OT: Global warming deniers debunked

Page 11 of 13  


She will endure, while we are along for the ride, and after. It's just when she says "enough" and kicks us off that concerns me. Not looking forward to the time the ride becomes a bull ride ...
--
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
On 9/2/2011 10:49 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Could not agree more. If it were not global warming it would be something else that people would be worried about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/3/2011 10:52 AM, Leon wrote:

Probably second hand smoke, Big Mac Meals, butter, salt, coffee... No wait, coffee is OK, everything else is bad...
Plenty of stuff to wring your hands over...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Whatever sells papers, gains eyeballs, or gathers donations is used by the profiteers out there. It's a shame that those out there who need a "cause" to "be for" can't be steered into more meaningful positions on useful projects.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you assume that farts will "screw something up"? Shouldn't you have to prove that? Doesn't *science* demand it? You're making the claim...
Feed-forward? Ok, make that two proofs. Hand in your work by Tuesday and I want to see a working model of the time machine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, too lazy to explain everything. Farts contain methane, a greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO2. Some think that increases of methane in the atmosphere (difficult to quantitate such low amounts) are even more of a problem than CO2.
You all know of feedback, where an increase of product diminishes the reaction, so the reaction is self-limiting to an extent. Screeching sound systems are also called subject to feedback, but it is really feed- forward, where the produced sounds get further amplified by the too close microphone or other acoustic (or electrical) effects.
In a nuclear reactor or atomic bomb, the same happens and is called a chain reaction. Same for the process of bloodclotting - a chain reaction set off by small changes having a big effect. In a nuclear reactor and in normal people's blood, the chain reaction is limited by controls, which can sometimes go awry. The global warming effects we see now are also similar. So far the controls seem to be working somewhat, at least the result today is not yet devastating. Whether or not we can keep things in limits by doing nothing or something is what we seem to disagree about.
Just like the most recent housing debacle was very limited in Texas because that state had more stringent regulations than others for mortgage qualification. So regulations (and the very rare commodity of common sense) can control otherwise out of control systems. To me that means that some measures should be taken to control CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But there seem to be lobyists who are set against that,because of provincial self interests. As in the housing debacle, selfinterest (of banks mainly) and lack of common sense (home buyers), the global warming thing could explode in our faces. And yes, the laws of unintended consequences can put a bad damper on our enthusiasm ...
--
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

But does that fart "screw everything up"? Prove it. You still have a couple of days.

No, it is still "feedback". Feed-forward implies feeding a signal ahead of itself, in this case it would be forward in time. Obviously, that's not possible. (The term you're looking for is "positive feedback").

That's still not "feed-forward". (The term you're looking for is "avalanche".)

No, you still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".

More words. You still haven't proven that it "screws everything up".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


OK, positive feedback. Or chain reaction. If that really occurs (I added the if) then the ultimate result depends on the timeframe and rate of positive feedback. In the case of a nuclear chainreaction as in a U235 bomb, the rate is rather high, and the result almost indistinguishable from instantaneous. In climate we deal with rate of distribution of the culprit gases (and a host of other factors). No one yet knows whether there is a real tipping point beyond which things become irreversible, or whether it is slow enough to be controllable.
--
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

If you're going to tout your scientific understanding, use the accepted terms.

The economic disaster *will* occur, if carbon is so limited. You're betting a known for an unknown? The fact is that the only reason we've cleaned up the environment as much as we have is that we can afford to.

Tell that to a nuke scientist.

There's that "technical" term, "tipping point". You can only surmise there is such a thing. The fact is that we know about many negative feedback mechanisms but none positive, or positive enough to create a "tipping point". We *certainly* have no idea what or where it would be. In short, AGW models are all lies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WRECK only

All I can say is "OH, HORSESHIT, Wolfie! Good riddance."
P.S: A copy of Ian Pilmer's book, _Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_ is on its way to me. It contains 2300 footnotes to peer-reviewed papers.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems to be Spencer's website. Believe him or not, I don't.
--
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
On 9/4/2011 10:12 AM, Han wrote:

To scientific endeavor that is irrelevant, or should be.
So far there have been no peer reviewed papers offered in rebuttal to prove the one under question is flawed, only opinion ... as above.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Karl, why would the editor in charge of the review of this paper resign if there wasn't something wrong with the paper, in hindsight? The journal is a niche journal, far from Science, Nature, or the New England Journal of Medicine. Editors sometimes make mistakes. That is almost common (certainly for Science and Nature and their ilk). Editors don't resign.
When I asked my astrophysicist daughter about the paper she looked around and said the techniques and conclusions were poorly done in the opinion of many bona fide scientists. I didn't get names or peer-reviewed papers from her, but that wasn't necessary for me (sorry, so sorry).
--
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
On 9/4/2011 10:32 AM, Han wrote:

Let's see who hires him next ... that will answer that question.
The

One just did ... and there's more to this than meets the eye.

OPINION does NOT count in "science" ... what _is_ poor science is "scientist" offering same.
Han ... you erroneously stated above, without checking, that, and I quote: "it seems to be Spencer's website"
That is a totally false assumption on your part, that you obviously did NOT don't even bother to check before you made it.
I constantly find the arguments, on both sides, rife with this type of "opinionated", kneejerk, jumping to conclusions.
Sorry, my friend ... If you want me to take you seriously on this issue, you will have to do better than that.
Here is Dr. Spencer's website:
http://www.drroyspencer.com /
If you can find a connection between that and:
"All text and images on this site are John Herron / GlobalWarmingHoax.com - All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted."
... I will stand corrected.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I was looking for that, but didn't find it. I saw what now looks like a quote of stuff by Spencer.
As far as scientists being totally without opinions, foggedaboudid. They all have opinions. Things can get pretty hot when scientists with conflicting views get at it at meetings. DAMHIKT!!!
What scientists /should/ do is test the opinions with the facts, and adjust the opinions accordingly.
--
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
On 9/4/2011 11:16 AM, Han wrote:

That's precisely what I've been saying, but NOT what I've been seeing ... here and elsewhere.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The real problem with these types of theories is that not all variables that have an effect are well quantified, or even known, making the theory a bit of (sometimes very educated) guessing. With everything it's easier to explain after the fact ... But I'd still like more well-designed nuclear plants than un"clean" coal.
--
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
On 9/4/2011 11:49 AM, Han wrote:

I thought Dr Spencer's post on his web site this morning was a well reasoned postulation of _exactly_ what you say above.
Don't have to embrace it, but do take the time to read if you get a chance and form your own "opinion". :)
<The "commentards" are basically FOS, as usual and should be taken with the usual NACL, as either ass kissers, or the opposite.>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

This just goes to show, one man's music is another man's "noise"! ; )
I consider you a friend whether you like it or not..
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.