.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: TIN
    New Today: 0
    New Yesterday: 0
    Overall: 695

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Weather Channel Founder "Greatest SCAM In History"

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:53 pm Reply with quote

    This might be of interest:

    View user's profile Send private message
    revolutionman
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Jun 14, 2009
    Posts: 406

    PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm Reply with quote

    That is interesting. I wonder about the amount of cigarettes people have smoked since the dawn of time to now, and everybody's flatulence (mostly nitrogen and CO2, and a little methane etc) have actually contributed. It is silly yes, but it is a thought.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:18 pm Reply with quote

    Cool

    Nah, don't worry your gases won't contribute to global warming.

    As the guys on skepticalscience put it:

    Quote:
    "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

    [...]

    All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

    Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line [...] !
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:47 pm Reply with quote

    It seems AGW-deniers are about to lose a vocal proponent of their cause:
    Skeptical Climatologist Richard Muller chaired the B.E.S.T.-project, which aims...
    Quote:
    "...to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."


    Now the results are out - and they do not look good for those who claim that "GW stopped in 1998" or in any other year:

    http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

    Muller wrote a somewhat two-faced op-ed in the Wall Street Journal ("The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism") on his findings, where he first overstates the uncertainties in temperature-datasets only to admit in the end that his findings ultimately agree with earlier results by NASA-GISS and NOAA.

    --------------------------------------------------

    Update:
    BEST has released a neat animation on the developement of global T during the last 200 years: ...

    http://berkeleyearth.org/movies.php

    ... and a new vid by Peter Sinclair sums the project & its findings up:


    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:50 pm Reply with quote

    Two nice summaries of Climategate 2.0 - or, as a climatologist called it aptly, "two-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving 2009.”





    Post from the Conversation: There is a real climategate out there

    Quote:
    Emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit have once again been hacked and released on the internet. The timing is similar to the “climategate” scandal of 2009, with emails published just before an important UN climate conference. Does this mean the science is in doubt? Quite the opposite, says Stephan Lewandowsky.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:17 am Reply with quote

    The notion, that climate scientists allegedly predicted a new ice age back in the 70s and then made a u-turn to global warming later is one of the climate-change-deniers more popular myths.

    How ironic, that they themselves fell into this trap now:

    Quote:
    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

    However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid....


    And now for the inconvenient truth: Of course the Met Office doesn't say anything like this at all:

    Quote:
    Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012

    Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

    This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

    ...

    It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

    In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.


    But what else to expect from David Rose, a "journalist" who has a fairly long history of distorting or simply fabricating climatologists quotes to spin his denier-yarn.

    More info on the topic can be found here.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:01 pm Reply with quote

    Another nail in the coffin of the "Global warming stopped in 1998"-myth:
    The UKs Met Office just published its new HadCRUT4 temperature data set. Note that the myth ist based on the old HadCRUT3 set that featured 1998 as the warmest year on record. The reason for this was a cooling bias due to the lack of measurements from the Arctic - the region which warms the fastest.
    This problem has been accounted for in the newest version which is in much better agreement with other temp sets such as Nasas GISTEMP now. Subsequently, 2010 and 2005 have now replaced 1998 as warmest year on record.

    A discussion of the new data set can be found on skepticalscience.


    Coverage of HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4:




    View user's profile Send private message
    Weather
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: May 05, 2012
    Posts: 1

    PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 11:40 am Reply with quote

    Very well post from yours about weather facts with nice picture. I like your post very much. I hope you will write more about weather. Thanks a lot.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 12:03 pm Reply with quote

    LOL.

    That graph is meaningless for its narrowness.

    Look here at how the Middle Ages was even warmer in the northern hemisphere, with vineyards located in Scotland and England. Greenland was also pasture land at that time.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 1:09 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Look here at how the Middle Ages was even warmer in the northern hemisphere,


    Err... Are we even lookin at the same graph, Grav?
    Because the one you linked to cleary shows the present being considerably warmer than the middle ages:





    Btw, it seems Greenland always featured "green" southern coastlands during summer, even to this day, so medieval stories don't tell us anything unusal:



    It seems highly unlikely that it was considerably warmer there during the Medieval Warm Period than today. The islands first explorer, Eric the Red, actually gave it the appealing name "Greenland" to lure in settlers, not because it was covered with forests or anything like that.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 4:51 pm Reply with quote

    Again, you don't know of what you speak, Bueschu.

    I was referring to a graph that was much smaller in timespan, that shows what appears to be a record-setting spike. That's couldn't be further from the truth when examining a much larger range of time, showing the Middle Ages and before. This using too short of a timespan graph is the same situation of Mann's now debunked hockey stick model fraud.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    More:



    Quote:
    Source: http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Ian-Plimer/dp/0704371669 pp165:

    "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."


    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

    We dealt with these issues before. Again, you pile on already discredited deceptions that have already been exposed.

    Notice also the huge spike in retractions from medical journals, because of exposed fraud:

    http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/08/retractions-of-scientific-studies-are-surging/

    Exposed fraud is nothing new in science and medicine, but it is climbing alarmingly.

    Another fact is the vast areas of farming pastureland in Greenland then, that are not there today, because it was much warmer during the Middle Ages. This is not just the southern tip of Greenland, and Greenland today doesn't allow any farmland, because it is too cold there.

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    Bueschu, quit trying to recycle information that has already been discussed and discredited.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:45 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    I was referring to a graph that was much smaller in timespan, that shows what appears to be a record-setting spike.


    Yeah, I got that - but you can expand the graph for centuries and you'd still be getting the same answer: Todays temperatures are exceptional, even if you inlcude the Middle Ages.

    Quote:
    This using too short of a timespan graph is the same situation of Mann's now debunked hockey stick model fraud.


    Why then did you use the Hockey-stick in your previous post (the Wiki-link, remember?) if you think, it's a "fraud"? Doesn't make sense.

    Quote:
    Another fact is the vast areas of farming pastureland in Greenland then, that are not there today, because it was much warmer during the Middle Ages. This is not just the southern tip of Greenland, and Greenland today doesn't allow any farmland, because it is too cold there.


    Oh, yeah, I've seen that site too. Ehm, so there aren't any pastures there now? And what about this then?

    http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm

    Quote:
    ...The sheep are rounded up in September, and some 20,000 lambs are taken on flat-bottomed boats to the slaughterhouse in Narsaq, one of the three sizeable large towns in South Greenland....


    So, it seems the temperatures nowadays can't be much colder on the island than during the Medieval Warming Period.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 10:07 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    "The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations"


    ... Which weren't kickstarted but amplified by Co2-feedbacks. That's no new story btw, and one has just recently been confirmed once again. Co2 played an important role in the ice age-cycles:

    Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation





    Quote:
    ...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."


    Let me quote skepticalsicence here:

    Quote:
    The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice age were not that high after all
    [...]
    Young [2009] determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation - the growing of ice sheets.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1551
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:53 pm Reply with quote

    Graphs don't impress when they mislead:

    http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf

    We have had cooler global weather despite multiple times the current value of CO2. FACT.

    That's all sidestepping fluff that doesn't address this fact. There is no drive of CO2 on global weather. It's simply a far too small amount.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:23 pm Reply with quote

    Wow, sure took you long enough to post such a meek response, Grav.

    Quote:
    There is no drive of CO2 on global weather. It's simply a far too small amount.


    Oh, c'mon! That's usually the last straw for climate deniers! "Too small amount"? Ever heard of poisons like arsenic and so on? How about you ingest some of it - 0.04% (= Co2-concentration in the atmosphere) of your bodyweight should suffice - and then try to tell us again, how small amounts of something supposedly don't have any effect. Mr. Green

    Btw, Co2 is having an effect on climate not weather anyway, at least not directly.

    Quote:
    "Graphs don't impress when they mislead"


    Which graph exactly? The one with the temperature during the last 1000+ years? But you brought that up yourself, remember? So, you brought up something that you think is fraudulent? That makes totally sense!^^
    Btw, your neat little pp-presentation has barely anything to do with the topics we discussed during the past weeks and makes little sense without the oral presentation. Is that all you got?
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.20 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::