Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I would have said "unplugged." LOL

Are you laughing at your own humuor ??

0 Replies

@sumac,

Quote:

Good one, c.i.

I can see you are a frustrated cheer leader, but how about contributing to the debate ?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

That chart I repeatedly post shows that average annual global temperature since 1998 has leveled off and decreased slightly.

They can only see facts that support Global Warming. Your questions are scientific, ican, and I am sure parados will ignore them. He has little opinion that can not be attributed also to a trained attack Chihuahua, barking from behind a very solid door.

Your questions are very pertinent, But Global Warming Thuggees are in the habit of selecting science. It is their religion, and they must believe.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

There is no real debate. Just accusations and counter-accusations. I have been here, done that, on Iraqi war threads. I will post things as I come across them.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

That's funny Ionus. You now want to reference others but attack me for doing that? Which standard to you hold yourself up to Ionus?

You failed to understand. Again. Your method is to put forward one quote after another without expressing anything yourself. I have repeatedly asked you to state SOMETHING, ANYTHING about Global Warming. But you wont or cant. I give you one refernce but you object ? On what grounds ? You are the only one who may reference ? Your mistake is that you are the only one who uses nothing but references. Why dont you show you understand all those references ? But you are not here to discuss Global Warming are you ? You are here to learn debating. Stick around. I eat immature kids for breakfast.

Quote:

checking the calculations

So they are not adjustments, they are calculations ? And they are not fiddled with they are checked ? Which part of your science allows the data to be changed ?

Quote:

There is a 50/50 chance of EACH temperature reading being wrong. With 1200-1800 temperature readings over 100-15o years for each point on the grid and 8000 grid points on the globe. What is the likelihood of 9,600,000 - 14,400,000 readings all being wrong in the fashion to show warming? It isn't 50/50.

Nonsense. We have not had 1200-1800 temperature readings for 100-150 years. Tell me how many are required to accurately measure the earths temperature for one day rather than estimate ? North America has far more stations then anywhere else. Why dont they discount a lot of the data from North America because they have too much or admit they dont have enough elsewhere ? The air temperature over the oceans is estimated. As the oceans cover 70-75% of the earths surface, this means 70-75% of the data is estimated. Then it is adjusted (not calculated as you like to say) to fit in with the land adjustments. How many measuring stations are there in poor countires, or ice covered land ? If these stations were so accurate why go to satellite data ? According to the global data sets, the Earth has warmed about 0.3 " 0.4 degrees in the last 30 years. This is less than the measurement error of temperature recording devices.
"If you require hourly readings for an average because it has more readings than max/min then your average is not correct compared to 15 minute readings and even less correct compared to 1 minute readings and even less correct compared to 15 second readings... " do you remember saying that ? But you could not or would not supply evidence as to why the mid point between min and max daily temperatures was correct. Do you think increasing accuracy is a bad thing ?
Or are you worried it might go against Global Warming ?

Quote:

If we use your logic Ionus, the odds of winning the lottery would be 50/50 because you can only win/lose. That however, is not the way statistics work.

You are embarrasing yourself again parados. That is exactly how statistics work. You have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. They are the two possibilities. Then you calculate the chances of winning. Then you calculate the chances of losing. If they do not add up to 100% chance, then do it again. Global Warming ASSUMES that if you measure the min and max temperatures for a day then the average is the middle temperature.

Quote:

It's nice to see you don't resort to childish "thuggery" in the discussion.

Does that mean you wont or cant prove it ? Perhaps you dont recall what you said ? It was full of outrageous assumptions that were beneath human diginity to respond to. Have you forgotten you called me a liar ? Is that an example of childish thuggery but it is allowed because it supports Global Warming ? Or is it simply that like most bullies, you can give it but cant take it?

I will accept your apology when you give it. In the meantime stop crying.

Quote:

You either have to show that CO2 doesn't absorb energy or you have to tell us that the energy doesn't cause an increase in temperature in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

parados, please ! Dont you ever feel embarrased ? That is your silliest statement yet and you have made some beauties. You have failed to prove that enough CO2 has been released. You have ASSUMED. You have not taken into account any other method of warming or cooling. It is not a greenhouse. It is a self correcting system. Do you understand Heat Loss or do I have to explain that too ? You have clutched at your Holy Bible, the Laws of Thermodynamics in what must be one of the silliest throw away lines of all times. If you really understood the Laws of Thermodynamics rather than have just heard about them, then you would have explained why you assumed heat loss is not important.

Quote:

when more Co2 molecules are added to an air mixture then more heat is absorbed in the range that CO2 absorbs IR.

Wow ! And without a heat source ! And without heat loss ! What magic is this ? You finally gave your opinion and that is it ? It wasnt worth waiting for. Go back to attacking others with insults.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

I don't understand why you continue to spam us with those charts.

Perhaps it is because you cant see them or wont read them...they say that the earth has cooled over the last 10 years, but Gloabal Warming Thuggees say it has warmed.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

There is a rather large difference between an opinion and something that has been published in scientific peer reviewed journals and open to scientific criticism.

Who chooses what to publish ? Do they use an opinion when selecting what to publish? If they choose not to publish, how is that open to scientific criticism ?

0 Replies

@sumac,

Fair enough. You have an opinion and I respect your right to it. It is my opinion also that there is no real debate.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When someone claims warming can't be shown to exist because the trend is within the error range of thermometers and then on another page they argue that the warming that exists can't be from CO2, I am left to wonder which stance they are taking.

Any warming has been shown to be within the error range of thermometers. Anyone who would still argue warming has or will take place must first prove it is caused by CO2. Still in wonder or does that help ?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

You are not allowed to criticise those findings.

When you can post credible science that disputes it, then I will listen.

Merely standing back and saying "It's a guess" doesn't prove anything other than you can't provide any hard evidence.

Quote:

When you have been around longer you will know this, perhaps when you leave High School you will go on to university and learn first hand.

Are you really going to post this crap when you are the one acting like you are in Jr High?

If the professor is trading sex for grades, it's easy to go to a higher authority. The same thing with professors that want to intimidate students. I wouldn't take such actions from any of my professors. I see no reason to.

Quote:

Have you found the numbers since asking me for them ?

I have been well aware of the numbers for years. You are the one claiming they are wrong and yet you have provided zero evidence to support your opinion. What little bit you have stated is so factually incorrect that arguing with you is almost pointless. When you claimed it is 50/50 for a trend line of millions of data points to be wrong you revealed how ignorant your argument is.

Quote:

Quote:
there is a difference between science and your opinion

See ! You are learning. Dont give up yet.

It's you that needs to learn that Ionus. Your opinion is unsupported with facts. Scientific opinion provides you the opportunity to show where it is wrong. You have been unable to do that.

Quote:

Is this the person who called me a liar and said I had my head up my arse ?

That could be me or one of a lot of other people that have had discussions with you.

Quote:

Is this the person who has had several posts removed for abuse ?

When did I have posts removed for abuse? Since this site doesn't remove posts and hasn't done so as long as you have been posting on this board, I am curious how you got the idea that my posts were removed for abuse. Unless of course you have been here before under numerous other names when the site did lock threads and you yourself have had posts removed and been kicked off the site for posting inappropriately. But we wouldn't want to think that, would we Possum?

Quote:

Dont be scared parados, I know bullies have trouble with courage, but give it a try... say something on Global Warming...please ?

Having reading problems Possum. I specifically posted stating something was "my opinion." Maybe you should read what I say before you accuse me of not saying it.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Why dont they discount a lot of the data from North America because they have too much or admit they dont have enough elsewhere ?

Umm.. They don't use all the data from North America. If you want to argue about the data, shouldn't you at least know how they get it? Only some North American stations are used.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
If we use your logic Ionus, the odds of winning the lottery would be 50/50 because you can only win/lose. That however, is not the way statistics work.

You are embarrasing yourself again parados. That is exactly how statistics work. You have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. They are the two possibilities. Then you calculate the chances of winning. Then you calculate the chances of losing. If they do not add up to 100% chance, then do it again.

Perhaps you should tell the Powerball lottery offices around the country they are lying then when they list the odds of winning as 1 in 195,249,054. And the California Lottery must be lying when they list the odds as 1 in 175,711,536. I don't think I embarrassed myself at all Ionus. I think you not only act stupid, you probably are.

Quote:

Wow ! And without a heat source ! And without heat loss ! What magic is this ? You finally gave your opinion and that is it ? It wasnt worth waiting for. Go back to attacking others with insults.

You do understand that IR is energy, don't you? That is why I asked you earlier about the laws of thermodynamics because you don't seem to understand how light becomes heat.

1 Reply

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
325
Physicist and Mathematician Dr. Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals, presented his views on climate change in 2006. According to a March 13, 2006 press release from the University of Leicester in the UK, "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal Science First Hand. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." The release continued, "The most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov, and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius." The release concluded, "Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km)." (LINK)

1 Reply

Climate change could devastate vineyards so Miguel Torres is preparing his family company for the worst: Spanish winemaker Torres warms to environmentalism

Quote:

Southern Britain may not be the only place in the world where risk-loving vintners can take a chance on global warming. Climate change is already changing habits at vineyards in southern Europe, forcing some producers, such as Spain's Torres, to buy land in the Pyrenees " "just in case", says the company's chairman, Miguel Torres.

Production of pinot noir and chardonnay at 1,200 metres above sea level has already started, showing no less quality than the wine produced on the gentle hills of the Penedès region, just south of Barcelona. Fears are growing, however, that lowland areas could be reduced to dust in a couple of generations. "Temperatures have already risen by one degree," Torres says. "If they increase by five, southern Europe will be full of arid steppes." This one-degree rise has already brought forward the harvest by 12 or 13 days, he says. "Vineyards are very sensitive."

Torres has donated €10m (£9m) of his own money to environmental issues, and is aiming to reduce the output of CO2 in the winery by 30% by 2020. He has a hybrid car and has bought them for his staff, invested in a wind park and is experimenting with the capture and use of CO2 from wine fermentation.

The businessman has not used synthetic chemicals in his vineyards for more than 20 years, instead using insect traps baited with sex pheromones secreted by females to trap the males and thereby stop reproduction.
... ... ...

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Interesting article, Walter.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
325
Physicist and Mathematician Dr. Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals, presented his views on climate change in 2006. According to a March 13, 2006 press release from the University of Leicester in the UK, "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal Science First Hand. The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." The release continued, "The most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov, and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius." The release concluded, "Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km)." (LINK)

Please stop spamming us with this article and your stupid chart. BTW, your chart doesn't show the specifics that you allege.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Until you and others, Advocate, stop spaming this thread with your false climaticism, I will continue to post articles from the "400 prominent scientists"--article 326 is next; there are actually a total of 460 such aryticles--plus the chart that shows updated actual average annual global temperature since 1850 to the present. BTW, my chart does show what I allege: the average annual global temperature has been cooling slightly after 2001.

If you have rational evidence--not merely an alleged consensus among alleged thousands of scientists--that contradicts these articles or that chart, post it.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When you can post credible science that disputes it, then I will listen

This forum is full of posts that you will not listen too. How many chances do you want ? You are not serious and I think you know it. How will you decide what is credible ? Will it be credible when it agrees with you ? Because there have many posts that should have made you think..assuming you can be made to think and are not so blind as to have your head up your arse like you told me.

You have to prove it. I do not have to prove the negative. Your lack of knowledge of the most basic science leads me to believe you have no formal training.

Merely standing back and saying it is already proven shows a disturbing lack of real world knowledge. Based on the insults you have hurled my way, and then squawked like a frightened chook when I gave you some back, I can only assume you are either very young or immature or both. You apologise to me and I will accept it. But you are not man enough are you ? That would be a crack in your armour. If you are wrong about one thing then maybe you arent perfect...maybe God does not wear a lab coat...

Quote:

If the professor is trading sex for grades, it's easy to go to a higher authority. The same thing with professors that want to intimidate students. I wouldn't take such actions from any of my professors. I see no reason to.

Argue with a professor ...watch your marks go down. Tow the official line... watch your marks go up. They say it is a question of being right.

Charles Pelligrino describes in his book "Return to Sodom and Gomorrah" how one student committed suicide and his professor and staff laughed, saying they had been "playing snap" and had won.

I have been threatened by a visiting American Chemistry Professor who thought I was an adult student..he was going to see my lecturers and tell them to fail me because I had the nerve to argue with him...he was a bit shocked to find out who I really was.

On overseas travel, I met a Biologist who had selected two beautiful assistants to accompany him on a fully funded government research trip to Chitwan national Park. He told them that they had to have sex with him or else they were showing a sqeamishness to animal functions and life that was unsuitable for a biologist. Meanwhile more academically suitable students were left behind in America.

Perhaps you are unaware most "whistle blowers" are far worse off 3-5 years later.
These are scientists, parados...the ones you believe can not get it wrong. What would they do to get a great lab, and an increase in salary ? Would they find Global Warming is real ? Would they stand on their morals and deny Global Warming ? Hahahahahahaahaaaa....sorry...I crack myself up. How many institutes are susceptible to government pressure ? How many are funded outright by the government ? How powerful is the green movement in a two party system ?

Do you know why Global Warming advocates declared 30 years of accurate data to be long enough ? Because it was all they had. Climate is on the same scale as geology. What happens to geology in 30 years ?

Quote:

I have been well aware of the numbers for years.

Yet you asked me ? Were you being clever ? Or sneaky ?

Quote:

That could be me or one of a lot of other people that have had discussions with you.

Is that a denial ? Assuming you do remember what you have said, does that make you a lair on top of everything else ? Do you remember calling me a liar ? If your memory is that selective no wonder you are a Global Warming Thuggee..you cant remember any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

would we Possum?

I have told you before, your homosexual advances are unwelcome...or is it your hope to turn out to be a Professor who intimidates and are merely practising for that glorious day when you have your own sex slaves...I mean students? Perhaps you will listen if I am blunt...I would not have sex with you if my life depended on it. I find you are a wretched little toady who can not think for himself or form his own opinion. Your lack of personality reminds me of a child molester who can justify anything because it serves their own interests. Now will you stop sexually harrasing me ? Please ? That is twice I have had to tell you. You are either uncaring or a slow learner. Maybe both.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Boring article, Walter. What does the weather have to do with a discussion on Climate ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

What a lovely diatribe that didn't address any scientific issue, Ionus. This was lower than even your normal lack of standards.

1. You didn't explain you lack of understanding of which or how many weather stations are used in the GISS and HADCRUT3 numbers.
2. You didn't explain your silly claim that the odds of winning the lottery are only 50/50. Everyone but ican has to be laughing at you for that one.
3. You didn't explain how a molecule can absorb IR and yet not heat up.

Your long winded stories about sex and professors makes me wonder if you feel slighted because no one would have sex with you personally.

Quote:

Argue with a professor ...watch your marks go down. Tow the official line... watch your marks go up. They say it is a question of being right.

Where I went to school, arguing with a professor would make your marks go up because it showed the ability to think. Of course the argument had to be based on criteria and not what you are doing here. That might be why your experience with professors is different from mine. Your logic seems to be that if you simply say something, there is no other argument allowed.

By the way, one would "toe" the line, not "tow" it.

Quote:

Climate is on the same scale as geology.

Do you have a source for this?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You do understand that IR is energy, don't you?

Let me think.....yes, I understand that. Where did your IR come from ? Or dont you know ?

Quote:

Only some North American stations are used.

And why is that ?

Quote:

That is why I asked you earlier about the laws of thermodynamics because you don't seem to understand how light becomes heat.

Perhaps Global Warming Thuggees will believe you...they believe anyone who tells them they are right. But you know it was your best effort to deride.

Quote:

shouldn't you at least know how they get it?

Yet more assumptions and leaps of faith because you find it necessary for your argument.

Quote:

...when they list the odds of winning... And the California Lottery must be lying when they list the odds as 1 in 175,711,536. I don't think I embarrassed myself at all Ionus. I think you not only act stupid, you probably are.

You really should feel some embarrasement when you say stupid things. It will help the learning process for you. There are only two possibilities. Win or lose. These are 50/50 chances. On examining the issue, the mathematical calculation is 1 in 176 million of winning FIRST PRIZE. The odds of winning a prize are more than that. I dont have to tell them they are lying, but I may have to tell you. There are 160 million people in the member states of that Lotto. This means, if you employ faulty analysis, twice a week no one can win first prize. Do you remember posting this as I know you have been forgetting a lot lately...

Quote:

What is the likelihood of 9,600,000 - 14,400,000 readings all being wrong in the fashion to show warming? It isn't 50/50......The odds would more likely be 1 in 2^9,600,000.

Is it your assumption that they all must be wrong in the same direction ? Are you too biased to see that if every piece of apparatus is averaged you are multiplying the error by astronomical numbers ? If one station is out by 2 and the next by -1, it doesnt matter how many you have that are wrong, if they are all wrong their total averaged again will never be accurate. Your assumption is that somehow they will cancel each other out. This is nonsense.

Quote:

I think you not only act stupid, you probably are.

Definition of act : perform an action. You have never seen me and you should pray to your God of science that you never do. Probably are ? If you had more understanding of probablilities that might mean something. It is just another example of a Global Warming Thuggee displaying stupidity through assumptions.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know