|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2014 4:36:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Nov 22, 2014 6:22:21 GMT
I was shocked at how simple it is in principle.
However, I do have few niggling questions:
a] Are methane and CO2 the only significant global warming gases?
b] 450 million years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least ten times today’s value. How did the Ordovician Glaciation occur with such a high concentration - I understand this was almost the coldest period in the last 500 million years.
c] How do clouds figure in this?
d] How does the Earth's location versus the sun effect this - the planet gradually changes its orbit over time changing the time of closest approach in the Northern Hemisphere from winter to Summer, and back again?
e] In the last decade, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 10%. Why has'nt the planet warmed?
e] Why, if the physics is so simple, are all those models at the IPCC giving the wrong answers?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 22, 2014 6:31:35 GMT
I was shocked at how simple it is in principle. However, I do have few niggling questions: a] Are methane and CO2 the only significant global warming gases? b] 450 million years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least ten times today’s value. How did the Ordovician Glaciation occur with such a high concentration - I understand this was almost the coldest period in the last 500 million years. c] How do clouds figure in this? d] How does the Earth's location versus the sun effect this - the planet gradually changes its orbit over time changing the time of closest approach in the Northern Hemisphere from winter to Summer, and back again? e] In the last decade, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 10%. Why has'nt the planet warmed? e] Why, if the physics is so simple, are all those models at the IPCC giving the wrong answers? This is a classic of cherry picking and partial truths. As soon as someone asks the type of questions that you are asking they are howled down as deniers and that the cherry picked items are 'settled science'
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2014 14:17:40 GMT
I learned so much from that video.....It was such an eye opener. Who would have thought that H2O vapor had no effect on temperatures or the "greenhouse" effect? A new era in physics is upon us. Such exciting times.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2014 11:26:54 GMT
I think this fits here. From WUWT: " Buoy Temperatures, First Cut" This seems to be a primer in how to fiddle with observation data to remove trends that do not fit with preconceived hypotheses. Or to put it another way, how to obfuscate the real data and replace it with processed statistical values that show what the researcher wants the reader to think. Some would charitably call this a processing error, but if grants and continued employment depend on the view being provided I would tend to call this lying with statistics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2014 15:54:01 GMT
I think this fits here. From WUWT: " Buoy Temperatures, First Cut" This seems to be a primer in how to fiddle with observation data to remove trends that do not fit with preconceived hypotheses. Or to put it another way, how to obfuscate the real data and replace it with processed statistical values that show what the researcher wants the reader to think. Some would charitably call this a processing error, but if grants and continued employment depend on the view being provided I would tend to call this lying with statistics. Interesting in the adjustments made by Berkley.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 29, 2014 16:28:51 GMT
I think this fits here. From WUWT: " Buoy Temperatures, First Cut" This seems to be a primer in how to fiddle with observation data to remove trends that do not fit with preconceived hypotheses. Or to put it another way, how to obfuscate the real data and replace it with processed statistical values that show what the researcher wants the reader to think. Some would charitably call this a processing error, but if grants and continued employment depend on the view being provided I would tend to call this lying with statistics. Interesting in the adjustments made by Berkley. Well it is Berkley, the bastion of the left, after all.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2014 20:41:22 GMT
Interesting post by E.M.Smith on Musings from the Chiefio " Comment on Hiatuses in the rise of Temperature" Which includes a response to an article on the site: www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/hiatuses-in-the-rise-of-temperature/Part of the response E.M.Smith writes: " The simple fact is that the CHANGES in historical data done as ‘adjustments’ are the source of all the warming “trend”. The reality is shown by the cold and snow on the ground all over N. America and Asia with 100 year cold and snow records falling. It’s cold. Just look out the window. (Yes, it is weather. But if all that ‘hottest ever’ heat is running around, the weather would not be 100 year record cold and snow. Remember the ‘warmers’ prediction that snow would become a distant memory for children? It isn’t.)" The entire post is really worth a read, what you would expect from an engineer talking to academics. More and more this is looking like a Gruberism - a total fraud based on the belief that everyone outside the clique is stupid so the fraud will go unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2014 0:59:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2014 4:16:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 14, 2014 0:16:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 14, 2014 1:41:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 14, 2014 5:36:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 14, 2014 15:52:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 15, 2014 11:00:47 GMT
Damn. Paywalled.
|
|