Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #507529 > unrolled thread

The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 15:38 -0500
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-17 04:26 +0000
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:24 -0500
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 17:19 -0500
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-17 22:38 +0000
            ah, interesting noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:07 -0700
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won't notice) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:35 -0700
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-07-30 11:12 -0400
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-02 12:05 +0200
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:58 -0400
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-08-02 12:53 -0400
        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 00:12 +0200
          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-02 19:57 -0400
            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 10:40 +0200
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 08:03 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:37 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:28 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:41 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:48 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:51 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 08:18 -0700
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:35 -0400
                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 20:37 +0200
                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:51 -0400
                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:23 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:01 -0700
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 13:35 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:43 -0700
                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 01:21 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 12:50 +0200
                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 13:23 +0200
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:43 -0700
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:30 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:07 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:46 -0700
                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-05 08:51 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-05 20:23 +0200
                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-06 02:04 -0400
                                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700
                                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400
                                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700
                                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400
                                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400
                                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
                                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700
                                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200
                                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400
                                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700
                                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500
                                                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000
            Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#510924 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
> You are missing part of the alarmists' narrative: *A*GW ... err ...
> Climate Change causes "extreme weather," which includes droughts and
> floods.
>
> IOW: "Global-warming explains everything, its opposite and even, if
> needed, the absence of any remarkable pattern."

Obviously the fact that the planet has never seen the heat wave that is 
happening now since millions of years doesn't worry you. All the facts 
that NASA publishes each year.

Read for instance the National Resources Defence Council 
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/), or NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov)
or the concerned scientists 
(http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.Vb9i63hSA7Q) or even the National 
Geographic organization:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/

ALL those people are...

"... cultists will continue "proving" to the unthinking masses that the
sky is falling and we're all gonna die because Western civilization is
spewing evil CO2."

They are ALL wrong! They have no data!

Just let's GO ON AS USUAL, do not DO anything. The profits of Exxon, 
Shell, and coal industry are SACRED (even more sacred than cows in India)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510952 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

>
>Just let's GO ON AS USUAL, do not DO anything. The profits of Exxon, 
>Shell, and coal industry are SACRED (even more sacred than cows in India)
>

When you don't have a model for what's going on that works (and we
don't), what do you suggest we do?  Remember that anything we do is
going to expend wealth that we might need later to do something else.
The philosophy of your lot seems to be to do something without regard
for whether it makes any difference at all.  So you expend the wealth
and when we find something that would actually matter we can't do it
anymore.

-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510990 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/03/2015 08:51 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
>> You are missing part of the alarmists' narrative: *A*GW ... err ...
>> Climate Change causes "extreme weather," which includes droughts and
>> floods.
>>
>> IOW: "Global-warming explains everything, its opposite and even, if
>> needed, the absence of any remarkable pattern."
>
> Obviously the fact that the planet has never seen the heat wave that is
> happening now since millions of years doesn't worry you. All the facts
> that NASA publishes each year.
>
> Read for instance the National Resources Defence Council
> (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/), or NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov)
> or the concerned scientists
> (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.Vb9i63hSA7Q) or even the National
> Geographic organization:
> http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
>
> ALL those people are...
>
> "... cultists will continue "proving" to the unthinking masses that the
> sky is falling and we're all gonna die because Western civilization is
> spewing evil CO2."
>
> They are ALL wrong! They have no data!
>
> Just let's GO ON AS USUAL, do not DO anything. The profits of Exxon,
> Shell, and coal industry are SACRED (even more sacred than cows in India)
>
Oh sure, the problem is those nasty "rich energy companies". Of course 
it was idiot greens like YOU who murdered the million third world 
children with your wonderful idea of burning food to sock it to Big Oil! 
So how many million children has Big Oil murdered? We can compare.

What with all the REAL environmental problems of chemicals and trash in 
the air and water, nasty waste piling up, destruction of rain forests 
and on and on, but YOU are all worried about some made-up imaginary CO2 
"warming" that has never actually measured only predicted! Yap, Yap, Yap.

Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of 
trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511021 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 03/08/2015 19:35, benj a écrit :
> Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of
> trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax.

When they start like this I have won... They have NO ARGUMENTS any more, 
just insults.

:-)

Have a nice day everybody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511092 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:37:12 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Le 03/08/2015 19:35, benj a écrit :
>> Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of
>> trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax.
>
>When they start like this I have won... They have NO ARGUMENTS any more, 
>just insults.
>
>:-)
>
>Have a nice day everybody

Declare victory and leave the field.

Rise and Repeat until True.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511116 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/03/2015 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:37:12 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Le 03/08/2015 19:35, benj a écrit :
>>> Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of
>>> trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax.
>>
>> When they start like this I have won... They have NO ARGUMENTS any more,
>> just insults.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Have a nice day everybody
>
> Declare victory and leave the field.
>
> Rise and Repeat until True.

Usual warmballer response when confronted with actual facts rather than 
their fantasies.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511109 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/03/2015 02:37 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 03/08/2015 19:35, benj a écrit :
>> Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of
>> trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax.
>
> When they start like this I have won... They have NO ARGUMENTS any more,
> just insults.
>
> :-)
>
> Have a nice day everybody

No arguments? Everything you warmballers say is a lie. We refute each 
and every one with references and you all pretend you've heard nothing.
And then simply dismiss anyone with proof as a "denier".

Fact: CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf

Fact: All the hundreds of Warmballers models have been proven totally 
WRONG. And the worse the agreement the more you scream it's certain!

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg

Fact: Even head warmballer Dr. Hanson's "improved" warming data shows no 
significant rise over nearly two decades. All screams of dire "warming" 
for past decade have been total lies.

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISS2014.gif

Fact: There is NO causality between CO2 levels and climate warming. In 
fact there is not even correlation As shown by Temperature 1940-1970 
when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN!

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/40-70GISS.htm

And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea 
levels and all the other lies.

Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
"Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.

Come back little boy when you have some actual data with you.

But no matter, if Congress is full of "deniers", our emperor will simply 
pass the huge energy tax by decree. And so he has! But don't worry about 
your big energy bills, It's simple. Just return to the simple life of 
the middle ages and you can be a happy serf again! Shut off that damn 
fossil fuel lawn mower that is making all the oil company executives 
rich and buy a couple of goats! They are traditional and green. Obama 
can maybe take a couple of goats with him on Air Force one when he goes 
to the big meeting in Paris to boast about what he's done.

Jacob is just one more internet big mouth with absolutely nothing to 
back it up. He'd rather be stealing your money than actually be doing 
something to clean up the mess we humans have made.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511120 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...

> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea levels and 
> all the other lies.

The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is 
moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true 
ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and 
breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.

You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the 
continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.

/dps

-- 
Ieri, oggi, domani

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511187 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>
>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>> levels and all the other lies.
>
> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>
> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>
> /dps

I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the ice 
for years rather than must making up political propaganda:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global warming" 
was melting all the ice when the variations were at the lowest point 
(along with hand-wringing over loss of all coastal cities) and now that 
there is record ice... Guess what? Well the record ice coverage is due 
to "global warming" too! Just how stupid do you think people are?

And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements 
(and the others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So 
scientifically speaking that makes it appear that your melting at ground 
level is due to fantasy.

Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't 
going up?

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511331 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

benj suggested that ...
> On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
>> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>>
>>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>>> levels and all the other lies.
>>
>> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
>> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
>> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
>> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>>
>> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
>> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>>
>> /dps
>
> I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the ice for 
> years rather than must making up political propaganda:
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
>

The studies I have seen are not political propoganda, but actual 
measurements of the ice cap, including the measurements of increased 
ground speed, increased fresh water flow from under the ice, and a 
wider but thinner ice shelf.  This includes satellite observations, 
on-the-ground measurements, and long term use of GPS to measure both 
horizontal and vertical displacements.


> You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global warming" was 
> melting all the ice when the variations were at the lowest point (along with 
> hand-wringing over loss of all coastal cities) and now that there is record 
> ice... Guess what? Well the record ice coverage is due to "global warming" 
> too! Just how stupid do you think people are?

Record ice /area/, but evidently not record ice /volume/.
>
> And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements (and the 
> others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So scientifically 
> speaking that makes it appear that your melting at ground level is due to 
> fantasy.
>
> Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't going 
> up?

No, the  land temperature measurements do show warming continuing over 
the 2 decades of the alleged "warming pause".  Sea temperature 
measurements also show increases, and increasing absorbtion of CO2 is 
increasing the acidity of the ocean to the detriment of corals, such as 
the Great Barrier Reef.

/dps

-- 
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it 
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are 
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us 
ask.  (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511694 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Snidely wrote:
> benj suggested that ...
>> On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
>>> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>>>
>>>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>>>> levels and all the other lies.
>>>
>>> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
>>> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
>>> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
>>> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>>>
>>> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
>>> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>>>
>>> /dps
>>
>> I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the
>> ice for years rather than must making up political propaganda:
>>
>> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
>>
>>
>
> The studies I have seen are not political propoganda, but actual
> measurements of the ice cap, including the measurements of increased
> ground speed, increased fresh water flow from under the ice, and a wider
> but thinner ice shelf.  This includes satellite observations,
> on-the-ground measurements, and long term use of GPS to measure both
> horizontal and vertical displacements.

Earlier radar studies show THICKENING of ice cap. Now that area is 
growing instead of shrinking all attention has changed to be on thickness.

I would point out that sea levels have been rising about 2mm a year 
since long before the industrial revolution and continues to do so. That 
water must come from melted ice. So a small loss of polar ice is normal 
and expected. Politics pumps it up into doom.

>> You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global
>> warming" was melting all the ice when the variations were at the
>> lowest point (along with hand-wringing over loss of all coastal
>> cities) and now that there is record ice... Guess what? Well the
>> record ice coverage is due to "global warming" too! Just how stupid do
>> you think people are?
>
> Record ice /area/, but evidently not record ice /volume/.

Volume is very difficult to measure and IF the ice is melting underneath 
as claimed then that clearly shows it is caused NOT by "global warming" 
which is NOT currently happening, but by some crustal thermal effect.

>> And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements
>> (and the others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So
>> scientifically speaking that makes it appear that your melting at
>> ground level is due to fantasy.
>>
>> Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't
>> going up?
>
> No, the  land temperature measurements do show warming continuing over
> the 2 decades of the alleged "warming pause".  Sea temperature
> measurements also show increases, and increasing absorbtion of CO2 is
> increasing the acidity of the ocean to the detriment of corals, such as
> the Great Barrier Reef.

I gave you the actual temperature measurements by Dr. Hanson and still 
you are a denier? Well, OK, during the stopped warming (it's not a 
PAUSE! To be a pause it would have to start again and you have no 
superpowers to use to determine if it's going to start again! actually 
this is nothing more than a cute trick played with statistics...You find 
an upward variation and then tell everyone it's going up forever! 
Basically fraud) there is no "significant" warming.

You are correct, however. Global warming IS continuing. I Admit it!
In fact you can see it right on the data I presented. Every year there 
is a whopping 0.005 degree temperature rise that is clearly warming 
oceans and thus the warmer water causes more CO2 to dissolve making the 
water more acid. (Just like warm soda pop!)

Politics isn't science. The Energy tax fraudsters have so fudged and 
manipulated and mouse-painted measurements, they have so lied to the 
public, and have bought and paid for real scientists and publishers to 
sell out to the scam that today climate science is all but defunct as a 
discipline. Nobody can be trusted anymore because there has just been 
too much pissing in the soup. You can tell us it still tastes fine, but 
people who know science won't touch it.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511716 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

“By heavens, if this isn’t a sign of climate change, then what is 
climate change going to bring?”

— Peter J. Goldmark, Washington’s commissioner of public lands, on this 
year's wildfires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-start-to-fire-season.html

As the U.S. burns you still go on with this kind of talk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511717 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 07/08/2015 12:50, jacob navia a écrit :
>
>
>
> “By heavens, if this isn’t a sign of climate change, then what is
> climate change going to bring?”
>
> — Peter J. Goldmark, Washington’s commissioner of public lands, on this
> year's wildfires.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-start-to-fire-season.html
>
>
> As the U.S. burns you still go on with this kind of talk.
>
>

In his quest to force tougher action on climate change, Gov. Jerry Brown 
has traveled to China, Mexico, Canada, even the Vatican.

But he was much closer to home on Thursday, just a couple dozen miles 
from the ranch his family has owned for generations.

Standing in front of scorched hills, the smell of smoke lingering in the 
air, Brown said the wildfire that had ripped through the area was 
evidence that global warming already has created dangerous conditions in 
California.

"This is a real wake-up call," the governor said. "It's a new normal."

With the state enduring rising temperatures and its fourth year of 
drought, more devastating fires could be around the corner, Brown said. 
"If the drought was to continue for a year or several years, California 
could literally burn up," he warned.

The blaze known as the Rocky fire began more than a week ago near Clear 
Lake, so far tearing through 69,600 acres in three counties. 
Firefighters have been making progress in recent days, but 43 homes and 
53 other buildings have been destroyed, according to the California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The Rocky fire is the largest of 19 wildfires burning across the state, 
and it's been one of the most challenging. It grew rapidly and evaded 
firefighters' attempts at containment — at one point jumping a highway 
and threatening more homes.

Brown visited the area Thursday to meet with first responders and 
residents who had lost their homes.

"These are very difficult times and a real tragedy for the families," he 
said, adding that he would find ways to aid the victims. "I've been 
through a lot of these fires and emergencies. And often, after a few 
weeks, there's a lot of discontent. So I'm going to be on this very 
carefully to see what's available."

The governor's appearance also was a chance for him to emphasize the 
dangers of global warming.

"We have a real challenge in California," Brown said. "Unlike the East, 
where climate change seems to be adding more storms, here in California 
and the Southwest it's more dryness.

"We've got more dryness, less moisture and more devastating fires. So 
more to come. It is very serious."

The governor repeated his challenge to Republican presidential 
candidates — many of whom have denied the science of climate change or 
opposed steps to combat it — to outline action plans.

"California is burning," he said. "What the hell are you going to do 
about it?"

Climate scientists said it is difficult to draw a connection between a 
specific fire and global warming, but asserted an increased risk of 
major conflagrations is undeniable.

chris.megerian@latimes.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511124 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Monday, benj yelped out that:

> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.


If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
modelling programs.  A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' 
article:
<URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>


<quote>
Global warming doubters pressed the Hansen group to publish the source 
code for a suite of programs known as GISTEMP, which extract 
temperature trends from historical weather observations. The code was 
released, but no one could understand it or get it to run. Nick Barnes 
and David Jones, two British computer scientists, gathered up the 
untidy collection of files and rewrote them as a single program in the 
Python language, “with an emphasis on code clarity that encouraged 
interested people to download, inspect, and run it themselves.” Their 
new program produces the same results as the original. Furthermore, by 
taking the mystery out of how the temperatures are calculated, they 
have changed the tenor of the conversation. GISTEMP is no longer so 
controversial.
</quote>

/dps


-- 
Who, me?  And what lacuna?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511144 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:

>On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>
>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>
>
>If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>modelling programs.  

Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?

The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
models?

You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?

Do you think there is there only one climate?

How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
are worthy of study?
<http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>

How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?

Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.

If Kym was on the other side, that would go in a sig.


>A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' 
>article:
><URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>


Or one might start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511200 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/04/2015 08:30 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>
>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>>
>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>>
>>
>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the
>> modelling programs.
>
> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>
> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
> models?
>
> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>
> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>
> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
> are worthy of study?
> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>
> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>
> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>
> If Kym was on the other side, that would go in a sig.
>
>
>> A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes'
>> article:
>> <URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>
>
>
> Or one might start here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
>
>
Wally you are such a denier! You need to have more faith. Obama 
believes. That should be enough for you to believe too!

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511332 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

With a quizzical look, Wally W. observed:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>
>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>> 
>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>> 
>> 
>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>> modelling programs.  
>
> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>
> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
> models?
>
> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>
> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>
> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
> are worthy of study?
> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>
> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>
> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>

If you want to know how well the models work, study the models.  If you 
prefer to make predictions by waving your hands, wave your hands.

> If Kym was on the other side, that would go in a sig.
>
>
>> A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' 
>> article:
>> <URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>
>
>
> Or one might start here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

Okay, YOU provide a model, since obviously you're better qualified.

/dps

-- 
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night.  I do not know 
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
  _Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511350 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 03:46:35 -0700, Snidely wrote:

>With a quizzical look, Wally W. observed:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>>> 
>>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>>> modelling programs.  
>>
>> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>>
>> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
>> models?
>>
>> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>>
>> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>>
>> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
>> are worthy of study?
>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>>
>> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>>
>> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>>
>
>If you want to know how well the models work, study the models.  

Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
<http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>

Nope, they don't work well. Moving on ...

>If you 
>prefer to make predictions by waving your hands, wave your hands.

Why do you assume we can make meaningful predictions a hundred years
into the future?

>> If Kym was on the other side, that would go in a sig.
>>
>>
>>> A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' 
>>> article:
>>> <URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>
>>
>>
>> Or one might start here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
>
>Okay, YOU provide a model, 

I don't want one. Why do you? What do you want to do with it? Do you
think you can scam the public purse with it?

>since obviously you're better qualified.

I seem to be more informed about what is possible than you are.


>/dps

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511424 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit :
> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>

CFACT

CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers 
through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing 
because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret.

:-)

Now to the content of that link

They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that 
says that

<quote>
we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real 
world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming
<end quote>

Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper...

Mr Spencer just SAYS SO.

Who is that guy?

See:
Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm

Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall 
Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and 
public policy.  He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a 
libertarian American public policy think tank.  Dr. Spencer is also 
listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental 
Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511523 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit :
>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>
>CFACT
>
>CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers 
>through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing 
>because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret.
>
>:-)
>
>Now to the content of that link
>
>They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that 
>says that
>
><quote>
>we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real 
>world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming
><end quote>
>
>Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper...
>
>Mr Spencer just SAYS SO.

Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right.

You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you?


>Who is that guy?

So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong.


>See:
>Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm
>
>Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall 
>Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and 
>public policy.  He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a 
>libertarian American public policy think tank.  Dr. Spencer is also 
>listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental 
>Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization

So?

All you have is ad hom?

Are you going to show those 73 models to be right?

Why not?

Do you agree they are wrong?

If so, what are you whingeing about?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web