IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The So-called Greenhouse Effect Has Long Been Known To Be Devoid Of Physical Reality — Temp Variations Cause Co2 Changes — Not The Reverse’, U.S. Navy Meteorologist Claims:

Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 10:56 AM
Post #41





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 26 2010, 04:48 PM) *
But the argument there is no significant warming trend since 2001 is quite supported by all the datasets.

That is not how it is worked and you should know that.
QUOTE
My point was that it is consistent with the declining phase of the SC23,

We should be thankfull for that as it has bought us a little time after much more has been wasted by deniers like you.
By the way, that is not an admission that warming has stopped, it has been supressed slightly, i.e. not going up quite as fast as it may have done but wait untill Earth's thermostat is broken that is the annual Arctic ice heat buffer that will be lost as more ice melts.

QUOTE
But I brought the argument in the form of the graphs based on official results from 4 diferent agencies. If you contest the results of CRU, GISS, RSS and UAH you must bring more than the ad-hominem arguments against Christie and Spencer praising GISS (because there the slightly declining trend starts just one year later? rolleyes.gif ).

Really?

WFT1998-2010

WFT1997-2009

UAH? This Wiki' article is a useful overview of some of the issues WRT satellite data.

Satellite temperature measurements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements

A report by the National Research Council...concluded that:

QUOTE
"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."


and note especially:

QUOTE
An important critique of the satellite record is its shortness—adding a few years on to the record or picking a particular time frame can change the trends considerably. The problems with the length of the MSU record is shown by the table below, which shows the UAH TLT (lower tropospheric) global trend (°C/decade) beginning with Dec 1978 and ending with December of the year shown.


Here is an informative article on charts and some of the problems that can ensue from their missuse:

CO2 and Temperature Trends

QUOTE
Here are my panel and rescaled data charts:

Panel Chart

Rescaled Data
The panel chart shows both series in their natural scale ranges. The rescaled data shows the series on the same scale, in this example over a range of -0.5 to 0.5. The rescaled data chart let’s the reader compare the trend rates directly. The rescaled data chart shows that both CO2 and temperature are rising and the CO2 trend rate is nearly 3 times the temperature trend rate. Quite a different impression than provided by the JunkScience.com chart.

While the proper type of chart depends on what you are trying to evaluate or show, the burden is on the chart maker to select the proper display technique to accurately reflect the data. Senator Fielding and JunkScience.Com dual Y axis charts misrepresent the CO2 and temperature trend relationships.

JunkScience is, for those who do not already know, the site of Steve 'tobacco industry friend' Milloy, see: Steve Milloy

For more about why it is not cooling:
Riddle me this …
be sure to read down to this exchange:

QUOTE
Kevan Hashemi submitted this comment:

QUOTE
You picked the period 1980 to 2000 do you would get a positive slope. Why not fit a line to 2000 to 2010? Because it shows a negative slope and you don’t want that? Well, that’s precisely the point skeptics are making: if you look at the last 10 years, the trend is zero or down. You choose your own 20 years to show the trend is up. If you chose 1940 t0 1980 the trend would be down. In 1999 climate scientists told us the world would warm up over the next ten years. It didn’t.


You are wrong on all counts.

The trend lines from 2000 to 2010 (actually to the present since 2009 hasn’t ended yet) are all positive:

For GISS data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0115 +/- 0.018 deg.C/yr.
For RSS data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0017 +/- 0.030 deg.C/yr.
For UAH data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0052 +/- 0.043 deg.C/yr.
Notice all those plus signs.

More to the point, the uncertainties in trend estimates using just data since 2000 are much larger than the trend estimates themselves. Attempting to delineate the climate trend using so little data is a fool’s exercise.
That’s the point. They’re trying to fool you.

As for “warming since 1999″:

Using GISS data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.3176. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.5108.
Using RSS data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.0833. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.2384.
Using UAH data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.0587. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.2219.
Finally — with GISS data I started at 1975 because that’s a natural turning point in the temperature trend, and data since 1975 actually does enable us to estimate a trend with sufficient precision to be useful (unlike your suggestion of starting with 2000). For RSS and UAH data I started at 1979 because that’s all the data there is.


A warming pause?

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

Douglass and Christy: Bad science; disingenuous commentary

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"
Note this
QUOTE
According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.


and not especially Spencer's cited affiliations

Now here is how Roy Spencer hides the increaseRoy Spencer hides the increase

Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data

But still Christy dissembles:
Earth to John Christy: Misleading for free is wrong, too.
QUOTE
Christy:

“[W]hat is being referred to here is being assumed from climate models”

Christy appeared to be saying that the attribution of most of the recent warming to human greenhouse gases is an “assumption” “from” “climate models.”

CHRISTY WAS WRONG

Climate scientists do not “assume” that humans are warming up the planet “from models,” as Christy claimed. Schmidt corrected Christy:

Schmidt:

“Climate models are a tool; they allow us to understand why climate changed in the past, why it’s changing now, and what that might mean for the future…they provide us with very good evidence that what we’re seeing now is in fact caused by the things that we know we are doing to the atmosphere.”

Scientists make assumptions in the course of their investigations. The results of these investigations are not called “assumptions.” They are called “results.” Obviously, Christy knows this. So, why did he call the results “assumptions”?

Christy goes on:

“I am underwhelmed…with what we see in the ability of climate models to prove anything, they really can’t prove anything.”

CHRISTY TRIED TO FAKE US OUT

Duh. Wrong classroom, Professor Christy. Proofs happen in math and logic, not science. You know this, so why the fake complaint about being “underwhelmed”?

When Blitzer turned to the materials recently stolen from climate scientists at University of East Anglia, Christy insisted that even some of the wildest misinterpretations of the stolen materials are actually fair representations.

Christy:

“When they say [in the emails] ‘hide the decline’ that’s exactly what they were trying to do; it even is in the computer code.”

WHAT CHRISTY SAID WAS STUNNINGLY MISLEADING

I don’t think anyone really needs to hear once more why Sarah Palin and friends are wrong in thinking “the decline” in question was a decline in global temperatures and wrong in thinking that anything was actually being hidden.

If you haven’t heard the one about the “decline-hiding” being “in the computer code,” and you want to know what that’s all about, try this.

Schmidt’s on-show response pretty much sums up the whole shebang.

Schmidt:

“That’s completely wrong, John. That’s not true.”

Christy probably did get one thing right, though. He is probably right about why he is intent on being wrong and misleading.

Christy:

“As someone who was derided in many of those emails, I just completely disagree with what Gavin has just said.”

So, that’s why he’s disagreeing! He didn’t like what they had written about him! Has there ever been a clearer statement by any contrarian?


Now why the marked difference between the gistemp trend and that of hadcrut? I know but can you explain? The answer is indicated in the section below.

Temperature changes only record movements of sensible heat. As a physicist you should know that such is not the whole story here. How much heat energy can be absorbed by ice without a change in temperature?

Whatever, global temperatures have increased during the last 100 years and with an acceleration in the last thirty. Also temperatures increases at the northern pole are much greater than at lower latitudes. Reducing albedo from land use changes and loss of Arctic ice will continue to accelerate such changes. Night time average temperatures have also increased

Now as for any ad-hominems I may have used, do not confuse criticism of flawed science with ad-hominems besides you are a fine one to complain with your accusations of warmists and their fairy tales. Stones, houses, glass springs to mind.

With your concentration on temperatures and misunderstanding of the variability of a perturbed system I once thought that you were simply myopic, i.e., ignoring all real world information feedback such the state of the cryosphere and the biosphere but I am now beginning to think that it is something more sinister. With another big, and human driven, extinction event underway and rapid ice loss globally you have to be suspect to persist in spinning the story any other way than warming is real and humans are the ones rising CO2 levels more rapidly than the have done for millenia and pushing CO2 rises ahead of temperature rises. Although methane clathrates begin popping up all over we will be in big trouble as atmospheric GHGs rise rapidly.

And Yeah! I could roll my eyes too, but that would be to cheapen the discussion further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 10:59 AM
Post #42





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 26 2010, 02:54 PM) *
Omega, is CO2 bad for plants?

I have answered that one before quest but it would seem that rising CO2 levels are bad for you leading to increased memory loss.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 11:20 AM
Post #43





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 26 2010, 11:07 PM) *

And your point with that being?

QUOTE

Well that last link there fails here.

Whatever, bullshit baffle brains eh?
Note that Exxon are about squeezing oil out of hard rocks, but what do you think the origin of that could be bearing in mind that biological organisms have been found in deap rock in South Africa and just where continental cratons over 3 billion years old can be found.

Abiotic oil my arse! You will be telling me next that Trofim Lysenko was right all along!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #44





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 27 2010, 04:39 PM) *

Have you checked to see if that location is going to be adversley affected by sea level rise?

You should not take everything you read at PP at face value.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 11:30 AM
Post #45





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 27 2010, 12:08 AM) *
Omega, you are mixing apples with orangutans.
CO2 is NOT, mercury or oil spills.

How so?

I was simply pointing out other issues to do with the poorly regulated fossil fuel industry.

The common factor is that the industry bosses rake in the profits whilst the true costs are spread across the population but concentrated on those near extraction sites or power plants.

QUOTE
But Carbon-dioxide is what life on Earth is made from,
and is not a siminoid.

Yeah! Well. Like everything else, too much of a good thing is bad for you.

Leads to myopia from what I see in this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 11:34 AM
Post #46





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 27 2010, 11:42 AM) *
Is there no depth to which the criminally insane elite won't stoop in which to tighten their control over the populace?

Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64827

Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....eland-volcanoes

So you don't think that there could be any truth in either of those two stories.

The second one I can easily see how that works. You take the weight off a vent and it blows. We may in time see such a thing from Antarctica - some volcanoes down there for sure.

As for the cancer story I ask is crude oil toxic?

Well you may find out during hurrican season across the gulf this year when it starts to rain oil!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 01:21 PM
Post #47





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 26 2010, 10:58 PM) *
You are aware that humans are responsible for only between 2 and 3% of the earth's CO2 production, I presume?

And your source for that gem is?

You certainly have not studied this in any detail just believe the stuff pumped out by

QUOTE
Judging by the video I posted earlier, I would say that the extra CO2 would be greatly appreciated by the already existing plants.

CO2's Effect On Plant Growth (After all, it's food)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE...player_embedded

Ah! Yes!

Another offering from the coil funded CO2 (Sounds Like) Science of Sherwood Idso.

You should know that Sherwood Idso is one of the authors who joined in with Soon and Baliunas after the peer review brouhaha over their paper which had caused the resignation of the editor of a journal in which it was published This was the now infamous Medieval Warm Period mishmash. See:

Soon and Baliunas controversy


Déjà vu All Over Again


Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms
The funding of such disinformation artists has been followed ever since The Greening Earth Society engineered by Western Fuels, with the involvement of Sherwood Idso set out to confuse the American public.

Western Fuels + National Coal Association + Edison Electric = ICE (Information Council on the Environment)

ICE is a slick name used to cover an organisation that is not about preserving the environment like so many other bodies that sprung up during the Bush/Cheney years. I'll bet ol' Dick is making that wry 'you sucker' smile as he learns more about how he has confounded people like you. He is out of office but is still jerking your strings.

Then there is the 'They call it pollution we call it life' sleight of hand and the Vampire memo of one Stanley Lewandoski of International Rural Electric Association who paid Pat Michaels $100000 at one point. A common pattern in the denial industry exposed in 'Climate Cover Up' and discovered by reading this article and following links therein:

"Vampire Memo" Reveals Coal Industry Plan for Massive Propaganda Blitz

Understand a few things about crop propagation. Sure some plants, but not all, do well under glass with elevated CO2 levels with a constant supply of water and necessary nutrients. Unfortunately much of the earth will turn to desert (check out what is happening in the western US for example – how is Lake Mead holding up?) and other parts will be inundated with floods from increased occurrences of violent storms or rising sea levels. Rising sea levels also cause rivers to back up with flooding consequences even in the absence of extra rainfall. That is those rivers not ultimately sourced by glaciers like many in South America and Asia.

Increased plant mass does not always equate to increased nutrition content. Often the result is tougher fibers and elevated toxin levels – not quit what is intended. But such vegetation changes have driven evolution in the past. Problem is life on earth will survive but not us or our civilization.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 20 2010, 01:32 PM
Post #48





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 27 2010, 06:05 PM) *
I restrain myself sometimes from posting in these "Global Warming" threads, 'cause Omega will just lamblast me and it's just too much trouble.

But its all a scam, and Al Gore should be behind bars instead of living the life of royalty.

That you should still believe that global warming is a scam shows that you must have your head up seventh rock from the sun still because you haven't noticed how all the ice is melting, weather events are becoming extream more often and we are now certainly initiating the largest mass extinction since the K-T event.

But then your in good company.

Let me see now there is Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and this little lovely:

Melanie Phillips rants about Dawkins

Melanie Phillips

I often wondered why ol' Josh (Joshua Rozenberg) looked so miserable when speaking to the BBC News cameras, now I know. Fancy being married to that!

QUOTE
Great and timely posts, Quest. You rock.

Now I wonder if we could squeeze any oil out of him?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 03:24 PM