- This topic has 192 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,10:05) Quote (Stu @ April 20 2010,18:25) On an related unrelated topic, it is a bit unnerving to see one's own country obliterated by little epicentr
I can't even see New Zealand, although Japan looks pretty serious. I think Japan is the most earthquake prone country.
True! I hadn't spotted Japan. Because it is so spotted, I suppose.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,10:10) Western Australia had a 5.0 the other day. Certainly qualifies as a diverse place when it comes to earthquakes. The workers in two mines there got the day off.
I'm a bit surprised that a mag 5.0 quake would cause this kind of damage. We have a few that size each year in NZ with no reports of anything more than cans falling off supermarket shelves. Maybe we enjoy higher building standards without realising it.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,16:20) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 21 2010,02:18) David wrote: Quote And it should be stupidly easy to check the math on whether the global average temperature is increasing. [Image removed – see previous post]
I don't think anything about the earth's climate is “stupidly easy”, including predicting long term trends. Check out the source of the above chart. While these guys agree that man is affecting the earth's climate (potentially making things warmer in the near term) they are predicting a return to an ice age – perhaps a “great” one – by the end of the 21st century.
I think that the cartoonish (and forged) “hockey stick” projections for earth's climate are a bit too “stupidly easy” to account for all of the various factors that produced the historical temperature trends depicted above.
What is “depicted above” is hilarious.Thanks for the laugh.
Stuart
What exactly is the joke? I'd like a good laugh too.Wikipedia,
Although the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is widely believed to be associated with global warming, ice sheets on Antarctica have actually grown, rather than shrunk. Wingham et al. 20 showed “the Antarctic ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1 in period 1992–2003”.[7] Using satellite altimetry technique, authors show that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 gigatons per year.”Quote (seekingtruth @ April 22 2010,16:30) Wikipedia,
Although the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is widely believed to be associated with global warming, ice sheets on Antarctica have actually grown, rather than shrunk. Wingham et al. 20 showed “the Antarctic ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1 in period 1992–2003”.[7] Using satellite altimetry technique, authors show that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 gigatons per year.”
And who was widely believing this, and how is it relevant in your opinion?Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2010,02:12) Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,16:20) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 21 2010,02:18) David wrote: Quote And it should be stupidly easy to check the math on whether the global average temperature is increasing. [Image removed – see previous post]
I don't think anything about the earth's climate is “stupidly easy”, including predicting long term trends. Check out the source of the above chart. While these guys agree that man is affecting the earth's climate (potentially making things warmer in the near term) they are predicting a return to an ice age – perhaps a “great” one – by the end of the 21st century.
I think that the cartoonish (and forged) “hockey stick” projections for earth's climate are a bit too “stupidly easy” to account for all of the various factors that produced the historical temperature trends depicted above.
What is “depicted above” is hilarious.Thanks for the laugh.
Stuart
What exactly is the joke? I'd like a good laugh too.
Are you serious?Are you taking the cartoon scrawlings of these amateur buffoons as legitimate science?
It even plots the alleged time of the supposed biblical exodus, the event that real archeologists say never happened. As for “Nomanic”, what on earth does that mean?
The vertical axis on their “graph” has no scale!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2010,13:29) Quote (seekingtruth @ April 22 2010,16:30) Wikipedia,
Although the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is widely believed to be associated with global warming, ice sheets on Antarctica have actually grown, rather than shrunk. Wingham et al. 20 showed “the Antarctic ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1 in period 1992–2003”.[7] Using satellite altimetry technique, authors show that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 gigatons per year.”
And who was widely believing this, and how is it relevant in your opinion?Stuart
Stu,
I would have thought it was obvious, more hype than facts.I also found this interesting:
From National Geographic:
“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“
From MIT on Pluto
“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.”
Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “Solar Constant” dismissal theories.
From Space.com on Jupiter:
“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”
From MIT on Triton:
“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”
So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?
On the origin of the runaway global warming theory of CO2 Feedback and Venus (PDF):
“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .
The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”
Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?
seekingtruth it really does not help that you just post stuff like this that goes round the houses without addressing the one thing I asked. The modeling says that global warming could change the Gulf Stream and cause the UK and Western Europe to freeze.
So if that instance of freezing can be caused by warming, what is your point about the tiny increases in the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet? Is it impossible that this could also be a product of global warming?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2010,13:33) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2010,02:12) Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,16:20) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 21 2010,02:18) David wrote: Quote And it should be stupidly easy to check the math on whether the global average temperature is increasing. [Image removed – see previous post]
I don't think anything about the earth's climate is “stupidly easy”, including predicting long term trends. Check out the source of the above chart. While these guys agree that man is affecting the earth's climate (potentially making things warmer in the near term) they are predicting a return to an ice age – perhaps a “great” one – by the end of the 21st century.
I think that the cartoonish (and forged) “hockey stick” projections for earth's climate are a bit too “stupidly easy” to account for all of the various factors that produced the historical temperature trends depicted above.
What is “depicted above” is hilarious.Thanks for the laugh.
Stuart
What exactly is the joke? I'd like a good laugh too.
Are you serious?Are you taking the cartoon scrawlings of these amateur buffoons as legitimate science?
It even plots the alleged time of the supposed biblical exodus, the event that real archeologists say never happened. As for “Nomanic”, what on earth does that mean?
The vertical axis on their “graph” has no scale!
Stuart
Why resort to ad hominems? The cartoon is obviously meant to be – well, a cartoon for communicating a general concept to lay people, but frankly, I am surprised by your behavior given your constant declarations that you are willing to look at contradictory evidence and to be proven wrong via the scientific method. Did you go beyond the cartoon and read anything from “these amateur buffoons” before you made up your mind?From the buffoons' website:
Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades. Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials and quoted in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Wall Street Digest, Farm Journal, Top Producer, Successful Farming, Futures Magazine, The Boston Globe and many other publications. … His weather and commodity forecasting success rate is approximately 75% and he accurately predicted the current prolonged cycle of global weather “extremes” in 1966.In other words, “these amateur buffoons” are in the business of producing long range forecasts and have a track record for doing so. You can go to their website and see long range weather forecasts for the United States through March of 2011, so their work can be falsified. (Isn't this the stuff you always rave about?!?!?!)
Your reaction seems rather similar to what I would expect from a religious man who is presented with data that contradicts his faith. In fact, when you say:
Quote So if that instance of freezing can be caused by warming, what is your point about the tiny increases in the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet? Is it impossible that this could also be a product of global warming? You sound similar to a biblical literalist trying to defend some fanciful narrative in the bible. The real question is, “What does the global warming theory predict?” Is an increase in the thickness of Antarctic ice sheet consistent with global warming models or not? Do you even know, or are you taking it on faith?
WIT
Quote Why resort to ad hominems? The cartoon is obviously meant to be – well, a cartoon for communicating a general concept to lay people, but frankly, I am surprised by your behavior given your constant declarations that you are willing to look at contradictory evidence and to be proven wrong via the scientific method. Did you go beyond the cartoon and read anything from “these amateur buffoons” before you made up your mind?
Yes I did. I had a good long laugh.What contradictory evidence? Actually what evidence? The graph actually contradicts the claims they made, if you read both carefully. Where is the pattern linking climate change to volcanic activity? What data was used for that?
Quote From the buffoons' website:
Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades.
So for 40 years Cliff has had a high opinion of himself.Quote Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials and quoted in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Wall Street Digest, Farm Journal, Top Producer, Successful Farming, Futures Magazine, The Boston Globe and many other publications. … His weather and commodity forecasting success rate is approximately 75% and he accurately predicted the current prolonged cycle of global weather “extremes” in 1966.
Have been USED for what? Are you going to tell the good people exactly what?Quote In other words, “these amateur buffoons” are in the business of producing long range forecasts and have a track record for doing so. You can go to their website and see long range weather forecasts for the United States through March of 2011, so their work can be falsified. (Isn't this the stuff you always rave about?!?!?!)
So not being qualified in meteorology, or even in science, does not make you amateur? Drawing a cartoon that in all seriousness depicts an historical term no one knows, lists an event that never happened, and that has no references for the sources of data does not make you a buffoon? I think you need to learn more about science and credibility if you are taken in as much as you appear to be.Quote Your reaction seems rather similar to what I would expect from a religious man who is presented with data that contradicts his faith. In fact, when you say:
So if that instance of freezing can be caused by warming, what is your point about the tiny increases in the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet? Is it impossible that this could also be a product of global warming?Quote You sound similar to a biblical literalist trying to defend some fanciful narrative in the bible. The real question is, “What does the global warming theory predict?” Is an increase in the thickness of Antarctic ice sheet consistent with global warming models or not? Do you even know, or are you taking it on faith?
I’m not the one who started the discussion on ice sheets. You would have to ask the poster. It was left to us to make an ignorant conclusion. I am simply speculating that the poster meant for readers to think it absurd that ice shelf thickening could be a result of global warming, when severe cold weather for Western Europe could also result from global warming.Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 24 2010,14:02) Wow Stu, you're even more close minded than I thought. To each his own, I suppose.
You are welcome to your opinion. Good science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of robustness. The absurdity you linked to is not robust, as I have shown.Stuart
Stu,
I think that you have an inappropriately high opinion of what you've shown.
You wrote:
Quote So not being qualified in meteorology, or even in science, does not make you amateur? I quoted from the website:
Quote Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades. … Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials … . Can anyone, other than Stu, think of a field of expertise that would make someone more qualified to comment on climate issues?
I suppose that we all have our own religions, and you are entitled to yours as well.
WIT I am sorry to say that I think you are gullible beyond belief. Have other climatologists rated Cliff highly? No. The “top ten” rating is asserted on his website only. You believe Cliff's opinion of himself.
Here is an experiment you can do: Google “top climatologist”. Do you see his name anywhere other than on his own website? Try “climatologist” in Google. Anything?
Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Do you see the surnames Mann or Harris there? There is a Michael Mann.Randy Mann
. What were his parents thinking?Have ether of them published peer-reviewed papers in any science journals? Google that…Nothing. Cliff has written a series of periodicals called The Vermont town and weather almanac. He published them himself, so they have not even been through the quality control of a publishing house.
Does Cliff have academic credentials? No, he does not even have a qualification in science, let alone a position at a university or other organisation that would demonstrate the appropriateness of the “top ten” self-adulation. How about Randy? No, he is a weather man on TV.
Cheerful buffoons the pair of them, as are those who have paid money to them. Exactly what service they provided you are yet to tell us. Are you going to?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 25 2010,05:47) WIT I am sorry to say that I think you are gullible beyond belief. Have other climatologists rated Cliff highly? No. The “top ten” rating is asserted on his website only. You believe Cliff's opinion of himself. Here is an experiment you can do: Google “top climatologist”. Do you see his name anywhere other than on his own website? Try “climatologist” in Google. Anything?
Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Do you see the surnames Mann or Harris there? There is a Michael Mann.Randy Mann
. What were his parents thinking?Have ether of them published peer-reviewed papers in any science journals? Google that…Nothing. Cliff has written a series of periodicals called The Vermont town and weather almanac. He published them himself, so they have not even been through the quality control of a publishing house.
Does Cliff have academic credentials? No, he does not even have a qualification in science, let alone a position at a university or other organisation that would demonstrate the appropriateness of the “top ten” self-adulation. How about Randy? No, he is a weather man on TV.
Cheerful buffoons the pair of them, as are those who have paid money to them. Exactly what service they provided you are yet to tell us. Are you going to?
Stuart
Busted!You are right. I fell for that one. Unfortunately for me, I do tend to take people at their word until shown otherwise. I presumed that someone who claimed to be a “top ten climatologist” wouldn't be stupid enough to make such a claim and then post it for all the world to laugh at.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 25 2010,15:15) They thought it was better than Gurley?
Yup!Or Gay.
If he had been a girl.
…Never mind.
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 25 2010,15:15) They thought it was better than Gurley?
'Hue' would have been interesting.The possibilities are endless.
Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,21:27) Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,10:10) Western Australia had a 5.0 the other day. Certainly qualifies as a diverse place when it comes to earthquakes. The workers in two mines there got the day off.
I'm a bit surprised that a mag 5.0 quake would cause this kind of damage. We have a few that size each year in NZ with no reports of anything more than cans falling off supermarket shelves. Maybe we enjoy higher building standards without realising it.Stuart
Although a 5.0 near the surface and on loose ground can be quite damaging. I remember being in a quake in Petone which is situated on sand. Everyone in the building I was in thought it was the expected big one when it was shaking. It went for a minute and it really shook the place up. But most houses in Wellington are on hills and they are quite solid. They didn't really feel that much.Those mines in Australia are probably on sand. From what I understand, sand magnifies earthquake waves and solid rock constrains them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
