The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
It amuses me how most of these people with degrees hanging on their wall are some of the dumbest people. So what if you have some theory. If you can't prove it, It means nothing, and 2 if you are so far into these "theories" that are unable to function in society then what good does it do you. I had a teacher of whom I have much respect for. He told me that I could never fit completely into society. But I could, and for that matter had to skirt somewhere around the fringes. I won't mention names but there are several who have posted in this thread. They are the "educated" type. They can grasp ideas and concpets that I can not even begin to entertian. But they are unable to entertain very simple concepts. The difference between sand and heavy ground comes to mind. They can probably come up with a very detailed explaination of the two. In doing so they miss the obviuos.
.

So whats the obvious (you spelled it wrong)?

I note this...as much education as I have, there are folks who are more educated and smarter than me. In fact, there are folks out there who are so smart and educated we 95% of us don't understand what they are saying.

Folks like that, no matter how wacky (and some of them are so smart they can't function) deserve admiration not jealous ad hominems

WildiwishiunderstoodhalfofitAlaska TM
 
So whats the obvious (you spelled it wrong)?

I'm sure you'll find more then one mis-spelled word if you dig deep (or not so deep) into my post history.

I have to ask though Wild Alaska, If some one, as you put it is so smart they can't function, Then what good is this inteligence.
 
I have to ask though Wild Alaska, If some one, as you put it is so smart they can't function, Then what good is this inteligence.

Madness and genius are frequently related. To a great extent, genius can cause madness, but neither state detracts from the genius. Here again we have Perelman and Grothendiek http://www.regnum.ru/english/692396.html and Erdos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős These fellas are so far beyond you and I as to be scary. There are clearly links between Mathematical Genius and Aspergers Syndrome (Autism)...witness the mathematical idiot savant.

Wacked out as these folks are, they contribute more to the basic essence of humankind than 99% of us do, and probably only 1% of us even understand them.

Folks like that are closer to the mind of god than the rest of us

WildidiggeniusesAlaska TM
 
Degrees?

Some of you think that degrees are just pieces of paper. I agree that a degree in itself doesn't make one any smarter. Personally, if I am rushed to the hospital with chest pains, I want the folks that work on me to have those pieces of paper hanging on their office walls. Call me silly, but I prefer doctors with degrees.
 
Some of you think that degrees are just pieces of paper. I agree that a degree in itself doesn't make one any smarter. Personally, if I am rushed to the hospital with chest pains, I want the folks that work on me to have those pieces of paper hanging on their office walls. Call me silly, but I prefer doctors with degrees.

BINGO. There are degrees and there are degrees. It is also important what you do with your degree.

The degree is often like having an encyclopedia at your disposal on the subject at hand. The person without a degree often is lacking that encyclopedia. It doesn't mean one person is "smarter" than the other in basic intelligence or the ability to conduct deductive reasoning. It means the person with the degree more often than not has access to far more information on the subject allowing a better decision to be made.
 
Call me silly, but I prefer doctors with degrees.

I'd prefer doctors with degrees who knew what they were doing. If I couldn't have that, I'd rather have a nurse or EMT who had the necessary skills but not the degree.

The degree indicates that you've jumped through the hoops required to get it. That's all. The inference that even if you acquired the necessary knowledge, you have the skills to implement it is misplaced.
And this comes from one of those people with initials behind his name indicating an advanced degree, but has seen too many people who did not live up to the MD or JD.
 
Hmmmm. In my area, it has been unusually cold this year as it has in most of this country.

If we use the logic of the human initiated global warming theorists, then they should be going around screaming "global cooling". As it is, I believe they will stick to their guns even though facts are against them.

They've got that covered. The global warming makes the oceans transmit less heat which makes everything cooler.
 
There are clearly links between Mathematical Genius and Aspergers Syndrome (Autism)...

Then why is math my worse subject?

Back on Topic.

Yes, I would want a doctor to have a degree if he was going to operate on me. But in no way does this mean I'll let him operate solely becuase of that paper hanging on the wall. There are too many with degrees that think they know everything becuase of it.
 
Academic degrees (PhD) are harder to get than professional degrees (MD, JD) in many areas, especially hard science degrees.
A unique and original contribution to the field is normally required.
Outside of law schools, the use of 'Doctor' by JD holders is even discouraged by the professional societies.
The MDs refer to themselves as 'physicians' to differentiate from the academic doctors.

I have met many PhDs who function just fine in the general world, and a few who are so deeply involved in their area of expertise that they seem forever distracted by the rest of the world.
 
Outside of law schools, the use of 'Doctor' by JD holders is even discouraged by the professional societies.

This is common. Very few doctorate holders, other than physicians, use the honorific "doctor." In the U.S., the word "doctor" became associated exclusively with physicians, the opposite of Europe, where physicians are considered similar to mechanics and "doctor" is used for the Ph.D.'s and J.D.'s.
 
In the U.S., the word "doctor" became associated exclusively with physicians, the opposite of Europe, where physicians are considered similar to mechanics and "doctor" is used for the Ph.D.'s and J.D.'s.

Those holding doctorates in non-medical fields are routinely referred to as doctor in both professional and normal society.

As for JDs, I never heard anyone referred to as doctor in law school unless they held a degree other than or in addition to a JD, and it was never suggested that this was appropriate. Lawyers may refer to themselves as esquire in correspondence, but never as doctor.
 
I dont know if this was posted....

http://www.climatepolice.com/Co2_report.pdf

Summary
Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum
it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm.

Accurate measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm 1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934 alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany, medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition science, biochemistry and ecology.

Modern climatology ignored their work till today even though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results:

1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.

2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm. 3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.

4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period. 5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without having dealt with its chemical basis.

6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.
 
Quote:
In the U.S., the word "doctor" became associated exclusively with physicians, the opposite of Europe, where physicians are considered similar to mechanics and "doctor" is used for the Ph.D.'s and J.D.'s.
Those holding doctorates in non-medical fields are routinely referred to as doctor in both professional and normal society.
As for JDs, I never heard anyone referred to as doctor in law school unless they held a degree other than or in addition to a JD, and it was never suggested that this was appropriate. Lawyers may refer to themselves as esquire in correspondence, but never as doctor.

In the U.S., it's considered socially gauche among academics or lawyers to use doctor if you're not a physician. Insecure climbers, and scammers (like "Dr. Phil"), especially Ed.D's and x.D's at non-prestigious schools use it, but academics at prestigious institutions usually use "professor." It's not socially acceptable among peers to use "doctor" for the most part, though, I know, etiquette is declining all around us. 20 years ago you hardly ever heard the term applied to a non-physician. Lawyers do not use "doctor" not because it's inappropriate, but because it's not considered good form. Ph.D.s and J.D.s hold doctorates and could call legitimately use that honorific but it's considered pretentious and misleading, implying that you're a medical doctor. Are we far enough off-topic yet?
 
1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a varying CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.

This would coincide with a period of hurricanes occurring with frequency in the North Atlantic and hitting the northeast coast very often. Today, contrary to what would be expected if the postulates of GW were correct, we see almost no northern storms and the activity concentrated in the Gulf and Caribbean.
 
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/p...olicy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
 
There is PC political pressure on GW to prevent stories that would aid the skeptics arguments.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/601516/an-emerging-truth.thtml

There is now unequivocal evidence that the temperature of the planet is dropping like a stone. As the DailyTech site reports:

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.
Here’s some other data you may not have seen. The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either, which has got this poor NPR reporter scratching his head, poor chap:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them. This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
And here is Ross McKittrick (who exposed the fundamental flaw in the research underpinning the whole of MMGW theory, the hockey-stick curve whose upward warming trend was achieved by omitting several hundred years of global climate history) revealing that there is an error in groundstation measurements such that past warming as measured by near-surface air has been over-estimated by 100% for over 20 years to 2002 (since when there has been cooling). While at Climate Audit, John Goetz says that the temperature record for 2005-2007 has actually been falsified to produce an upward trend. Crumbs!

Now look at this curious development. The British government, as we know,has swallowed the predictions of man-made global warming and is busily trying to persuade us that it is committed to reducing carbon emissions to counter the threat that we’re all about to fry. Yet HM Treasury has posted on its website a paper about solar cycles, which says:
Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.
And it also concludes:
A rural US temperature data set shows that recent and current temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century.
If the Treasury thinks it is worth putting up on its website a paper forecasting global cooling, why is the British government adopting policies, including green taxes and intrusive lifestyle prescriptiveness, to deal with precisely the opposite eventuality?

Now, you may not know about this sudden deadly chill in the MMGW atmosphere because the BBC hasn’t told you. To be more precise, it did try to report this — but then appears to have altered its report under pressure from a global warming activist. This story by Roger Harrabin, headlined 'Global temperatures “to decrease,” ’ was captured a few hours after it appeared on the BBC website on April 4. Later that day, strange things happened to this story. The headline changed from ‘Global temperature “to decrease” ’ to ‘Global warming “dips this year”; so did the content; but then the headline changed back again to ‘Global temperature “to decrease” ’.

And the e-mails were discovered!


Baffled? Here's the explanation. This site proudly reproduced an email exchange between Harrabin and a global warming activist, Jo Abbess, who introduced it with these words:

Climate Changers,
Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism. Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better. Judge for yourselves...

As you will see from this remarkable exchange, Abbess demanded that Harrabin change his report because it would

play into the hands
of global warming sceptics. Harrabin rebuffed her on the grounds that
We can't ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing regularly now in general media.
But when she told him there could be no debate about this because it was
an emerging truth
and threatened to circulate his remarks so that he
might appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics
he caved in and said
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.
Appalling, no?
 
More bad news for the GW computer models that don't know how to model water vapor, clouds or rain.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR

Hard to explain

Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their observations.

This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans' earlier work.

But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse future.

However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.

The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).

The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.

Alarmists' quandary

This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!

The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.
 
WHERE are the proponents to GW??????

We need to hear from them. Surly all this information contradicting QW is erroneous.........

We know who you are....what say you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top