Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534BBF4.A3E81%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632253 |
On 5/7/17, 11:18 AM, in article vxJPA.16606$jO6.14157@fx41.iad, "Wolf K" <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-07 13:16, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 7 May 2017 12:38:12 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 2017-05-06 12:26, Snit wrote: >>>> [...]Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown, >>>> NONE of the scientific disciplines that show evidence of man-made global >>>> climate change have ignored the fact that the climate has changed in the >>>> past, nor have any of the major models left that out. >>> >>> Our school received Science, the AAAS journal, because the science dept >>> head was a member. Around 1975 +/-, Science published a special issue on >>> weather and climate modelling. One group reported that on some runs >>> their model showed a major climate change within a couple of centuries >>> instead of 5,000 years and up, as had been deduced from the climate >>> record in ice cores, tree rings, lake bottom sediments, etc. the usual >>> rate of change was around 50,000 to 100,000 years. The authors figured >>> there was something wrong with their model, but couldn't figure out >>> what. But they did say that if the model was substantially correct, then >>> ideas about how fast the climate could change would have to be revised. >>> And that changes in average temperatures etc that were showing up in the >>> long-term weather records might be early warning signs of climate change. >>> >>> Kindly note how cautious they were. They did not want to believe that >>> their model was correct, because the results conflicted with everything >>> they believed they knew about the climate. >>> >>> Since then, weather and climate models have become much more powerful. >>> E.g., we expect 3-day weather forecasts to be accurate. When I was >>> growing up, we expected a the morning's 1-day forecast to change by >>> evening. The climate models have incorporated more historical data, and >>> more feedback loops. The chaotic nature of the whole system has become >>> more apparent: Major changes in a variable have little effect until a >>> tipping point is reached, and then even a small change in that variable >>> tips the whole system into a different state. >>> >>> The climate can indeed change within a couple 100 years. I think it's >>> happening. >>> >>> FYI, here's the latest news on a slow-motion disaster: >>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39779761 >>> >>> When the Larsen ice-shelf breaks up, there will be more open sea. Ice >>> reflects heat from the sun, open sea absorbs heat. The Antarctic seas >>> will warm up. That will speed up disintegration of the ice-shelves, >>> which will create even more open water, and even warmer seas around >>> Antarctica. That will result in warmer weather over the continent, which >>> will speed up melting of the Antarctic ice pack. Just how fast the whole >>> process will take is, as they say, "not well understood." But it's a >>> feedback loop. The ice pack will melt ever more quickly, raising >>> sea-levels by several meters. >>> >>> I suspect even JWS and Sprang know how a feedback loop behaves. >> >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/antarct >> ic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-o >> ut-why/> >> >> From the article: >> >> "Indeed, the overall Antarctic sea ice trend, bucking climate change >> expectations, has been a slight increase over time, rather than a shrinkage." > > Firstly, the NASA report referenced in the article states that > "Globally, sea ice is diminishing despite Antarctic gains". > https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishi > ng-despite-antarctic-gains > > Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected > because it's sudden. The game is to grab some very select data, found by scientists, and claim this proves scientists cannot be trusted. It is utter nonsense. >> I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what >> one seeks to find. > > Yes, that's confirmation bias. Which is why you quoted that sentence, > and apparently didn't bother checking the reference. And why the > climatologists of 40-some years ago were unwilling to believe the model > that indicated a very rapid climate change was possible. And why most of > them have been unwilling to link any one severe weather event to climate > change. Or even an unprecedented string of severe weather events, for > that matter. > > See, scientists know that when it comes to complex systems, > probabilities is the best they can offer. The fact that most > climatologists now speak of climate change as a current fact should make > you pause for reflection. Especially when they still express their > forecasts as probabilities. > > For example, every prediction about the rate of Arctic climate changes > (eg, the extent of summer and winter sea ice) has understated what then > actually happened a few years later. "If present rates continue", as > they say, there will be zero Arctic summer ice by somewhere between 2050 > and 2100. Probably closer to 2050. > > Article about both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Study the graphs. > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level > -ever-recorded/ > > From the WashPost article you referenced (did you read the whole thing? > Really?): > ³It¹s going to be a record low minimum no matter what happens right now, > it¹s just a matter of, how low do we go,² Serreze said Monday. ³It could > be any day now.² (The ice is even lower now than it was when we spoke.) Nothing to add other than to note very well worded. Thank you. >>> Have a good day. >>> >> >> It's a nice day too. >> Kinda cool for May :) > > Where are you located? (Within 100 miles, I don't really want to know > your address). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534BC46.A3E82%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632227 |
On 5/7/17, 9:38 AM, in article W3IPA.30518$sS7.12250@fx40.iad, "Wolf K" <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-06 12:26, Snit wrote: >> [...]Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown, >> NONE of the scientific disciplines that show evidence of man-made global >> climate change have ignored the fact that the climate has changed in the >> past, nor have any of the major models left that out. > > Our school received Science, the AAAS journal, because the science dept > head was a member. Around 1975 +/-, Science published a special issue on > weather and climate modelling. One group reported that on some runs > their model showed a major climate change within a couple of centuries > instead of 5,000 years and up, as had been deduced from the climate > record in ice cores, tree rings, lake bottom sediments, etc. the usual > rate of change was around 50,000 to 100,000 years. The authors figured > there was something wrong with their model, but couldn't figure out > what. But they did say that if the model was substantially correct, then > ideas about how fast the climate could change would have to be revised. > And that changes in average temperatures etc that were showing up in the > long-term weather records might be early warning signs of climate change. > > Kindly note how cautious they were. They did not want to believe that > their model was correct, because the results conflicted with everything > they believed they knew about the climate. > > Since then, weather and climate models have become much more powerful. > E.g., we expect 3-day weather forecasts to be accurate. When I was > growing up, we expected a the morning's 1-day forecast to change by > evening. The climate models have incorporated more historical data, and > more feedback loops. The chaotic nature of the whole system has become > more apparent: Major changes in a variable have little effect until a > tipping point is reached, and then even a small change in that variable > tips the whole system into a different state. > > The climate can indeed change within a couple 100 years. I think it's > happening. > > FYI, here's the latest news on a slow-motion disaster: > http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39779761 > > When the Larsen ice-shelf breaks up, there will be more open sea. Ice > reflects heat from the sun, open sea absorbs heat. The Antarctic seas > will warm up. That will speed up disintegration of the ice-shelves, > which will create even more open water, and even warmer seas around > Antarctica. That will result in warmer weather over the continent, which > will speed up melting of the Antarctic ice pack. Just how fast the whole > process will take is, as they say, "not well understood." But it's a > feedback loop. The ice pack will melt ever more quickly, raising > sea-levels by several meters. > > I suspect even JWS and Sprang know how a feedback loop behaves. > > Have a good day. What is sad is how much money and effort is put into denying this ONE area of science (or, I suppose, the multiple ones tied to climate). Nobody is putting that much effort into denying other sciences. That right there shows there is something fishy going on. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzv49mcnjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632110 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 17:26:48 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/6/17, 6:32 AM, in article op.yztjw4ubjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate >>>>> change. OK. >>>> >>>> Yes, climate varies. >>> >>> Again, not in contention. >> >> If you agree it varies, you won't be worrying about us changing it then will >> you? > > Another straw man from you. Why do Americans love that silly phrase? > Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown, > NONE of the scientific disciplines that show evidence of man-made global > climate change have ignored the fact that the climate has changed in the > past, nor have any of the major models left that out. Yes they do. They assume it wouldn't change by itself. If they did, they wouldn't care what we were doing. The natural turn of events caused by that big nuclear reaction in the sky is far more powerful than what we can do. But just you carry on believing in climate change bullshit and god and tooth fairies and whatever else you dumb shit yanks think about. -- If girls had apostrophes instead of periods, they'd be even more possessive and prone to contractions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534FAA2.A3F7B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632306 |
On 5/7/17, 4:09 PM, in article op.yzv49mcnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2017 17:26:48 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/17, 6:32 AM, in article op.yztjw4ubjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate
>>>>>> change. OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, climate varies.
>>>>
>>>> Again, not in contention.
>>>
>>> If you agree it varies, you won't be worrying about us changing it then will
>>> you?
>>
>> Another straw man from you.
>
> Why do Americans love that silly phrase?
I see no reason to think Americans have a monopoly on noting logical
fallacies.
But the better question is why did you use a logical fallacy and why are you
trying to change the topic from that?
>> Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown, NONE of the scientific
>> disciplines that show evidence of man-made global climate change have ignored
>> the fact that the climate has changed in the past, nor have any of the major
>> models left that out.
>
> Yes they do.
So support this.
> They assume it wouldn't change by itself.
If you knew even the basics of the science you would know this is not true.
Here, with SECONDS of searching:
<https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/>
-----
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last
650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and
retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years
ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era ‹ and of human
civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very
small variations in Earth¹s orbit that change the amount of solar
energy our planet receives.
-----
Absolutely trivial to show you are wrong on that.
> If they did, they wouldn't care what we were doing.
That is an absurd conclusion. It is like saying we know we will all die some
day so murder does not matter... it is just leading to death which is
natural. Utter nonsense.
> The natural turn of events caused by that big nuclear reaction in the sky is
> far more powerful than what we can do.
Again, you assume this is in contention. You go out of your way to show your
ignorance of the science. Why?
> But just you carry on believing in climate change bullshit and god and tooth
> fairies and whatever else you dumb shit yanks think about.
You just went out of your way to note your denial of the science (and
support for massive socialism for the rich) is based on your ignorance of
the science... then you want me to accept your views.
That is silly of you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yztj0hu6js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631381 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:48:14 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/17, 11:36 AM, in article oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> >>>>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>>>> water very soon. <g> >>>> >>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >>>> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>> >>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>> >> >> Fill a glass with ice and water. >> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >> Leave for 24 hours. > > It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) > >> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >> the water level is lower. > > Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does > not back your initial claim. Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. -- Disk Full - Press F1 to belch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oekk77$93l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632100 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 14:34:55 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:48:14 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/30/17, 11:36 AM, in article oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the >>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>>>>> water very soon. <g> >>>>> >>>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >>>>> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>>> >>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>> >>> >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >> >> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >> >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >> >> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >> not back your initial claim. > > Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. > It does raise the concept of carbon credits. You gotta scare money out of peoples' wallets ;) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yztlx6kojs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632101 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 14:48:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 06 May 2017 14:34:55 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:48:14 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/30/17, 11:36 AM, in article oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>>>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>>>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the >>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>>>>>> water very soon. <g> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >>>>>> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> >>> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >>> >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>> >>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>> not back your initial claim. >> >> Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. >> > > It does raise the concept of carbon credits. > You gotta scare money out of peoples' wallets ;) I wonder how much time, effort, money, etc is being wasted "protecting" the environment. Imagine releasing all that money and worker time to do something productive. We could be colonising other planets by now. -- 110 people once tied for second prize in the Powerball Lottery after playing the same lucky numbers from a fortune cookie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D53347D3.A3C9A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632103 |
On 5/6/17, 7:16 AM, in article op.yztlx6kojs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >>>> >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>> >>>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>>> not back your initial claim. >>> >>> Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. >>> >> >> It does raise the concept of carbon credits. >> You gotta scare money out of peoples' wallets ;) > > I wonder how much time, effort, money, etc is being wasted "protecting" the > environment. Imagine releasing all that money and worker time to do something > productive. We could be colonising other planets by now. Ah, so you want to subsidize the costs of the use of ancient stores of carbon AND get rid of all other measures to protect the environment. Interesting support of massive socialism. I do not back it at all! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5334E04.A3CB0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632101 |
On 5/6/17, 6:48 AM, in article oekk77$93l$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> >>> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >>> >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>> >>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>> not back your initial claim. >> >> Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. > > It does raise the concept of carbon credits. > You gotta scare money out of peoples' wallets ;) You prefer socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon. Got it. Just wish those of you who pushes this form of socialism would directly speak of what you support and say why you support it instead of pushing anti-science propaganda to get those results without even admitting what the results are. The fact you will not speak directly of the socialism you push, though, and the fact others who back such socialism will not, shows that it is not something that can actually be supported. It is just tied to greed and special entitlements for the rich. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vI-dnTdzOoTuc5DEnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #632100 |
On 2017-05-06, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. If a mass of ice is already sitting in the ocean, then it melting won't raise the sea level. However, if that same ice is built up on top of a land mass, and that ice melts and flows into the ocean, how the hell can it not raise the sea level? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D533479C.A3C99%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632100 |
On 5/6/17, 6:34 AM, in article op.yztj0hu6js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>> >>> >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >> >> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >> >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >> >> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >> not back your initial claim. > > Don't you get it? Ice melting doesn't raise the sea level. Look forward to you showing the scientific sites or peer reviewed articles which back your intuition on that. It goes VERY contrary to what the well researched models and direct data show, but, hey, if you think otherwise then please support it. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oe5bqm$21o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631379 |
Sprang wrote: > Fill a glass with ice and water. > Place outside in the sun on a warm day. > Leave for 24 hours. > Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, > the water level is lower. > Tell others. I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631385 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: > Sprang wrote: >> Fill a glass with ice and water. >> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >> Leave for 24 hours. >> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >> the water level is lower. >> Tell others. > > I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water > is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from > liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning > resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea > level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will > melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. > If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. > If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. Wear galoshes. Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B859D.A27DA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631395 |
On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote > this: >> Sprang wrote: >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >>> Tell others. >> >> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >> > > If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. What makes you think four inches? > Wear galoshes. > Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap > galoshes. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631397 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote >> this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. > > What makes you think four inches? What is it, then? > >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >> galoshes. > > -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B8808.A27EF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631400 |
On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>> wrote >>> this: >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>> Tell others. >>>> >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> >> What makes you think four inches? > > What is it, then? Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5dmj$c1$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631405 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:24:40 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>> wrote >>>> this: >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>> Tell others. >>>>> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> >>> What makes you think four inches? >> >> What is it, then? > > Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. > There is no evidence. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B9256.A2942%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631409 |
On 4/30/17, 12:25 PM, in article oe5dmj$c1$7@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:24:40 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>>> wrote >>>>> this: >>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>>> Tell others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> >>>> What makes you think four inches? >>> >>> What is it, then? >> >> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. > > There is no evidence. OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you for the admission. Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5har$j4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631419 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:38 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 12:25 PM, in article oe5dmj$c1$7@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:24:40 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>>>> wrote this: >>>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. Place outside in the sun on a warm >>>>>>>> day. Leave for 24 hours. Return to retrieve glass, notice even with >>>>>>>> the bugs floating in it, the water level is lower. Tell others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think four inches? >>>> >>>> What is it, then? >>> >>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. >> >> There is no evidence. > > OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you for > the admission. That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The Himalayas ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt. > > Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? > I've seen it. The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting! I live near the ocean. It ain't no higher. Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a glacier. There has to be alarmist science happening. You know that Al Gore and friends will profit. They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by one-third. By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees. That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5hp4$j4a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631421 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:27:08 -0000 (UTC), Sprang, after 15 edits, wrote this:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:38 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>> On 4/30/17, 12:25 PM, in article oe5dmj$c1$7@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
>><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:24:40 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>>> On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>>>>> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
>>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits,
>>>>>>> wrote this:
>>>>>>>> Sprang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. Place outside in the sun on a warm
>>>>>>>>> day. Leave for 24 hours. Return to retrieve glass, notice even with
>>>>>>>>> the bugs floating in it, the water level is lower. Tell others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water
>>>>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from
>>>>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning
>>>>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea
>>>>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will
>>>>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water.
>>>>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think four inches?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it, then?
>>>>
>>>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence.
>>
>> OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you for
>> the admission.
>
> That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The Himalayas
> ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt.
>
>>
>> Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows?
>>
>
> I've seen it.
> The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting!
> I live near the ocean.
> It ain't no higher.
>
> Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a glacier.
> There has to be alarmist science happening.
>
> You know that Al Gore and friends will profit.
> They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by
> one-third.
>
> By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees.
> That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, it's
$24,000,000,000,000 at the high end.
Numbers that large mess with my head. :)
--
SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web