EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Fence sitters and those who are looking for more information
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24371
Page 3 of 85

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Statistics are a wonderful thing IF you understand them. Last year was a record low for sea ice extent in the Arctic, which means the following year should move back toward the mean. The long term trend of ice volume and sea ice is clear and the use of a short term view is nothing more than misleading cherry picking.

Author:  Fosgate [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Statistics are a wonderful thing IF you understand them.


That is one hugeass IF with most folks.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Statistics are a wonderful thing IF you understand them.


That is one hugeass IF with most folks.


Don't we know it ......

Author:  Milton Banana [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Fence sitters please note the cracks in the AGW foundation continue at an ever increasing rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... wrong.html

Quote:
One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Maybe seeing the report will help determine what is and is not in it.

Author:  Dingo [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Quote:
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

So what? In the age of the dinosaurs it was even warmer. It happens that the rate of temperature rise recently has been unprecedented and after analyzing the influence of natural forcings experts have concluded most of the warming is due to AGW.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton, look at Fig2 and Table1, and do your own math;
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
plus, here is a good recent article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese- ... 23543.html

Usually I don't like that newspaper, but this article is very good. :mrgreen:

Author:  Milton Banana [ Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Fence sitters take note.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -the-heat/

Quote:
Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters take note.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -the-heat/

Quote:
Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.


A crappy blog is all you have? Really not much to convince the fence sitters is it?

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Milton, look at Fig2 and Table1, and do your own math;
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
plus, here is a good recent article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese- ... 23543.html

Usually I don't like that newspaper, but this article is very good. :mrgreen:

Milton, Milton, did you do poorly in math?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherryp ... guide.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scienti ... rians.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... by-science

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Another fascinating look into actual science. Enjoy fence sitters and really engage your mind.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/20 ... lar-fraud/

Quote:
For 1980 the reflected energy was 341.65W/m2 – 231W/m2 = 110.65W/m2

For 2010 the reflected energy was 341.45W/m2 – 233W/m2 = 108.45W/m2

When less energy is reflected more energy comes in and the decrease in reflected energy of 2.25W/m2 is more than adequate to account for the 0.4°C of observed global warming between 1980 and 2010 without invoking any effect from CO2; leaving the IPCC “attribution by default” with no validity.



Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Actual Blog science as actual scientists generally publish such things in peer reviewed publications where there is a measure of credibility form the review process.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Okay fence sitters. Todays lesson is the physics don't add up.

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/2 ... -fraud-20/

Quote:
I will let Pierre Latour speak here, from a private email discussion:


“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives intensity of radiation, W/m2, emitted by a body at temperature T. It is analogous to fluid pressure, kg/m2. Stefan and Boltzmann called it intensity, not heat transfer, because it is intensity, not heat transfer. (It becomes heat transfer in maximum case emitting to 0K surroundings, so it is a max heat transfer. Real transfer is always less.) All bodies radiate with an intensity and they all experience a pressure. But for a fluid to flow there must be a driving force, a pressure difference. Physics teaches the fluid flows from high pressure to lower at a rate proportional to the pressure difference. The pressure at the bottom of the sea is high but uniform so no fluid flow.

For radiant energy to flow, transfer from one body to be absorbed by another body, heating it, there must be a driving force and that force for radiant energy transfer is an intensity difference. Physics teaches that the radiant heat flows from high intensity, to lower intensity, at a rate proportional to the difference (TH4 - TL4). Two identical glowing radiators facing each other radiate intensely but without any heat transfer between them.

The GHGT error is assigning to that second intensity term in the radiant heat transfer law an energy flow from cold to hot. Just because there is an algebraic term in the equation for cooler body radiating intensity does not mean it corresponds to a rate of heat transfer from cold to hot.

Atmospheric CO2 radiates with same intensity in all directions but the direction and rate of heat transfer to surroundings depends on surrounding’s radiating intensity. Energy transfer is asymmetric. So if the K-T 333 back-radiation arrow signifies direction of downward radiation intensity in all directions, ok, if they point it in all directions. But K-T labeled their diagram energy flows, and their back-radiation arrow 333 cannot be a flow, absorbed by surface, warming it further. Hence we have the dispute about semantics of physics which GHE believers dismiss with derision. “


Plus the religious warmers claim only 0.39 percent (a trace gas) of our atmosphere does all of this. Not possible.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Okay fence sitters. Todays lesson is the physics don't add up.

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/10/2 ... -fraud-20/

Quote:
I will let Pierre Latour speak here, from a private email discussion:


“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives intensity of radiation, W/m2, emitted by a body at temperature T. It is analogous to fluid pressure, kg/m2. Stefan and Boltzmann called it intensity, not heat transfer, because it is intensity, not heat transfer. (It becomes heat transfer in maximum case emitting to 0K surroundings, so it is a max heat transfer. Real transfer is always less.) All bodies radiate with an intensity and they all experience a pressure. But for a fluid to flow there must be a driving force, a pressure difference. Physics teaches the fluid flows from high pressure to lower at a rate proportional to the pressure difference. The pressure at the bottom of the sea is high but uniform so no fluid flow.

For radiant energy to flow, transfer from one body to be absorbed by another body, heating it, there must be a driving force and that force for radiant energy transfer is an intensity difference. Physics teaches that the radiant heat flows from high intensity, to lower intensity, at a rate proportional to the difference (TH4 - TL4). Two identical glowing radiators facing each other radiate intensely but without any heat transfer between them.

The GHGT error is assigning to that second intensity term in the radiant heat transfer law an energy flow from cold to hot. Just because there is an algebraic term in the equation for cooler body radiating intensity does not mean it corresponds to a rate of heat transfer from cold to hot.

Atmospheric CO2 radiates with same intensity in all directions but the direction and rate of heat transfer to surroundings depends on surrounding’s radiating intensity. Energy transfer is asymmetric. So if the K-T 333 back-radiation arrow signifies direction of downward radiation intensity in all directions, ok, if they point it in all directions. But K-T labeled their diagram energy flows, and their back-radiation arrow 333 cannot be a flow, absorbed by surface, warming it further. Hence we have the dispute about semantics of physics which GHE believers dismiss with derision. “


Plus the religious warmers claim only 0.39 percent (a trace gas) of our atmosphere does all of this. Not possible.


So there is no green house effect and the Earth is at the blackbody temperature which has been incorrectly calculated? No, so the attempt to use the semantics of a general explanation as a flaw in science is the sophistry beign discussed.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

I see we have 2366 views on this thread. Maybe we have far more fence sitters on this board than anticipated. Perhaps I need to double my efforts.

Page 3 of 85 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/