O/T: Nuclear Reactor Problems

Page 5 of 16  


Fully agree. This is a reference to astudy of the effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption on world-wide temperatures: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/ All that stuff in the upper atmosphere did indeed cool things down. I.e., the reverse direction of what our generation of CO2 and methane does.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been staying out of this one but I have to ask - debunked by who? Faux News? Glenn Beck and his ilk? Something like 95% of scientists in the field (not some yahoo whose field is arificial polymers or the like) agree that global warming is occurring and that man made pollution plays a large part.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A LARGE part? Your choice to buy into that hollow assertion by "95%" of the scientific community.
The political Left sells fear through environmental money grabs, the political Right has everyone believing that there's raghead with explosives under everybody's bed.
I guess fear sells, but rational thought is difficult to sweep under the carpet.
And how about that 95% of scientists who call this LARGE man-made global warming by its real name: Bullshit?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:19:51 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

Cite please. Or you could name them and their field of expertise :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, 95 percent of the scientists in the field of global warming say this.
They got caught suppressing data and fudging their numbers and their credibility was destroyed.
Might have been just a few but that doesn't matter in politics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The numbers no longer matter because everything is based on the fudged data and all the original data was destroyed. Wonder why?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yea I remember when the data was exposed. One measuring station was on top of a building next to an exhaust vent. The vent was hot.
The person used that to model Canada and the onslaught flow towards N.A.
He was exposed and disposed. Lots of people had used his data and reports for forecasting and their talks.
Martin
On 6/5/2011 2:52 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:44:13 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Reference?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would have likely been Anthony Watts' "surfacestations.org" site which is down at the moment (whether it's down temporarily or has been shut down permanently I have no idea).
He found a number of stations where the temperature sensor was near an air conditioner, and many other discrepancies from NOAA's published standards for temperature measurement. He included photographs of the stations and other information, so you can make your own determination of whether there might be a problem, he didn't expect you to take his word for it.
He's not the only one to question the quality of the data though.
The simple fact is that we don't know whether the percieved "warming" is real or an artifact of instrumentation error.
NOAA recognized this as early as 2002 when they published a new set of standards for temperature measurement. However those new standards do not help us figure out whether older data is erroneous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.surfacestations.org /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:43:54 +0000, Larry wrote:

So you're using a Fox News weatherman as your authoritative source? I went to that web site and then I Googled Anthony Watts - the man is a laughingstock. He's been discredited six ways from Sunday.
And a weatherman deals in just that - weather, not climate. Watts has no pertinent credentials.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, he's using the images and other data on that site as his authoritative source. The site could be run by three gerbils and dyspeptic squirrel but that wouldn't invalidate the data it provides.
You are very guilty here of the ad-hominem fallacy.

I don't notice you discrediting anything on that site. Show us an error in his data.

And you still haven't shown us that the data on that site is erroneous.
The climatologists get all the data on which they're basing their long range analysis from weather stations you know. And weathermen, regardless of their knowledge of climate, do know a thing or two about weather stations.
Sorry, but you're doing more harm than good for your side with your line of argument. Refute the data.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Better, ask for a definition of "Climate". Gets real quiet after that.
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:24 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

OK:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface - Temperature-Record.html
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry but that's not a refutation. In fact that argument is based on _acceptance_ of the data that you claim that it refutes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*in a documentary whisper*>>> "and so, ladies and gentlemen, Doctor Twatwaffle tries to hook another willing fish. Stay tuned to watch the next episode named "Twatwaffle gets told to go fuck himself."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:47:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Correct. But it refutes the interpretation of the data on the site you gave.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It also shows that the data in general is questionable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A quote from his website:
"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."
You think it's any better now?
I haven't seen a single person here claim humans are totally innocent. What I have heard is that they've been lying to us and manipulating data to get their desired results.
All I'm doing is looking at the "problem" objectively which apparently you can't do. If it doesn't fit your philosphy I guess it's BS?
Both sides of the debate are likely saying something true. I just don't know which is which.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's all irrelevant anyway. The US isn't buying into it and despite signing Kyoto, China is ignoring it, and if the US and China don't play along the rest of the world is wasting its time trying to cut emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.