|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:31:28 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Actually most of the temperatures being quoted are from satellite readings. NOT local thermometers. "global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years." Stand by for Tom to now tell us it is all a Chinese conspiracy as they are changing all the computer chips they produce to produce false readings. TIC It is the dendrochronologists that i'm really suspiscious of. /tic |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:34:56 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:
The temperature datasets going back to 1880 are entirely ground based national weather stations using mercury thermometers that have automatic setting high and low temperature readings. The Satellite data is only available since 1978 and at this point their records are insufficient to reach any conclusions as to any climate variations. 40 years is FAR too short a time to reflect data on climate. I'm still waiting on some sort of explanations on how actual datasets on temperatures have "variability". You've been pointed to it. you jst have to use your intellect to phrase a web search to find an excellent paper on the web. We have these things called "microclimates" such as there are a 20 degree temperature variations around the bay area which comprises a sea shore with very cold sea water (though the temperature changes cyclically depending on El Nino or La Nina events), around the bay with a large body of water that regulates the temperature of most of the major bay area cities and the "inland" which includes places like Santa Rosa, Fairfield, Concord, Livermore and Gilroy. These areas are far enough away from the moderating effects of the bay that they are hotter. Perhaps you can defind the Earth's microclimate Yet we simply average these temperatures over the area vs the temperature and this is backed up with the satellite data so that we know that we are achieving the proper averaging techniques. In the bay area we are have good temperature records. LA is another story and they now require the satellite data because the National Weather Stations are often mishandled. They even had a picture of one of the stations directly in the path of the exhaust from a building air conditioner. Weather predicting is a science and climate "science" is predicting long term variations in the weather conditions. The problem is that a man sitting in an office and using the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycle information is as accurate as any other way of predicting "climate" whereas they have been attempting for three decades to use computer models and these models have been total failures. You seem to have found a correlation that no one else hase. The correlation is shattering. Hint, block of steel under a heat lamp displays the same basic dimensions If you want to discuss the finer details I can do that. But CO2 has no effect and we have known that since a 1915 paper by the forerunner of NOAA. Yep, the 'science' of those days was tip top. Was that before or after the "germ theory of disease" became widely accepted? "The ONLY thing that has effects are the applied emissions by the Sun which are controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycles which if memory serves both can in general change the applied radiation by only a half percent - and the density of the atmosphere which is fixed. So the data measurement controls the sum which is interm is controlled by it's are? So the problems we are using the wrong measurement? surely someone's got the cat by the tail now after a centry of measurement? The long and the short is that there is no But so many people say YES and they have better science. Your Model T science just doesn't hold a candle to a Lamboghini, etc. Personally I prefer bicycles. and cannot be any man-made climate change. Well, the space station has one and it relies heaviy of what is happening on the planet. What's more the climate appears to have passed its peak Interglacial Period temperature and is on the way down. This is also suggested by the Ice Core research by the Russians at Vostok, Antarctica, Siberia, Russia and the American papers from Alaska. Maybe, but that isn't what we are discussing. In fact it doesn't matter wheather you're getting fried by extreme high temperatures or blasted by icy winds, as both are non-conducise to human life. Sticky your head out of the door to see wheather you wear furs and shoe shoes, or hat, sunscreen and light cotons and carry gllons of water each day is a not daily choice I desire. Places for a months holiday, then yes, but not daily. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 04:55:01 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:48:58 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: Here I believe that the recyclables go through a crusher so that the glass is fractured and falls through the bottom of the screen-like conveyer belt from which the paper is sorted from the plastic. Among these items are the needles and other disease carrying waste. This sorting is extremely difficult to automate in order to reduce the cost of recycling. And it would result in the lowest qualty glass crud as there would be all sorts of glass; clean, coloured/colored, lead contaminated and piles of plastic. Useful for weak concrete at best. Here (Thailand) glass bottles are readily salable to "garbage collectors" (who would probably be identified as "recycles" in other places) who in turn sell them in two places - one to those who can use reclaimed bottles to package their goods, those that sell paint thinner in small lots for example, and the remainder to folks who melt them for use in making new bottles, and similar to reclaimed paper they probably can't be used to make colorless bottles. -- Cheers, John B. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:17:23 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 3:08:46 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote: As for Global Warming, his [Dr Roy Spencer's] blog, statement titled "Global Warming Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled "2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present. Oh dear, Slow Johnny. Nobody argues that there is not local and global warming and cooling all the time; that's what climate systems do. Those are natural climate cycles. Lol, it isn't those that the discussion has been about. Perhaps you should get up to date. Although as far as accepted, the quality of the data behind all thes cycles would be luck to produce a Model T Ford. We're coming out of a cooling cycle called the Little Ice Age Your teams pulling in opposite directions. Tom says it is now back to cooling. It seems your the problem is you're both thinking of different cycles. so any graph starting in 1600 will show cooling towards the tail of the LIA then warming towards our own time. Before the Little Ice age, there was the Medieval and further back the Roman Optima which were periods of temperatures even warmer than it is now, periods of huge human advances, called optima because they were periods of great human wellbeing, in the latter of which grapes were grown in Greenland. Correlation =/= causation. And the problem is "human well being" has SFA to do with it. BTW, what you are both taking as definite cycles are themselves not widely accepted as the data correlations are very poor. The questions the Global Warming Hysterics (of whom Dr Spencer is not one) have to answer, and have failed to answer despite all their bullying, are the following: 1***. Is there global warming? They haven't even been able to prove that, the infamous, now discredited, Hockey Stick of the widely disgraced Michael Mann actually dealing with local Minnesota temperatures and temperatures in the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, from an inadequate tree species (strip bark pines) and in inadequate numbers (2, that is two, trees in the Gaspe, for instance, crooked up by statistical legerdemain call short entering to 390 times the weight of any other trees. All the data you quote has a higher correlation to reality than all the "natural cycles" being pulled out of hats to "counter" claims. The Hockey Stick wasn't even about Northern Hemisphere temperatures, it was about local weather in Minnesota and in Quebec, and even then the Hockey Stick could be replicated by Red Noise, i.e. it was easily proven to be random bull****. Wow, you're calling all Tom's beloved mercury thermometer readings "bull****"? Great team work there boys. But the Glabal Warming Hysterics, like you and News18, Oooh, you have to have a bogey man. I'm just posting arguments that you can not couunter and the fundamental point is that if we're are wrong, nothing bad will happen, but if we are correct, then you'd better start chasing a faecal transplant from a termite gut very fast. if that is a "zoom' in your mental understanding, you might like to get up to dats with the latest's ( ie last decades) research into the effects on rising CO2 on plant grow and whatit means to human nutrition. carry right on as if the Hockey still stands. It does., but then you're the man who believe wolrd history was all documented in the 1500s or so. 2***. Is warming, once we accept the measurement of it, natural or unnatural? Again, no one is arguing about "warming' existing as in "temperature', what is being pointed out is energy flows in weather/climate. hint. colr/colour of noise is largely that. It's a key question, and if you root around on Dr Spencer's site, and the site of the scientist he is often associated with, Dr Christie, you will discover that key measurements, for instance interactions at the equator, remain to be taken and interpreted. Meanwhile, the poles are doing someething out of all expectation? That is like saying that IQ tests prove human intellect because the average is consistently 100. 3***. What part of global warming, when these clowns (not Spencer and Christie, who're real scientists, Is this the "all my cats are scientists because they study bugs" definitioon of 'scientist'? but the IPCC clown car of climate thugs) prove it, is manmade? See, the Global Warming Hysteria is a neb-marxist redistributionist agenda Thats a new one. hint, in scientific matters you are supposed to define new terms. that claims industrialisation is to blame. Gee, given the amount of energy that industrialisation now produces as 7 billion arseholes demand the latest iphone, you could be forgiven to believing so. But it is easily proved that in the earliest warm periods in the first millennium of the Christian age there was no industry, There you go conflating "global warming" with temperature again. No wonder you can not come to grips with "global warming" and the Little Ice age coincided with the first and dirtiest -- all that coke smelting! -- two centuries or so of the Industrial Revolution. There you go conflating correlation with causation again and anyone who has a modern education would know size matters, despite what you may say, e.g. arsehoes in the world and number with access to the technology. Once again you're trying to drive by looking backwards. There is a reason why those backward pedalling bicycles are not very popular. snip repetition. 4***. The Global Warming Hysteria has picked on CO2, carbon dioxide, for a variety of political reasons of which you seem entirely ignorant. Yes, because it lasts in the environment for centuries. so taking massive amount of Carbon from under the ground and transforming it to Carbon Dioxide and thus removing twice as much oxygen from the air is such a great idea Hey!!! Where's the proof that CO2 -- tree food, Which we have less and less of each ear. Hint, it is also "food" for a lot of stuff we eat and givena plentiful supply of CO2 to grow in, those plants tend to produce cellulose rather than the sugars we seel in out diet. you of course already knew this? Lol, you should seek out those Americans that come out to Australia and get "lost in the bush", then they suddenly re-appear to claimed they liven on "nuts and berries". They must know the secret of the foods that will come to exist globally. Hint "woody pear" if you don't know why everyoe rolls around laughing. (Hmm must de due for another ne soon.) eh, if nobody has told you before -- is the culprit in any so-called manmade global warming? As above. 5***. What other factors contribute to global warming, natural or manmade, and how much? (In the 1970s some of the same clowns, like James Hansen, who have been caught out fiddling the figures to "prove" global warming, wanted us to artificially warm the oceans because they claimed we were heading into an Ice Age. Imagine where we would be now if we had listened to them...) We don't have to imagine as we'll soon know. Funny how we can 'see' acid rain, but not "ocean acidification" Out of sight, out of mind again. 6***. Are you aware that the IPCC itself has said that global warming up to 2% would be beneficial for humanity through an agricultural effloration? How long ago was that? If they did. they know differently now. Hint, only and out and out ignorant inoramous could have suggested that life will continue as normal from such. One moment you suggest humans matter not one iota, then you say the whole planet could be changed for the benefit of humans an none of the other organisms that live on this plant will give a damm and continue to support our every growing population. shrug, i'd prefer not to reach Soylent Greeen as even the elite probably wont "enjoy the crops on the surface". You didn't know that, did you, I did and laughed at the stupidity. We even had an ex-Prime Minister who said so and given that he is known as the Mad Rabbit, you'll understand why it was taken as a joke. He is marginally more respected than "The Donald". because you and the other clowns on RBT take your global warming from the Summary for Decision Makers, Actually, I've collected measurements used in the fandango. Interesting, that was how "climate change" was making this ancient tree sterile and that it only existed in modern times because it was on the right part of Gondwanna that drifted north. Sadly its current propagation method wont work for human survival. which is not written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians, with the main report by the scientists in recent years changed 180 degrees to fit the politically desired outcome. No, it was just the usual scientific questioning mind asking "does it matter". And the posting of the sad an desperate as they flail more in the growing mountain of evidence. shrug, All data can produce similar patterns if you're selective. In general, Slow Johnny, you should try to see the larger picture before you lecture you betters "You Betters". Umm, is this the tic bird that hangs around with rhinos so the cats leave it alone? on how flat the earth is. There by neatly summing up your knowledge of the science; "It all looks flat to me". At the very least you should read the scientists' draft reports for the IPCC from the first one forward and then check in the Summary how the scientists' statement have been subverted and flatly contradicted. There are samples posted on this forum by me in earlier years when this was a live issue. You're late to the party, Slow Johnny, and your guerrilla hits on a netsuke here and there have informed you poorly. You'd get more out of the good guys like Dr Spencer if you had a wider grip on the background and facts. Dr Spencer's cracked record needs a needle change. Andre Jute Dumb and Dumber at the back of the school bus Finally you're honest about yourself. Now if only you'd sat down the front with the smart kids. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:57:07 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:
So now the main exponent of man-made global warming has been completely destroyed. Err, nope. Politics and the courts do not determine true science. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:49:21 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:m Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; Lol, Linus Pauling and vitamin C. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:11:29 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute Just to be clear, while the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age stand, the can be no proof of manmade global warming, which is why the global warming faithful sneer and jeer rather than making arguments with hard facts. Like the fact that you're talking about local phenomina? You've been here, perhaps you can point to the Australia Records of these events. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:02:50 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:34:50 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Get out there and share your wisdom! Fox News needs you! - Frank Krygowski Probably the same reason people reply to him - to be heard/read. Naah, it is sport. Hasn't been anything worthwhile watching on TV for years and you need a break from reading science stuff. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:42:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle. I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they have been doing. Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their worthless computer models. You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent explanation on the web if you want to search for it. FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the average be a significant amount. There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/ oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in "the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes. Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are rising. But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...-believe-that- the-world-is-flat/ What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with someone's pet theory: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...rial-glaciers- didnt-melt-fast-enough-to-meet-prediction-1688833/ Naah, that is just the usual "don't look there (poles melting), look over here where this glacier, one, has grown. Except, it is all about there being massively more energy in the environment and both high and low temeperatures, aka the extremes will occurr in increasing frequency. how is that for an each way bet? |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:29:36 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:42:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote: What's needed then is a program to make the glaciers play along with someone's pet theory: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinio...rial-glaciers- didnt-melt-fast-enough-to-meet-prediction-1688833/ Naah, that is just the usual "don't look there (poles melting), look over here where this glacier, one, has grown. Except, it is all about there being massively more energy in the environment and both high and low temeperatures, aka the extremes will occurr in increasing frequency. Typical denier obfuscations and distractions - cherry picking old long-refuted data and mis-characterizing scientists who actually work in the field of climate science. Of course, these people are the same ones who believe trump when he says he's smarter than all the generals: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...hange-threats/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Protecting the head ... | Nick Kew | UK | 24 | December 30th 06 10:19 AM |
Protecting my shins | pkplonker | Unicycling | 8 | November 19th 06 10:02 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | firisfirefly | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:43 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | mornish | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:40 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | Jerrick | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:39 AM |