Islamist radicals consider any criticism of Islam. The Believers want to wage jihad against skeptics with the same fervor as they do against dogmatic deniers. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer, collectively or individually. -- Ed Huntress I keep hoping to invent something. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:03:27 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Oh , so we ignorant children should just shut up and go play while our "betters" decide what's best for us ? Look asshole , just because I don't have a Phd behind my name doesn't mean I'm stupid . I can read with good comprehension , and just because I believe the sources that disagree with the ADMITTED LIARS doing research on global warming doesn't mean I'm ignorant . You don't know who the liars are, and it's unlikely that you have or ever will have any way to know in your lifetime. The fact that you "believe" in the 5 or 6 percent of climatologists who disagree with the other 95%, in light of what you are unlikely ever to know, tells the world that you aren't making a rational decision. You're either indulging a conspiracy theory or you're going along with a tribe. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:06 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message om... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:r102eb14b6vttsoq5offq6q8s30jfpoq79@4ax .com... On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news:n0h1ebl2nmu7l7d4qm61vf4hugvh1fl6cs@4 ax.com... On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why was he spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? And if his movie was realistic, why did the Brits ban it from showing in UK schools? And if polar bears were drowning, why didn't they just move with the ice? ;) P.S: Algore finally admitted that was entirely CGI and that he made up the polar bear story. Then again, I just saw another picture of a dead polar bear captioned on yet another AGWK story recently. sigh They just don't get it. Now, your answer: Check the rest of the Earth. When one area loses ice, ice builds in another area. It happens the same way each year with the seasons, but that's called "weather", which is what people are reacting to. Earth is between ice ages and will continue to warm (or remain stable like the past decade+) until the next ice age. Also see these books: _State of Fear_ The excellent fictional book by Michael Crichton which first led me to question the media and global alarmists. _The Skeptical Environmentalist_ Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace) _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_ Chris Horner _Terrestrial Energy_ William Tucker _Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media_ Patrick J. Michaels _Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_ by Peter Huber _Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_ Patrick J. Michaels _The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_ Senator James Inhofe _The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_ Tim Ball _Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax_ Larry Bell http://joannenova.com.au/ What's your point here, Jim? Did you follow the sources quoted in that story? "Everywhere we look, the climate change signal for extreme heat events is becoming stronger," said Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia and lead author of the study. "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." -- "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences": Andrew D. King. -- Ed Huntress How have you practiced reducing your personal carbon footprint before you are forced to? Do you even have a clothesline? Why should I care? And what does it have to do with my question? -- Ed Huntress Have you swallowed the Left's voodoo that these AGW restrictions you support will only punish those evil rich folks who supply you with the energy you depend on, without affecting you personally? --jsw Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science? This is what prompted my question: You've generally been on the anti-AGM side of these discussions, but then you post a link to an article that says, to repeat: "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." This, in an article titled "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences." So this is the question: Have you changed your position, or did you do a Gunner and not read the article you linked to? -- Ed Huntress I can't confirm or deny the validity of AGW. Neither can anyone else in this NG. But it's sometimes entertaining to watch them try. I merely call out the blatant deceptions of its fervent acolytes... In this case, what you were "calling out" was unclear -- unless it's all of Larry's claims and citations. You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." ...while trying to learn to live with the shortages and restrictions that will surely happen if you ever get all you demand. Is there something I'm demanding? If so, I'm unaware of it. This means needing less rather than having more. It looks to me like we have more than ever before. I'm not complaining about it. -- Ed Huntress --jsw You AGW believers collectively. Let's make something clear: I'm not a "believer" in much of anything. I go with the preponderance of evidence, and I either have it or I don't. In this case, I don't have any. Neither does anyone else on this NG. You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together. My neighbor down the street, a retired PhD meteorologist who was the voice of marine broadcasts for NOAA in NYC for a couple of decades, laughed when I asked him about climatology. He doesn't know, either. But, unlike the people arguing here, he's smart enough, and knowledgable enough, to know that he doesn't know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion. And he did weather every day. So don't lump me with "believers." Believers and disbelievers are mostly delusional fools who can't stand the anxiety of not knowing, so they convince themselves that they do in order to give themselves some anxiety relief and someone to blame -- for anything. I think my opinion on this is very close to that of whoyakidding. The only thing we have to work with is our experience with science and scientists in general, and some knowledge about how often they are right or not. When 95% of them agree on something, they're usually right. So I put my money on the winners. That doesn't mean I "believe." It means I rely on the only rational tool I have to make a decision, should I have to make one. For the most part, I don't have to. This is what the experts know you should be doing to reduce your personal carbon footprint: http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/ If you aren't one of the "AGW believers, collectively," why would you bother? They forgot about hanging laundry outdoors, the heater in an electric dryer is a huge unnecessary waste. I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g Since you have a lathe you can convert round trash barrels ($12 at HD) into inexpensive rain barrels ($100 at HD) and avoid watering your lawn with treated drinking water by threading the barbed end of a hose coupler and mounting it in the lower side wall, with an O ring on the outside and the appropriate stainless nut and washer on the inside. Landscaping fabric over hardware cloth across the top will keep out gutter debris and mosquitos. I'll bet it would. During the winter I store chainsaw chips and chopped-up tree branches from the yard in the barrels, to use as kindling. Pressing on and clamping a short piece of hose onto the barbs inside might be enough to make the watertight seal, but the inside bottom of the barrel is a difficult place to apply much force. --jsw You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer, collectively or individually. -- Ed Huntress +5. As I said before, there is not a member of this group who is qualified inany way to understand or analyse this data. "Because I read it on a right-wing 'news' site" is hardly a sound reason for trashing the findings of 95% of actual scientists. As I also said before, until Gunner (or any of the other 'deniers' here) presents his credentials, I'll go along with my climatology and oceanography PhD friends. A few years ago, in a moment of self-deprecation, I asked one of them to name the math courses she had taken to prepare for her degree. Not only were the courses way, way, way beyond anything I had ever studied, but I had trouble even understanding the names of most of them. To top it off, she said, "But I'd really like to take some more math courses so I could really understand this [climate data]" So, when Gunner and Larry say they don't believe, well, pffft! When I asked the same PhD (I was a little tipsy at this point), "So, do you believe in global warming?" Her response was, " you don't 'believe' in global warming. you believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Global warming is as much a fact as gravity." But I swear that if Rush or Glen Beck or Trump launched a campaign denying gravity and if world net daily picked it up, Gunner et al would be right here on rcm telling us that gravity is just a left-wing plot to sell brassieres to unsuspecting women. BTW, I'm happy that Jim is something of an environmentalist. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:00:54 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." Are you faulting me for -not- suppressing evidence? --jsw Go back to my question: "What is your point?" The evidence in your link is all in favor of AGW. You posted it in response to Larry's anti-AGW comments and his bibliography of denial books. So I asked, reasonably, if you had changed your position. -- Ed Huntress My position was never that AGW was false, you had to make it that to be an easier target. I don't have to "make it" anything. Your arguments have consistently been AGW here, for years. I'm not questioning your basis for that decision. I'm questioning what your response was supposed to signify, given that you linked to a very *pro*-AGW article. I've been exposing the evidence tampering on the pro-AGW side because I'd like to see this important matter investigated impartially. And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. The Believer faction behaves as though dissent against AGW dogma is a personal challenge to the image of superiority they awarded themselves for demonizing the big energy companies. That works both ways. On this NG, the overwhelming dogma is anti-AGW. That's not a surprise, because of he cultural makeup of this NG. The true believers who get all wound up about it, triumphantly tossing out links to books and articles they've never read, are pretty extreme anti-AGW types. They're not stupid. They're obdurate and they've let their resentment fester into a perversity of judgment and a tribal association. It manifests itself in many ways, like Larry, who also thinks that it's perfectly reasonable, for example, to threaten to shoot government officials if they don't toe the tribal line. -- Ed Huntress --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:58:09 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer, collectively or individually. -- Ed Huntress I keep hoping to invent something. --jsw G If I ever invent something, I hope it's really small and light... -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. This is a good short summary in simple English of the physics behind radiative heat transport: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant The odd-looking v is the Greek letter nu. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
During the little ice age - remember that - 1888 iirc. We are still
coming down from it. The massive ice flows started up again and are now retreating. Just a long time in the process. The Hudson bay used to be navigable with cargo ships and the little ice age froze it over. They just found some ships that were frozen in the pack trying to bring in goods. History, history is our friend. Martin On 3/9/2016 12:32 AM, whit3rd wrote: On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:03:51 PM UTC-8, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:09:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd wrote: On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:17:57 PM UTC-8, Gunner Asch wrote: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/0...-for-58-years/ Fascinating...really fascinating..... No, irrelevant. You don't ignore the heat capacity of oceans, soil, and dismiss the temperature of lower atmosphere that's in contact with the oceans and soil, if you want a temperature measurement. That upper-atmosphere data is of such a tiny bit of matter, by comparison, that it can be safely ignored. The temperature of the vacuum of space is measurable; it can't tell you anything about global warming, either. Yet the global temperature has remained unchanged for 58 yrs.. In the last 58 years I recall, it has been cold every winter and warm every summer. What planet are you from? |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
Scientists bore a hole down the ice on the south pole.
They were wondering why the ice was thinning. They found the issue a warm up-flow of water. The mountain range there is still active and likely a volcano or hot spot in the mantel that is heating up the center of the large ice pack. No wonder it is melting and moving out - Has a heater in the base support. Martin On 3/10/2016 10:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:44:09 -0600, Ignoramus26799 wrote: On 2016-03-09, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? i You mean this ice? http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...e-caps-melting http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...ecord-maximum/ Check the second link...see who it is? Might want to review your choices in data a bit more...carefully. Yeah, like the second link. Do you EVER read the stuff you link to? Iggy asks about Arctic ice, and Gunner posts a link from NASA that says: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). "The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean." Sometimes I wonder how Gunner made it through high school. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus Very interesting. Maybe I should buy some real estate on a Florida beach... just kidding i Try buying something around, say, Opa-locka. Your kids may wind up with beach-front. d8-) |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
... During the little ice age - remember that - 1888 iirc. We are still coming down from it. The massive ice flows started up again and are now retreating. Just a long time in the process. The Hudson bay used to be navigable with cargo ships and the little ice age froze it over. They just found some ships that were frozen in the pack trying to bring in goods. History, history is our friend. Martin I've tried to research early exploration of the New World, such as the location of Vinland and Prince Henry Sinclair's alleged visit to New England 100 years before Columbus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westford_Knight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map One thing that stands out is that the story of an ice-free Northwest Passage appeared almost immediately after Columbus, centuries before we had officially documented knowledge of what was up there. The area above central Canada wasn't fully mapped until the 1850's, by rescuers searching for the lost Franklin Expedition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavius_(ship) --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
... Scientists bore a hole down the ice on the south pole. They were wondering why the ice was thinning. They found the issue a warm up-flow of water. The mountain range there is still active and likely a volcano or hot spot in the mantel that is heating up the center of the large ice pack. No wonder it is melting and moving out - Has a heater in the base support. Martin Part of the chain of Antarctic volcanoes: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85238 The True Believers concocted a tale that the West Antarctic ice sheet was melting because AGW-induced wind shifts blew warm water far underneath the ice sheet, to avoid having to admit that the real cause was a natural volcanic hot spot instead of another excuse to smugly blame modern society. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...eaten-away-sea "What's driving these regional differences in intrusions of warm water, Schmidtko says, appears to be the current wind patterns. But these, the authors note, are subject to change, due not only to greenhouse warming but also to the recovering ozone hole. That, in turn, could bring warmer waters to regions now dominated by cold waters, such as the southern Weddell Sea, he adds. "That could have consequences for glaciers that do not belong to West Antarctica and could be affected for the first time." http://www.livescience.com/41847-wes...-hot-spot.html --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you certainly know. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The models are based on probability-density functions. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. I have no opinions about the science, except that the real scientists are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than anyone here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet. -- Ed Huntress --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you certainly know. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The models are based on probability-density functions. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. I have no opinions about the science, except that the real scientists are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than anyone here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet. -- Ed Huntress --jsw Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that you lack the scientific education to directly respond to. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
In article ,
Ignoramus1161 wrote: On 2016-03-09, Joseph Gwinn wrote: On Mar 9, 2016, Ignoramus1161 wrote (in ): I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Do you recall when the name went from Global Warming to Climate Change? The reason for the new name is that the predicted rise in temperature is not happening. Instead, the rate of rise flattened out, and the deviation from prediction keeps increasing. There are many articles in the scientific press (here meaning Nature and Science, which I subscribe to) trying to explain the anomaly, without much success so far. The now common statement that current year is the warmest ever, while literally true, is misleading in that it does not address the fact that the rate of rise is not following the current models. The google search term for this is ???climate hiatus???. Here is a graph showing the climate hiatus that people are trying to explain. The East Anglica folk were trying to obscure the toe of this failure to follow the models, and said if the hiatus continued for fifteen years, it would be a big problem. This was in 2009, but they were referring to the start of the divergence in 1995 or so. .http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/cl...ersus-climate- reality/#more-20667 Also lots of comparisons of various models with observation. Judith Curry is an apostate in that she objected to the APS becoming an advocacy organization: .http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/24/american-physical-society/ Joe Gwinn Joe, I am far from a believer in global warming. I have not yet made up my mind on it. I look for anything that I can find to confirm or disconfirm it. So far the best evidence for me was melting of glaciers. The argument is no longer if the Earth is warming - it is, a bit, but it's hard to measure it with great precision, because of natural variation. The argument is how much and how fast, and more importantly, if humans are the cause, and if humans can do anything about it. The arguments for taking drastic (expensive) action NOW ultimately rest on how good the current models are. Things were going well until 1995 or so, when measured temperature started to diverge from predicted temperature, and so far the divergence has become greater by the year. This failure of the best current models undermines the case for doing big things NOW, versus waiting until the various issues are sorted out. Nor is it obvious that it's cheaper to eliminate fossil fuels (if this is even possible) than to remedy the various consequences directly. For this issue, Bjorn Lomberg (the Skeptical Environmentalist) is a good place to start. ..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist This all reminds me of the kerfuffle decades ago where in the article and later book "Currents of Death", Brodeur claimed that the electric and magnetic fields from the 60 Hz AC power system in the US caused cancer. ..http://www.paulbrodeur.net/currents_of_death_119779.htm He was quite wrong, having confused correlation with causation: Who lives near high-tension power lines? Not the Rich for sure. It is well known that the Rich enjoy better health by all measures than the Poor. Oops. But even if Brodeur were correct, replacing the entire US power grid with a well-shielded power grid (which is technically feasible) is orders of magnitude more expensive than doubling the health care system (which is far more likely to improve health of the Poor than fiddling with power wires). Joe Gwinn |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you certainly know. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The models are based on probability-density functions. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. I have no opinions about the science, except that the real scientists are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than anyone here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet. -- Ed Huntress --jsw Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that you lack the scientific education to directly respond to. You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the 1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:29:49 -0600, Ignoramus26799
wrote: On 2016-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:44:09 -0600, Ignoramus26799 wrote: On 2016-03-09, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? i You mean this ice? http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...e-caps-melting http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...ecord-maximum/ Check the second link...see who it is? Might want to review your choices in data a bit more...carefully. Yeah, like the second link. Do you EVER read the stuff you link to? Iggy asks about Arctic ice, and Gunner posts a link from NASA that says: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). "The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean." Sometimes I wonder how Gunner made it through high school. Ed, I did see that, but when one place is shrinking and another is growing, you have to wonder what is going on. It's called "wind", Ig. Mother Nature' various-temperatured wind patterns evolve and things shift, maintaining the balance of things globally. This was happening long before mankind came around, and it will continue long after we're gone. -- Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand. --Thomas Carlyle |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:13:23 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote: On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:25:29 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:45:22 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:59:06 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message om... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:46:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:r102eb14b6vttsoq5offq6q8s30jfpoq79@4ax .com... On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 23:06:10 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news:n0h1ebl2nmu7l7d4qm61vf4hugvh1fl6cs@4 ax.com... On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Questions here, too. If Algore is an environmentalist, why was he spending over $30,000 a year to heat and cool his home? And if his movie was realistic, why did the Brits ban it from showing in UK schools? And if polar bears were drowning, why didn't they just move with the ice? ;) P.S: Algore finally admitted that was entirely CGI and that he made up the polar bear story. Then again, I just saw another picture of a dead polar bear captioned on yet another AGWK story recently. sigh They just don't get it. Now, your answer: Check the rest of the Earth. When one area loses ice, ice builds in another area. It happens the same way each year with the seasons, but that's called "weather", which is what people are reacting to. Earth is between ice ages and will continue to warm (or remain stable like the past decade+) until the next ice age. Also see these books: _State of Fear_ The excellent fictional book by Michael Crichton which first led me to question the media and global alarmists. _The Skeptical Environmentalist_ Bjorn Lomborg (formerly of Greenpeace) _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism_ Chris Horner _Terrestrial Energy_ William Tucker _Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media_ Patrick J. Michaels _Hard Green: Saving the Environment from Environmentalists_ by Peter Huber _Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years_ Patrick J. Michaels _The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_ Senator James Inhofe _The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science_ Tim Ball _Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax_ Larry Bell http://joannenova.com.au/ What's your point here, Jim? Did you follow the sources quoted in that story? "Everywhere we look, the climate change signal for extreme heat events is becoming stronger," said Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia and lead author of the study. "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." -- "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences": Andrew D. King. -- Ed Huntress How have you practiced reducing your personal carbon footprint before you are forced to? Do you even have a clothesline? Why should I care? And what does it have to do with my question? -- Ed Huntress Have you swallowed the Left's voodoo that these AGW restrictions you support will only punish those evil rich folks who supply you with the energy you depend on, without affecting you personally? --jsw Are you saying that your economic philosophy trumps the science? This is what prompted my question: You've generally been on the anti-AGM side of these discussions, but then you post a link to an article that says, to repeat: "Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming." This, in an article titled "Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences." So this is the question: Have you changed your position, or did you do a Gunner and not read the article you linked to? -- Ed Huntress I can't confirm or deny the validity of AGW. Neither can anyone else in this NG. But it's sometimes entertaining to watch them try. I merely call out the blatant deceptions of its fervent acolytes... In this case, what you were "calling out" was unclear -- unless it's all of Larry's claims and citations. You linked to a claim by a real climatologist that says the evidence of warming is almost impossible to explain without "anthropogenic influences." ...while trying to learn to live with the shortages and restrictions that will surely happen if you ever get all you demand. Is there something I'm demanding? If so, I'm unaware of it. This means needing less rather than having more. It looks to me like we have more than ever before. I'm not complaining about it. -- Ed Huntress --jsw You AGW believers collectively. Let's make something clear: I'm not a "believer" in much of anything. I go with the preponderance of evidence, and I either have it or I don't. In this case, I don't have any. Neither does anyone else on this NG. You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together. My neighbor down the street, a retired PhD meteorologist who was the voice of marine broadcasts for NOAA in NYC for a couple of decades, laughed when I asked him about climatology. He doesn't know, either. But, unlike the people arguing here, he's smart enough, and knowledgable enough, to know that he doesn't know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion. And he did weather every day. So don't lump me with "believers." Believers and disbelievers are mostly delusional fools who can't stand the anxiety of not knowing, so they convince themselves that they do in order to give themselves some anxiety relief and someone to blame -- for anything. I think my opinion on this is very close to that of whoyakidding. The only thing we have to work with is our experience with science and scientists in general, and some knowledge about how often they are right or not. When 95% of them agree on something, they're usually right. So I put my money on the winners. That doesn't mean I "believe." It means I rely on the only rational tool I have to make a decision, should I have to make one. For the most part, I don't have to. This is what the experts know you should be doing to reduce your personal carbon footprint: http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/ If you aren't one of the "AGW believers, collectively," why would you bother? They forgot about hanging laundry outdoors, the heater in an electric dryer is a huge unnecessary waste. I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g Since you have a lathe you can convert round trash barrels ($12 at HD) into inexpensive rain barrels ($100 at HD) and avoid watering your lawn with treated drinking water by threading the barbed end of a hose coupler and mounting it in the lower side wall, with an O ring on the outside and the appropriate stainless nut and washer on the inside. Landscaping fabric over hardware cloth across the top will keep out gutter debris and mosquitos. I'll bet it would. During the winter I store chainsaw chips and chopped-up tree branches from the yard in the barrels, to use as kindling. Pressing on and clamping a short piece of hose onto the barbs inside might be enough to make the watertight seal, but the inside bottom of the barrel is a difficult place to apply much force. --jsw You sure go to a lot of trouble for someone who isn't an AGW believer, collectively or individually. -- Ed Huntress +5. As I said before, there is not a member of this group who is qualified inany way to understand or analyse this data. "Because I read it on a right-wing 'news' site" is hardly a sound reason for trashing the findings of 95% of actual scientists. As I also said before, until Gunner (or any of the other 'deniers' here) presents his credentials, I'll go along with my climatology and oceanography PhD friends. A few years ago, in a moment of self-deprecation, I asked one of them to name the math courses she had taken to prepare for her degree. Not only were the courses way, way, way beyond anything I had ever studied, but I had trouble even understanding the names of most of them. To top it off, she said, "But I'd really like to take some more math courses so I could really understand this [climate data]" So, when Gunner and Larry say they don't believe, well, pffft! g When my son was an undergrad, majoring in econ and minoring in math (he now has a master's degree in math), I asked him what math he was studying that semester. "Real analysis" was the reply. Oh, that doesn't sound so tough, I said. Let me see that book....hmmm, Lebesgue Integration of Extended Domains...oops. g When I asked the same PhD (I was a little tipsy at this point), "So, do you believe in global warming?" Her response was, " you don't 'believe' in global warming. you believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Global warming is as much a fact as gravity." Refreshing. It's like believing in supply-side economics: who cares about customers when you can build another plant and invest in more machinery? Install a bigger machine, and they will come... But I swear that if Rush or Glen Beck or Trump launched a campaign denying gravity and if world net daily picked it up, Gunner et al would be right here on rcm telling us that gravity is just a left-wing plot to sell brassieres to unsuspecting women. Ha-ha! BTW, I'm happy that Jim is something of an environmentalist. I am, too. I encourage it among my friends all the time. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Joe Gwinn" wrote in message
... In article , Ignoramus1161 wrote: On 2016-03-09, Joseph Gwinn wrote: On Mar 9, 2016, Ignoramus1161 wrote (in ): I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? Do you recall when the name went from Global Warming to Climate Change? The reason for the new name is that the predicted rise in temperature is not happening. Instead, the rate of rise flattened out, and the deviation from prediction keeps increasing. There are many articles in the scientific press (here meaning Nature and Science, which I subscribe to) trying to explain the anomaly, without much success so far. The now common statement that current year is the warmest ever, while literally true, is misleading in that it does not address the fact that the rate of rise is not following the current models. The google search term for this is ???climate hiatus???. Here is a graph showing the climate hiatus that people are trying to explain. The East Anglica folk were trying to obscure the toe of this failure to follow the models, and said if the hiatus continued for fifteen years, it would be a big problem. This was in 2009, but they were referring to the start of the divergence in 1995 or so. .http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/cl...ersus-climate- reality/#more-20667 Also lots of comparisons of various models with observation. Judith Curry is an apostate in that she objected to the APS becoming an advocacy organization: .http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/24/american-physical-society/ Joe Gwinn Joe, I am far from a believer in global warming. I have not yet made up my mind on it. I look for anything that I can find to confirm or disconfirm it. So far the best evidence for me was melting of glaciers. The argument is no longer if the Earth is warming - it is, a bit, but it's hard to measure it with great precision, because of natural variation. The argument is how much and how fast, and more importantly, if humans are the cause, and if humans can do anything about it. The arguments for taking drastic (expensive) action NOW ultimately rest on how good the current models are. Things were going well until 1995 or so, when measured temperature started to diverge from predicted temperature, and so far the divergence has become greater by the year. This failure of the best current models undermines the case for doing big things NOW, versus waiting until the various issues are sorted out. Nor is it obvious that it's cheaper to eliminate fossil fuels (if this is even possible) than to remedy the various consequences directly. For this issue, Bjorn Lomberg (the Skeptical Environmentalist) is a good place to start. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist This all reminds me of the kerfuffle decades ago where in the article and later book "Currents of Death", Brodeur claimed that the electric and magnetic fields from the 60 Hz AC power system in the US caused cancer. .http://www.paulbrodeur.net/currents_of_death_119779.htm He was quite wrong, having confused correlation with causation: Who lives near high-tension power lines? Not the Rich for sure. It is well known that the Rich enjoy better health by all measures than the Poor. Oops. But even if Brodeur were correct, replacing the entire US power grid with a well-shielded power grid (which is technically feasible) is orders of magnitude more expensive than doubling the health care system (which is far more likely to improve health of the Poor than fiddling with power wires). Joe Gwinn True Believers are welcome to reduce their own fossil fuel dependency and tell us how they did it. I have a long list of "You can't expect -me- to do that" methods that work fine, for example the clothesline that Ed rejected. "I did that 40 years ago. Then I got a dryer. I'm not going back. g" https://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/bi...r_r3_final.pdf "For example, hang-drying clothes in the summer instead of using a drying machine will save 35 MMtCO2e." They dry just fine outdoors in the winter too, because the humidity is very low. Insulated clothing that doesn't dry in a day can then be hung indoors to dewrinkle and help raise the humidity to healthier levels. I switched from 200W desktops to 40W laptops, high-end business models I bought cheaply second-hand, mainly to cut their power demand to what my small solar system can handle during a prolonged ice storm blackout. We suffered an hour-long blackout a few days ago. They are becoming more common as our infrastructure ages, population grows, and improvement is fiercely opposed https://www.eversource.com/NSTAR/outage/OutageMap.aspx As I type this there are outages in Bellingham and Somerville MA. What was hot in 2010 is still powerful enough to browse the Internet or record two TV programs simultaneously, unless you obsessively need to keep up with the neighbors. The thicker, heavier older business-class laptops are very versatile. I can plug in a terabyte second hard drive to keep the primary boot SSD affordably small, and have USB3 on an ExpressCard adapter, plus extra serial ports for my datalogging meters on a PCMCIA card, and use the HDTV to extend the desktop. Batteries are plentiful for some models, a problem for others. --jsw |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message m... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you certainly know. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The models are based on probability-density functions. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. I have no opinions about the science, except that the real scientists are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than anyone here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet. -- Ed Huntress --jsw Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that you lack the scientific education to directly respond to. You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the 1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships. -- Ed Huntress Are you warming up to enter politics? |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a second life and get into general distribution. I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour Hoffman died. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:26:00 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:29:49 -0600, Ignoramus26799 wrote: On 2016-03-10, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:44:09 -0600, Ignoramus26799 wrote: On 2016-03-09, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:21:10 -0600, Ignoramus1161 wrote: I have a question. If global warming is fake, how come those glaciers are shrinking? And so does the Arctic ice? i You mean this ice? http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature...e-caps-melting http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...ecord-maximum/ Check the second link...see who it is? Might want to review your choices in data a bit more...carefully. Yeah, like the second link. Do you EVER read the stuff you link to? Iggy asks about Arctic ice, and Gunner posts a link from NASA that says: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). "The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean." Sometimes I wonder how Gunner made it through high school. Ed, I did see that, but when one place is shrinking and another is growing, you have to wonder what is going on. It's called "wind", Ig. Mother Nature' various-temperatured wind patterns evolve and things shift, maintaining the balance of things globally. This was happening long before mankind came around, and it will continue long after we're gone. And the "balance of things globally" apparently is melting polar sea ice three times faster than ice is growing. Right? -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:48:46 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message om... On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: And I question whether you really know what evidence is being tampered with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex, and too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel. Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to learn. Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you certainly know. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids or solids. Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate. Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively, at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra. The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest. The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The models are based on probability-density functions. "You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about which way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole puzzle fits together." Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and interpret the data. Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar. You've only shown how little your own opinions mean. I have no opinions about the science, except that the real scientists are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than anyone here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet. -- Ed Huntress --jsw Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that you lack the scientific education to directly respond to. You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the 1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships. -- Ed Huntress Are you warming up to enter politics? 'Just doing the same kind of unblinking analysis I've done for 40 years on my job. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a second life and get into general distribution. I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour Hoffman died. -- Ed Huntress "Bernie Sanders is Donald Trump for people that still live in their parents basement" - Michael O'Donoghue |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:00:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a second life and get into general distribution. I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour Hoffman died. The best upside, according to a GOP interviewee who intends to vote for Trump, is that the party will hit rock bottom and implode, and members will no longer be able to deny the obvious. According to him, it will only be then that useful rebuilding can take place. |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
Philip Seymour Hoffman On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:07:21 -0500, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a second life and get into general distribution. I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour Hoffman died. -- Ed Huntress "Bernie Sanders is Donald Trump for people that still live in their parents basement" - Michael O'Donoghue I love that line. I heard it a week ago when it was quoted on Hardball. -- Ed Huntress |
No Gorbal warming...in...58 yrs....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:09:04 -0800, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:00:52 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:13:42 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:19:56 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:53:48 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:14:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: Ed, you are one kind soul to attempt to bring facts and reason into this discussion. My take on the subject is that it is one of many where regular Joes should best accept the collective wisdom of the experts. I'm surprised that I'm still incredulous about small-brained people having "beliefs" about complicated subjects they judge mostly by irrelevant personal observations, anecdotes, and fringe web pages. While digging into the details might be work, finding the well-researched and well-accepted conclusions is easy. Those who insist on putting their opinion above the science are frequently birthers, etc. The willfully ignorant are hopeless and it's a sorry state of affairs that so much energy is wasted trying to fix them. Thanks, Kidding, but facts and reason have no effect. This thing is tribal -- like Trump supporters. As we've seen for several years, they don't even read their own "cites." There's a good piece on the phenomenon in the NYT today: http://tinyurl.com/zfg8fmf As you say, pretending that they -- or any of us here -- know enough about climatology to have an opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell is ridiculous. It's all about resentment and conspiracies. The ignorati have been feeding and feeding off the GOP for a long time. That has fueled Trump who's shamelessly taking it to the next level. To guarantee the votes of those he politely calls "poorly educated," he promises to do things that don't make sense and can't be done, safe in the knowledge that his supporters are stupid. But he's missing an opportunity. A big part of science is peer review. Climate change deniers like Trump and his tribe should propose and support repeal and replacement :) of peer review. The obvious and sure to be popular solution is a reality TV show where the tribe's respected minds such as Honey Boo Boo and any Kardashian, cage fight to the death to decide the validity of every scientific issue. Watch this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy, which seems more and more like a documentary, to see where we're headed. Ha! Yes, I've heard of the movie. I thought it was going to have a second life and get into general distribution. I've tried to look at the upside of the Trump candidacy, and my thought is that it will be made into a movie. Too bad Philip Seymour Hoffman died. The best upside, according to a GOP interviewee who intends to vote for Trump, is that the party will hit rock bottom and implode, and members will no longer be able to deny the obvious. According to him, it will only be then that useful rebuilding can take place. Ya' see? I knew there was a reason to keep my party registration as a Republican. The moderates shall rise again. g -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter