|
|
|
|
 |
MalcolmR
 |
|
.
How to fabricate BS AGW:
Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
Simply omit the real drivers of climate and then use bogus temperature data and blame it on human production of CO2.
The difference from the UN IPCC's past bogus reports to national governments and media and the UN IPCC's next report due next year (?) is that sceptics are already revealing the scam.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
You said:CR-V9, after reading your responses I'm finding it difficult to believe you're serious. So I'm wondering if it's your sense of humour? Your personal attacks on my charachter are relentless. Even a demon would cringe under such merciless personal attacks, wouldn't you say?
You said:You still weren't called that CR-V9. Did I say you called me a demon?
I don't see you as a pitiful man. I simply see you as someone not willing to acknowledge that he went a bit far in his game or his debating tactics.
Is it how it works?
You said:Where did I lie about you CR-V9? CR-V9 wrote:
(MalcolmR wrote:)I'm pleased you're not citing NASA or JPL for your unfounded belief that contradicts empirical science? I'm guessing you took note of the many recent posts on TOV busting NASA and JPL. No, JAMSTEC is one of scientific institutions I've listed for a long time. Please stop lying about me. |
Yes, I believe that heat transfers to a warmer body and a less warmer body at the same time. It is not a one-way transfer. Both objects radiate infrered waves to each other, and both absord the radiation. There is no instant awareness by the objects to switch it the one-way radistion according to their temperature differences.
When I read something and if it didn't make sense, I wouldn't understand it and I wouldn't register into my head. Mybe you can explain it to me scientifically.
|
CR-V9
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
One mor thing.
In another thread yousaid...WWF and Goldman Sachs together:
http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?uNewsID=201668
And who controls Goldman Sachs? Rothschilds.
The initiative is based on a lie. CO2 is essential plant food and does not—and CANNOT—raise global temperatures.
Regardless, Nature alone completely determines global atmospheric CO2 levels due to interaction between atmosphere and ocean and other CO2 sinks. Are you implying humans and our activities are not part of Nature?
|
Do you think Nature and humans are separated and Nature serves a man, too? I'm trying to see your point and yout logic behind it. Is it your belief and your basic premise your logic is built upon? Based on what? Mind you I'm not talking about historical changes of Nature in millions of, billions of years. Are you implying humans and our activities are not part of Nature?
|
CR-V9
|
|
One more thing.
What's up with my behaviour in responding to other people on TOV? I don't get it.
Who? How? Where? When?
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
Let's start from the first of your most recent responses.
Ah, so it is your sense of humour, is it?
So where did I call you a demon? You previously said, quote:| I've never been called that before. |
If I'm wrong, please clarify what you meant. If I'm wrong then I regret my error.
Again, where did I call you a demon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, CR-V9, answer my question: specifically, where did I lie about you?
You didn't cite NASA or JPL in the response to which I was referring, did you, CR-V9?
Am I not allowed to feel pleased that you did not cite NASA or JPL?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm delighted to read that you see humans as being part of Nature. On that we agree.
It seems clear though, at least in english, that natural effects are distinguished from human impacts. Is that not you're understanding?
Notwithstanding your desire for assistance with english, my priorities mean that I cannot explain in further detail now.
I previously indicated that from what I've seen, your command of the english language is strong and highly capable.
Nonetheless, let's check a dictionary on a few words. Let's check an online dictionary so you can check me:
na·ture [ney-cher] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
noun
1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena
(More available by expanding at the URL)
It seems that some meanings of the word nature include humans and human activity as part of Nature. Others not so.
It seems contextual.
nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
(More available by expanding at the URL)
noun
32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.
33. Music .
a. a white key on a piano, organ, or the like.
b. the sign ♮, placed before a note, canceling the effect of a previous sharp or flat.
c. a note affected by a ♮, or a tone thus represented.
34. an idiot.
35. Cards . blackjack ( def. 2b ) .
36. Afro ( def. 2 ).
(More available by expanding at the URL)
It seems that some meanings of the word natural include humans and human activity as part of Nature. Others not so.
Again, it seems contextual.
hu·man [hyoo-muhn or, often, yoo‐] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
3. of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
4. sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
noun
5. a human being.
man-made [man-meyd] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manmade
adjective
1. produced, formed, or made by humans.
2. produced artificially; not resulting from natural processes.
3. Textiles .
a. (of a fiber) manufactured synthetically from a cellulosic or noncellulosic base; produced chemically.
b. (of a fabric or garment) constructed of synthetically made fibers.
Your questions are assisting me to tighten my use of english, CR-V9. Seriously. Much appreciated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by your statements in your most recent post, quote:One more thing.
What's up with my behaviour in responding to other people on TOV? I don't get it.
Who? How? Where? When? |
If you want me to address this CR-V9, please clarify and specific to what you are referring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CR-V9, Have you heard of the Russian Lysenko? Have you heard of Lysenkoism?
Try third paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
As you know, I don't have much regard for Wikipedia's accuracy on political matters.
You may find other material here: http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=lysenko+russian&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=BIhWT83XIaSQiQeJw93zCA
Perceiving what I see as your recent sensitivity, CR-V9, I make it clear that I am NOT making any inference whatsoever that you are in any way like Lysenko.
Are you aware of how far Lysenko went with his falsities? Are you aware of how successful and widespread was his con? Are you aware of how much damage he did as a result? How many lives were lost?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still waiting CR-V9 for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
I've provided empirical scientific evidence and logical reasoning proving human production of CO2 did not cause that period of modest warming and cannot cause ATMOSPHERIC warming.
None of your links or posts have provided the evidence that I assume would be the foundation for your core claim that climate change is due to human production of CO2. I find it amazing that someone other than a politician or a scientist whose funding depends on a political position or a banker profiting from cap-and-trade would engage in a discussion by vigorously supporting that claim without having and understanding the evidence. Therefore, I await your evidence.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
From a scientist who has been tirelessly revealing the climate scam for decades.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1304
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote: Doesn't your use of the word before imply you claim you have now been called a demon? It might have sounded implying it. Did I say 'I've never been called before until now'? No, I didn't. Did I say you called me a demon? I didn't.
How am I doing? I'm not there, yet. But I'm learning from you, the master.
Please, CR-V9, answer my question: specifically, where did I lie about you?
You didn't cite NASA or JPL in the response to which I was referring, did you, CR-V9?
Am I not allowed to feel pleased that you did not cite NASA or JPL? Haven't I repeated that i've checked various scientific Institutions many times? I didn't list all of them or every time because I thought I've always put 'other scientific institutions' but not IPCC, though, because knowing you I've tried to be careful. I can't be perfect or as good as you. I didn't post directly from them often because they're mostly the same as NASA or JPL or others, and many time they're in Japanese. They agree with NASA, JPL and others.
Implying. Insinuate. That's the trick, isn't it. So many tricks to learn, from you, the master.
I'm delighted to read that you see humans as being part of Nature. On that we agree.
It seems clear though, at least in english, that natural effects are distinguished from human impacts. Is that not you're understanding?
[ ... ]
It seems that some meanings of the word natural include humans and human activity as part of Nature. Others not so.
Again, it seems contextual. I wasn't sure that if you had somewhat similar to P54's biblical view because the way you phrased it.
But in this context, climate change/AGW, It matters, doesn't it? That' is the core of the debate. So when you phrase it 'Regardless, Nature alone completely determines', it matters, doesn't it?
The phrase itself I agree. Nature alone completely determines and humans and their activities are part of Nature. So again, it depends on how you imply it.
I don't know what you mean by your statements in your most recent post, quote:
One more thing.
What's up with my behaviour in responding to other people on TOV? I don't get it.
Who? How? Where? When?
If you want me to address this CR-V9, please clarify and specific to what you are referring.
That's from your quote, "I don't even need an apology. I simply need acknowledgment that you are conscious of what you are saying and conscious of the consequences of your behaviour on others at TOV. Here's my request: would you be willing please to acknowledge your behaviour and perhaps explain why you chose that behaviour in responding to people on TOV?
Malcolm"
What is the consequences of my free speech? I didn't even call you a demon. Isn't 'People' more than one? So who's beside you I've behaved like the way you personally disapprove of? Are you a libertarian who treasures indivisual freedom only when ytyou personally approve of? It sounds like a tyrant to me.
I feel lucky that you were not a moderator on TOV. If you were, would you have banned me a long time ago?
I make it clear that I am NOT making any inference whatsoever that you are in any way like Lysenko.
Are you aware of how far Lysenko went with his falsities? Are you aware of how successful and widespread was his con? Are you aware of how much damage he did as a result? How many lives were lost? Feeling is mutual, again.
Hey, we have so much in common. You might be my long lost imaginary twin brother.
I've already stated my personalview in my own words.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. I have no intention or desire or anything to convince you. You're supposed to be the expert and I'm nobody. Yet, you haven't convinced me, yet. As I said so many time before I looked up this for my own personal curiousity. And I'm convinced AGW is for real and true. Greenhouse effects sre real and true. How much? How fast? How bad or good or whatever? I don't know. That's all. I don't
give a damn if you like it or not. However your personal attack on my character bothers me, very much. I'm not waiting for an apology from anymore but I wont stop you. But I don't think you are sorry. So saga continues.
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
:)
|
What do you mean heat transfer only occurs when there is another higher temperature body around? I don't get it.
What do you think the infered radiation from object warmer than 0 Kelvin is?
Do you accept greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infered radiation?
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
At last I get it. Pardon my slowness in awakening.
:)
Clever. Yet I feel sad to conclude that you seem to see this as a series of, as you say, tricks.
You now raise tyrants, twin brothers, ...
I'm not interested in continuing that. In my view, there are better things to do with my time and energy.
One word on what I see as your sensitivity though. You've been lying. That makes you a liar. That though does not make you in my eyes bad. I do not know your needs that drove you to tell those seven lies. Nor does it make me good nor better than you nor worse than you. It simply means that I cannot trust what you say. Engaging in discussion with you does not meet my needs for integrity and connection.
It's up to you whether or not you feel hurt by your actions. Whether or not you judge and label yourself as bad or good or better or worse.
In the west and in many other non-western nations as humans we've been trained all our lives to look outside. In our education, in our language, in our politics, ... We develop the perception of blaming others outside ourself for our unhappiness.
That you seem hurt by your actions in telling seven lies categorising you as a liar is your responsibility. Not mine. That was your choice. It's your choice if you're offended by it.
As I've learned in recent years, all our thoughts, feelings and needs ultimately come from within. Our moods, thoughts, feelings, needs are our own responsibility. As are our actions.
Categorising yourself as a liar is not a sentence for life. Your categorisation will end the moment you take responsibility for your choices. There is no need to continue telling lies. Whether you do or not is your choice, isn't it? I don't think you deliberately intended to tell lies. You don't seem to have such a character.
You may be wondering why you needed to tell lies? Did you need to win an argument? Did you need to put yourself above someone? Did you need to not confront your inability to find evidence? Did you need to put any perceived blame onto someone else? Was it just a game? I don't know. Such questions are for you, if you're interested in ending your self-admitted and understandable sensitivity to being seen as a liar.
Secondly and finally CR-V9, I feel disappointed that you continue in your belief that humans will cause supposedly catastrophic future global warming simply by producing CO2. My intention has never to convert you. Why should that be my intent? Why would I want to take responsibility for your choices? That's a road to misery, isn't it?
My intent has simply been to answer your questions and present you with choices. And to engage with people who may lead me to questioning and challenging my own views. In that process I either benefit from learning new material and changing my views or I gain reassurance from deeper exploration of my views. How can I lose? I cannot.
Before our discussions started, others challenged my initial acceptance of, and belief in, the greenhouse gas effect supposition. As a result I investigated and changed my view. Does that make me good? Bad? Weak? Dumb? Smart? Pathetic?
What you want to believe, CR-V9 is up to you. Your beliefs are not in any way my responsibility and in no way bother me. I do not see that I've failed.
How could I?
I wonder why you said your comment. That though, my friend, is entirely your responsibility.
My search for evidence that my position is not correct has been wide and extensive. I've personally (via email and paper letter posted mail) asked the world's most senior scientists advocating human causation of warming and in their responses none have provided any evidence for their claim.
Yet no evidence has been provided by anyone. I've asked the world's foremost advocates of that theory and none has provided any causal link. I've named some of them in this thread and on the sister post on Fabricators of climate alarm.
Noting you're upset, I would hope that for your own peace of mind and the peace of mind of others, you will either provide evidence of causal link between human production of CO2 and supposed future catastrophic warming or you would stop spreading the nonsense.
All I asked is for evidence of causation before you advocate policies that hurt humans, humanity, civilisation and the environment. That is basic. You have provided none.
The consequences of your advocacy are disappointing. I don't want to see people misinformed or hurt. That does not meet my needs for protection of human life. Nor for people's security. Nor for respect for life. Because I care what happens to others.
Nor does it meet my needs for integrity. I care for scientific integrity because science has given us so much. That's one reason I visit TOV because I admire Honda's passion for science and for engineering as the practical application of science.
What you believe is your choice, CR-V9. What you believe has never been my choice. Nor my responsibility.
How you perceive your inability to provide evidence is up to you. It has provided me with reassurance for my conclusions on BS AGW. For that opportunity I thank you.
So what you term a saga has ended. Yet for me it never began.
Your saga could continue until you find scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998. That will be a long time.
If your saga brings you peace and happiness, CR-V9 I wish you well and much fun. Really, mate, have fun.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
When is science not science? When it is perverted.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf
| Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority. |
Thus Al Bore's so-called settled science is really perverted science. That's why AGW is really BS AGW.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
Take it easy, MalcolmR. Calm down yorself, Malcolm. Breath. Breath.
What happens to the consequences of my behaviour to people on TOV? Aren't you worried I could be 2nd coming of Lysenko or I could be possessed by a demon?
What I do now? I can't drink wine for at least another 4 weeks. I get bored. What do I now?
|
CR-V9
|
|
Malcolm, don't forget to breathe, breathe deep and calmly.
Is this rant some kind of 'crying out for help'? Is this a 'Here is a friend. He has a problem, you know. Oh no, it's not me. It's this my friend who has the problem...' sort of thing here?
Are you talking about yourself? You may be wondering why you needed to tell lies? Did you need to win an argument? Did you need to put yourself above someone? Did you need to not confront your inability to find evidence? Did you need to put any perceived blame onto someone else? Was it just a game? I don't know. Such questions are for you, if you're interested in ending your self-admitted and understandable sensitivity to being seen as a liar. Did you have issues when you were a child? Remember when you gave the advice to Atomiclightbulb?
Wait, wait, wait.....
I'm so slow to awakening. Is this the reason why?
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
:)
|
What do you mean heat transfer only occurs when there is another higher temperature body around? I don't get it.
What do you think the infered radiation from object warmer than 0 Kelvin is?
Do you accept greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infered radiation?
|
Is this too hard for you to answer in your own words? You have no clue about greenhouse effect or heat transfer or infrered radiation?
Come to think about it, you've never explained any science of Climate change. It always has been a 'copy and paste'. You've always parroted someone else. You've never had your own voice on the science.
Now it would make sense why you've not had intellectual consistency of your scientific view in posting all those links. You don't know what they are talking about, do you? I didn't see it with all those millions of meaningless words you put out in front.
|
CR-V9
|
|
One more thing.
I see myself as modern-day Galileo defending honest scientists' honest work in the quiete and dark corner on earth where sun don't shine, without any appraise or recognition, alone. I'm content with my tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it fall.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Another link for TOV'rs:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone found scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998?
I've looked and looked and looked and looked. I've discussed with the world's most prominent climate alarmist scientists and the world's leading sceptic scientists and written many documents based on my investigations and research.
Some are here: http://www.conscious.com.au/
Much of this site is my work: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/index.php
And once inside http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php
Specifically, here are just a few, These links have been posted before on TOV yet never together:
Comprehensive summary:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20humanity_single.pdf
For a succinct summary exploding the greenhouse supposition see pages 35-37:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead%20elephants.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/galileodocuments/corruption.pdf
Shorter:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_part%201.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/galileodocuments/CO2_withquestions.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_Part%202.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_Part%203.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/climategate%20references.pdf
Have fun. Discover for yourself that there is nothing to feel alarmed about on climate. Nothing to feel guilty about. Be reassured.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
:)
|
What do you mean heat transfer only occurs when there is another higher temperature body around? I don't get it.
What do you think the infered radiation from object warmer than 0 Kelvin is?
Do you accept greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infered radiation?
|
Well, Lost yuor voice?
|
P54
|
|
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, P54.
Even Al Bore said his so-called greenhouse effect supposition was 95% water vapour.
Yet a simple check of the material I've presented elsewhere in this thread on radiative heat transfer would reveal that Al Bore's effect is nonsense and defies the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I wonder can some people who visit TOV write yet not read?
http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/fifty-ipcc-experts-expose-global-warming-lies/
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
Yes, the % of CO2 is very small in the atomsphere. But # of % alone doesn't tell you anything scientifically. It is all in its context, isn't it?
Human body has about 2.5g(?, not sure) of iron and require(recommended) 1mg daily. Compare this to body weight, its # of % very, very small. What does it affect? How much? What's the end effect? Does its effect affect something else and on and on? That's what I think. Well, my explaination probably is complete or good enough. I don't have an engineering dgree or anything. But at least I have my own head to think and my own voice to explain it.
|
CR-V9
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
:)
|
What do you mean heat transfer only occurs when there is another higher temperature body around? I don't get it.
What do you think the infered radiation from object warmer than 0 Kelvin is?
Do you accept greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infered radiation?
|
I don't see what is troubling you. This is your subject. This shouldn't be so hard. You should be easily type it up in less than a minute. Me, I'm still typing only with two fingers.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
And who produces virtually all Earth's water vapour and 97% of Earth's annual CO2 production? Nature. All by herself.
The arrogance of dimwits who think that humans control climate. The naivete and stupidity.
The gullibility.
The implicit assumption by people that vested interests know better than their own common sense and intuition.
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
And who produces virtually all Earth's water vapour and 97% of Earth's annual CO2 production? Nature. All by herself.
The arrogance of dimwits who think that humans control climate. The naivete and stupidity.
The gullibility.
The implicit assumption by people that vested interests know better than their own common sense and intuition.
Malcolm
:)
|
It's not 'control' but rather 'influence' or 'affect'?
Human can't control Nature therefore human can do whaever they want? Isn't that arrogant or disrespectful to Nature?
I don't know if I've read it right. So it's all about 'common sense and intuition'? Where did science go? You've always trotted "Facts. Facts. Facts" "Science. Science. Science." And you've also been implying "You don't know your science!. Know your science!"
You're still not speaking to me?
Is this a silent treatment? I hate when that happens.
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, P54.
Even Al Bore said his so-called greenhouse effect supposition was 95% water vapour.
Yet a simple check of the material I've presented elsewhere in this thread on radiative heat transfer would reveal that Al Bore's effect is nonsense and defies the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I wonder can some people who visit TOV write yet not read?
http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/fifty-ipcc-experts-expose-global-warming-lies/
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you confusing heat transfer with radiation?
As I understand it, all bodies above zero degrees K radiate. Heat transfer though only occurs when one body rises in temperature as heat energy is transferred from another body whose temperature decreases or which is producing heat energy.
Am I missing something, CR-V9?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
:)
|
What do you mean heat transfer only occurs when there is another higher temperature body around? I don't get it.
What do you think the infered radiation from object warmer than 0 Kelvin is?
Do you accept greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infered radiation?
|
I want to hear from you directly in your own voice(words). Is that so hard?
|
P54
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
Yes, the % of CO2 is very small in the atomsphere. But # of % alone doesn't tell you anything scientifically. It is all in its context, isn't it?
Human body has about 2.5g(?, not sure) of iron and require(recommended) 1mg daily. Compare this to body weight, its # of % very, very small. What does it affect? How much? What's the end effect? Does its effect affect something else and on and on? That's what I think. Well, my explaination probably is complete or good enough. I don't have an engineering dgree or anything. But at least I have my own head to think and my own voice to explain it.
|
Yes iron is a necessary element of our bodies, yet too much of it is poisonous. To make an iron skillet you use all the iron you want and cooking in it gives you iron in the food.
Creation is a creation by God and He alone controls the solar system. Earth is just a pea compared to the sun. The sun activities controls the environment on earth. Without sun it would be no life on earth. Volcanoes spew out ash and CO2. Can man control volcanoes? Can man control sun? NO. Do volcanoes and sun affect climate and weather. Yes.
CO2 in itself is harmless and is a must for life on earth. Greenhouses inject up to ten times the CO2 to produce vigorous growth. Co2 is a must for plants and trees. Does man contribute to Co2 production? Yes, but only a tiny fraction. Leave man made CO2 out and you would not see a difference.
Co2 is only a politically activated science, to tax CO2 to "save the world". Cars run on diesel emit less Co2 than gas engines so governments have less tax on diesel vehicles and even stimulate the sale of diesel vehicles. Result is more health problems due to bad air quality caused by more So2 and NOX which diesel vehicles emit. So2 and NOX kill humans, plant and tree life and ruin the soil. Co2 is beneficial. Al Gore and company is making themselves and governments listening to them rich, while common people suffer from their greedy policies.
To make the point clear, why tax Co2, a harmless and beneficial ingredient in our environment while a far more harmful "gas" is left alone. Will taxing CO2 cause less "damage" than a non taxed Co2? Animals, should they be taxed for farting, a very natural process or should they be killed to avoid their harmful emissions. What will save the world, taxed emissions or the absence of it?
| Methane gas is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide and could be a much more powerful "trigger" on climate change. A UN report concludes that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transportation in the world combined. Some scientists have speculated that it was Methane gas which triggered climate changes which caused the dinosaurs to become extinct. Prediction - a meat tax is coming your way. |
What is next, taxing humans for breathing or killing them? According to above quote scientists speculate that is was the methane gas from dinosaurs that triggered the climate change which caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.
Does that make sense to you? To sustain the dinosaurs there must have been an abundance of plant growth which could only be because of higher concentration of CO2, like they do in green houses to increase growth. Now if all the methane gas they released from eating all the plants triggered a climate change it sure did not trigger global warming but instead global cooling which is what killed them. Now if global cooling killed them, (must have been sudden as some extinct animals were found frozen with leaves in their mouth) what caused the global warming that melted the ice from Scandinavia and elsewhere? For sure no human CO2 emission.
By reasoning with known facts we can see that some scientists try to lead people astray because their science is money motivated, they try to prove a point and manipulate data as to prove their theory. (Which bring money to their pockets).
Now do humans affect the environment. Sure, they pollute with chemicals, pesticides, toxic gases, SOX and NOX etc. Some pollution have devastating results locally and by wind and water can also spread elsewhere. That is man made pollution. Can humans affect weather? Sure, by deforestation or by planting trees or by toxic emission that "clouds" local areas to prevent sunlight. Will building dwelling places, cities etc affect weather locally. Yes. Has there been changes in weather patterns before our times? Yes. There has been extreme droughts, rain, heat and cold through the centuries, however who knew back then if you happened to live in Europe what happened in China or how the glaciers grew or retreated? Have humans affected the marine life, animal life etc? Yes. Did "nature" itself cause "catastrophes" or changes in climate and weather? Yes, but how do you control that?
Only by understanding we are part of a big creation, that the Creator Himself controls the solar system, when volcanoes and earthquakes or solar flares come and go. Humans can do nothing with that . Humans can help poor nations to function, however if money is rather spent on global warming conferences, unnecessary wars and programs to make certain people rich we might also experience consequences of that. Bio fuel production from food that cause the poor to have more expensive food while food for fuel producers make more money is a sign of greed, unbalance and wrong priorities. To blame a harmless, very necessary ingredient like CO2 on climate change so it can be taxed is wrong and the motive is greed.
Consequences of greed, grow food for fuel:
CORN Deadly for the Gulf of Mexico
Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf
"JEFFERSON, Iowa - Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price. The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate. The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot. With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences."
"The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each year."
""Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn fertilizer's effect on the dead zone. "More corn equals more nitrogen pollution." |
HIGHER FOOD PRICES are here in large part because of the fools who decided that CORN should be raised for gas not food. It's good to be a corn farmer these days - and they're planting more corn than ever. Consumption of ethanol in the United States was expected to reach over 6 billion gallons in 2006. The U.S. government mandated the use of 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2012. With the price of corn rising to the highest in a decade largely due to increasing demand for corn to make the popular biofuel ethanol, which is hailed as an alternative to gasoline. But this means food prices are rising too, putting the pinch on consumers. Because much of this corn is being sold as ethanol not food - the cost of groceries is going up. The low price of corn was always at the root of America’s low food prices. Corn is used to help feed hogs, chickens, dairy cows and is a vital ingredient for cereal, corn syrup, soda, candy, torillas and other food products. "Of 10,000 items in a typical grocery store, at least 2,500 use corn in some form during production or processing."
"With prices for corn rising, farmers are expected this year to switch acreage to corn from soybeans, wheat and even cotton to cash in on the higher prices. That will lead to lower production for those other products and thus, higher prices. Soybean prices are up nearly 30% from the recent low seen in September." |
Since you like to trust scientists, listen to this VIDEO.
|
CR-V9
|
|
First, I respectfully disagree with you on Global Warming and Climate Change isuue. I only hope you'll respect my personal view on them, too.
| Yes iron is a necessary element of our bodies, yet too much of it is poisonous. |
However, in this AGW context, we're not talking about CO2's effect ot human or plants. It is CO2's greenhouse effect. So saying CO2 is benefitial to plants is kind of irreverent in this context.
| Does man contribute to Co2 production? Yes, but only a tiny fraction. Leave man made CO2 out and you would not see a difference. |
I see it ~4% by humans + 100% Nature =104% per year. But to explaine my view I'd have to go back more than 6,000 year. So I will not do it. You reread my view. I've already told before.
Pardon me, I don't talk politics. I'd rather leave the science of AGW to science because it is science at core.
I don't mind the controversy of AGW though I wish it would be Science vs Science, not Science vs Politics or Science vs Dogma. That's my personal wish.
| Does that make sense to you? To sustain the dinosaurs there must have been an abundance of plant growth which could only be because of higher concentration of CO2, like they do in green houses to increase growth. Now if all the methane gas they released from eating all the plants triggered a climate change it sure did not trigger global warming but instead global cooling which is what killed them. Now if global cooling killed them, (must have been sudden as some extinct animals were found frozen with leaves in their mouth) what caused the global warming that melted the ice from Scandinavia and elsewhere? For sure no human CO2 emission. |
| Only by understanding we are part of a big creation, that the Creator Himself controls the solar system, when volcanoes and earthquakes or solar flares come and go. Humans can do nothing with that.. |
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI urged international leaders to reach a credible agreement on climate change, keeping in mind the needs of the poor and of future generations. So is it safe to say not all chritians agree on AGW or Nature and man?
| Since you like to trust scientists, listen to this VIDEO. |
I'd rather leave the science of AGW to science because it is science at core.
I don't mind the controversy of AGW though I wish it would be Science vs Science, not Science vs Politics or Science vs Dogma. That's my personal wish.
Did you watch the video yourself? Do you mean you agree with him? All of them? Can you elaborate? I really don't understand why you're asking me to watch the video. Are asking me to argue with him or something?
|
CR-V9
|
|
P54, I just want to add.
Do you mean you accept the premis of explaination, but disagree with the conclution?
|
You believe dinasaurs lived along side with humans in medeaval times? I remember you told me that that fact is very important to you. So I really don't know your original question was.
| Where did I specifically say I trust scientists? |
Of course not. I don't agree with many of the scientists MalcolmR has posted and some I don't trust at all. There was this scientist MalcolmR posted who believes in a mix of gasoline and acetone. He said he has used it in his car for a couple of years and he swears it gives him 15-20%(?) better mpg. I don't trust him at all.
I hope this clears up some of my reply to you.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Monckton’s Schenectady showdown
Look at the body language of the blonde in discussion with Monckton. Closed and defensive?
Yet he proposed to begin, in silence, by displaying some slides demonstrating the unhappy consequences of several instances of consensus in the 20th century.
The Versailles consensus of 1918 imposed reparations on the defeated Germany, so that the conference that ended the First World War (15 million dead) sowed the seeds of the Second. The eugenics consensus of the 1920s that led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka (6 million dead). The appeasement consensus of the 1930s that provoked Hitler to start World War II (60 million dead). The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s that wrecked 20 successive harvests in the then Soviet Union (20 million dead). The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s that led to a fatal resurgence of malaria worldwide (40 million children dead and counting, 1.25 million of them last year alone).
You could have heard a pin drop. For the first time, the largely hostile audience (for most of those who attended were environmentalists) realized that the mere fact of a consensus does not in any way inform us of whether the assertion about which there is said to be a consensus is true. |
Lysenko, anyone? Malaria, anyone?
The lecture reveals Viscount Christopher Monckton is human after all. He still believes in the UN IPCC's supposed greenhouse warming effect.
That's fine though. In correspondence with Monckton, both mine and others, he has failed to provide any proof of the effect. He seems to ignore the amassing empirical data and observations that contradict the effect. He's been given the work of Tim Casey who read the work of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius and others. That work is cited by warmists and Christopher Monckton as being the basis for the supposed greenhouse effect yet the actual work reveals otherwise. See earlier post above on this TOV page.
One hopes that Christopher Monckton will respond with evidence and either prove me wrong and prove wrong the growing international band of scientists who now are openly acknowledging that the supposed greenhouse effect is nonsense or acknowledge his error.
That's OK. Science advances through argument and exploration.
Sadly even Christopher Monckton ignores the empirical science revealing global atmospheric temperature shows no warming since 1998. Despite continued rising atmospheric CO2 levels. (as explained in a previous TOV post).
Overall, though, Christopher Monckton comes to the same conclusion that is consistent with the empirical science. In speaking of the supposed forecast warming he concludes
He hammers the huge cost for no benefit. One of those costs being the destruction of freedom.
If you respect and appreciate freedom, please read the article's last paragraph.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
I invite you to check this NASA link for yourself.
It's amazing what a little bit of thinking will do.
Consider this graphic of ice mass at a NASA site dated 03.28.2011:
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=49
Aside from the data itself, let's consider two simple questions:
1. Why in a site dated March 2011 would NASA only post data to mid-2005?
Could it be because 2008 and 2009 were much cooler than 2006 and ice mass increased?
2. Why would anyone concoct a supposed trend line (dashed, black) that falls from left to right?
Look at the blue line plot. Does it look like it's falling? Looks flat to me
Consider the red line: The graph starts a very high point, 2002. If one were to ignore that single point what would the graph show? I'd estimate two (2) flat portions, Firstly, a flat portion from 2002.5 to 2004 at about the 100 mark (left hand axis). Followed by a step down to another flat portion at about the -100 mark (left hand axis).
More likely, given the statistical limits of this natural system that exhibits very high inherent (natural) variation, I'd say a much sounder statistical comment would be that we lack sufficient data points to draw conclusions.
Remember that climate is defined over a 30 year period. That means we need around 60 years to see two climate regimes.
It's nonsensical to draw any conclusions from this.
Given the very cold years 2008 and 2009, I'm not surprised that in 2011 NASA omitted 2006, 2006.5, 2007, 2007.5, 2008, 2008.5, 2009, 2009.5, 2010, 2010.5, 2011.
In other words, for the period to the date shown at the base of the web site, NASA omitted more data points than it showed.
This is definitely a JPL site. It has the hallmarks of NASA GISS' James Hansen all over it. NASA GISS is a master at fabricating a misleading impression that misrepresents reality.
I've visited many NASA sites over the years. No NASA site has any evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, cyclic period of modest global atmospheric warming that ended around 1998.
How could anyone fall for this crap?
Easy. Predisposed to seeing what they want to see, ignore reality and being ruled by ego. That combination is compounded and enabled by a lack of thinking
With NASA sites one doesn't even need to go elsewhere to see huge holes in NASA GISS's bogus, BS AGW post-normal science.
Thankfully, NASA GISS's climate PR people are not in charge of astronauts or pilots' lives.
Parts of NASA: funded by government and driving to government's political agenda.
Malcolm
:)
PS: I'm not an expert statistician because I don't use detailed statistical analysis apart from use of SPC charts in assisting business leaders to improve organisational productivity. I did though have the fortune to bid onto a class by the internationally eminent statistician Professor Harry Roberts in 1989 when i studied at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. And then associate with him for the following year in doing projects.
The GSB as it was known then has produced more Nobel prizewinners in Economics and Finance than any other university on Earth. It's known for its outstanding reputation for rigorous quantitative analysis. I've always remembered Professor Roberts' first words of advice as we sat in the lecture theatre awaiting his first lecture's pearls of wisdom. He advised when receiving data to set aside the calculator/computer/formulae and simply plot the raw data. Second step: use the quote world's most powerful statistical analysis tools. He told us they're in our face as he pointed to his eyes. In other words, first get a feel for the raw data. Then do calculations as needed, if needed.
For a preliminary understanding of variation consider the graph that is Figure 8 on page 35 and at this site:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20humanity_single.pdf
Then read the brief comments.
Consider Figure 10 on page 37. Then read the brief comments
By the way, at that page consider the last sentence, quote: | "The choice between misleading—consciously or unconsciously—and really understanding is a leader’s basic choice when deciding strategic direction and action." |
A little thought and a few simple questions save a lot of needless and unfounded alarm, fear, guilt, waste.
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Why would an organisation or person rely on the word IF instead of empirical data and facts?
After all, if my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Consider this NASA site:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast30oct_1/
GRACE Project Scientist| "You can determine, for example, if the sea level is rising because there's actually more water melting into it or if the water is expanding simply due to heating," Watkins says. |
Note his use of the word if.
Yet European satellites reveal fall in sea level.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/eu-satellite-documents-huge-sea-level-decline-that-us-scientists-refuse-to-discuss-or-publish.html
Strike 1 against NASA.
That's after many, many strikes exposing NASA's corruption of climate science in previous posts in this thread.
Consider this NASA site http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110308.html headlined NASA Finds Polar Ice Adding More To Rising Seas.
Consider the second graph below of Antarctica. ie, graph b:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/524782main_earth20110308fig-226x486.jpg
Can anyone see any trend the Antarctica? It's flat. Contains only inherent variation.
Yet NASA draws downward sloping lines.
Strike 2 against NASA.
My previous posts have revealed the error in earlier Greenland ice. Regardless, the reduction in Arctic ice has not been unusual. It too reflects inherent variation.
If it was global warming, why is Greenland ice supposedly decreasing yet Antarctica flat?
These are basic questions. This is basic thinking.
The Arctic has undergone normal, modest cyclic regional warming in the latter part of the last century and early part of this decade. The Northwest Passage opened. Again. As it had in the 1940's when Arctic temperatures were warmer than current.
Strike 3 against NASA.
NASA is funded by government pushing a political line on energy to gain control of energy.
Doesn't that stimulate any questions?
NASA is the organisation that won't publicly display and use satellite measurement of global atmospheric temperature. NASA avoids using weather balloon radiosonde atmospheric temperature data that corroborate the satellite data. Both reveal no atmospheric warming since 1998. Both are attributed high confidence in their accuracy.
Indeed, NASA satellites reveal that global atmospheric temperatures have NOT risen since 1998; 14 years ago. Yet NASA seemingly avoids using this data even though it has been corroborated by weather balloon radiosonde measurements. The longer radiosonde data history reveals the warming to be cyclic. Both the radiosonde and satellite data are attributed a high degree of confidence in their scientific accuracy and integrity.
Instead, NASA relies on ground-based temperature recordings known to be corrupted. As explained many times in earlier posts.
Lets consider NASA's reliance for raw data on the database used by the fraudulent UN IPCC. (1) It uses ground-based readings of temperature to represent atmospheric global warming. Why? (2) That database is known to have been corrupted by poor techniques that overwhelmingly fail to meet measurement standards. (3) Worse, it's deemed to be corruptly and unscientifically manipulated by vested interests to skew and misrepresent reality.
(4) The database's programmer himself admits that the database is in a quote, “hopeless state”. See first three paragraphs of page 4, here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Fifth, (5) the British Climatic Research Unit, CRU that 'maintains' the database prevents access to the raw data by scientific peers. That is unscientific. It should be discarded. Yet NASA not only relies on it, NASA spreads it around.
NASA is funded by an American administration advocating politically driven controls on energy. Yet NASA has no empirical scientific evidence for the claim that human production of CO2 caused modest atmospheric warming that ended around 1998.
NASA’s position is publicly decried by NASA associates as being contrary to science and politically driven.
Thus a section of NASA known as the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS makes a claim of supposed atmospheric warming yet avoids both sources of accurate atmospheric temperatures that reveal modest warming from 1976 to 1998 and no warming since 1998. Instead, NASA GISS and relies on corrupted ground-based temperatures. Why?
Strike four against NASA.
As an aside, please note that over the last 120 years, ground-based city temperatures have increased. See material from Endersbee & Archibald on page 18 of this link: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20humanity_single.pdf Can anyone discern any rise in ground-based rural temperatures?
In cyclic temperature rises and falls during the last 120 years and underway since the Little Ice Age that ended, according to NASA, around 1850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age). At no time since has any amount or rate of temperature increase or decrease been unusual.
The fraudulent UN IPCC relies on (1) corruption of data that should be dismissed. Going beyond your comment last Sunday on temperature, the UN IPCC relies on (2) faulty combinations of temperatures with proxy data and projections already scientifically discredited and that contradict established science worldwide, and (3) erroneous computer model projections.
On the latter, the UN IPCC itself presents in its 2007 report Table 2-11. That table lists 16 forcing factors used to concoct computer model projections. It reveals that the UN IPCC admits that of 16 factors listed more than 80% have a low or a very low level of understanding. The sole factor it lists as having high level of understanding is widely questioned and contradicts empirical evidence. It is no surprise UN IPCC computer model projections have already proven to be completely wrong. Yet academic and government advocates of human causation of global warming still rely on model projections as ‘evidence’.
NASA endorses the UN IPCC.
Strike five against NASA.
According to other satellites, sea levels have fallen and remained flat since 2003. Yet this NASA page discusses | "You can determine, for example, if the sea level is rising because there's actually more water melting into it or if the water is expanding simply due to heating," Watkins says |
The other NASA site http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110308.html uses the word level in association with sea level 11 times. All are about future sea levels, or what sea levels could be, or possible, likely to be, will, may, become, enough, projections, predicted, ... It's designed to imply rising sea levels.
| The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 centimeters (3.1 inches) from glacial ice caps and 9 centimeters (3.5 inches) from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 centimeters (12.6 inches). While this provides one indication of the potential contribution ice sheets could make to sea level in the coming century, the authors caution that considerable uncertainties remain in estimating future ice loss acceleration. |
That sounds really, really scary. Yet in reality it sys nothing.
This is an Al Bore tactic. It doesn't actually state sea levels are rising. It implies.
And Al Bore adopted the tactic from the UN IPCC. It's reports are crammed with hypotheticals and possibles implying actual.
Why does NASA want to deceive on climate and global warming?
Because BS AGW is entirely political. NASA is funded by government and NASA GISS has been co-opted for political purposes. Not just one error. Not just two errors. Many, many errors on fundamentals.
All that's needed is basic understanding of english and an open mind. And asking a few questions. And setting aside ego. And thinking.
Many of these simple activities seem lost. That's the real crisis in climate change or BS AGW. The real crisis is not climate The real crisis is the weakness and vulnerability of people to being systematically conned.
And beyond that, the real crisis is the power of government control and corruption.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Award-winning Astronaut Slams Hansen – Urges NASA to ‘Debunk the current hysteria’ over Warming – By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. Key Quotes: “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming.“(James) Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Why would an organisation or person rely on the word IF instead of empirical data and facts?
After all, if my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
(that's very funny, Malcolm. very good.)
Consider this NASA site:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast30oct_1/
GRACE Project Scientist| "You can determine, for example, if the sea level is rising because there's actually more water melting into it or if the water is expanding simply due to heating," Watkins says. |
Note his use of the word if.
Yet European satellites reveal fall in sea level.
|
Did you forget paragraphs before and after?An especially exciting aspect of the GRACE mission, Watkins says, is the ability to watch changes in the gravitational field over time. Gravity is the "shadow" of mass, and mass is a crucial part of the equation for many physical phenomena. Whether it be the thinning of vast ice sheets, the flow of water through aquifers, or the slow currents of magma deep inside the Earth, having direct measurements of the amount of mass involved will enable scientists to reach better conclusions about these important natural processes.
"You can determine, for example, if the sea level is rising because there's actually more water melting into it or if the water is expanding simply due to heating," Watkins says.
"If you just measure the height of the ocean surface with an altimeter, it's hard to separate a change in volume from an increase in mass. GRACE will provide the extra information on mass that you need to understand what's really happening."
All mass is created equal in the eyes of gravity, of course, so scientists will need to don their London Fog® trench coats and do a bit of detective work to figure out "who done it?" Was a measured shift in gravity caused by the moving air masses of weather? Was it the swelling of the water level in an underground aquifer? Or was it maybe the movement of molten rock far beneath the surface of the Earth? |
I don't see flat, though. Oh, look. It's all way up to 2010. Feel better?
NASA is the organisation that won't publicly display and use satellite measurement of global atmospheric temperature. NASA avoids using weather balloon radiosonde atmospheric temperature data that corroborate the satellite data. Both reveal no atmospheric warming since 1998. Both are attributed high confidence in their accuracy. |
P54 wrote:
Since you like to trust scientists, listen to this VIDEO. |
They are slightly yet in upward trend.
Isn't this what you say you've been looking for?
Oh no. No. No. It's not me. You should thank P54.
(Are you still not speaking to me directly yet talking to me indirectly somehow? I have when that happens because it gets more tricky)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
