"Surfer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/8...-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research
that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
manipulation.

Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.

Androcles wrote:
"Rob wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/8...-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate
research that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
manipulation.

Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.


As opposed to speculations about the Easter Bunny done by Androcles,
Surfer posted statements and graphs from scientific institions (at least
most of them).

If you want to argue with NASA or GISS or NOAA or CRU on a scientific
basis, then please go ahead.
But if you only argue on the basis of what you read on a denier blog site
about what they think they read in some private emails then please STFU
and let our scientists do their work.


Some simple facts about climate.

Negative feedback:

1) Sun heats ocean.

2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.

3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.

4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.


Positive feedback:

5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.

6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.

7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.

Changing the balance:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...erSunlight.jpg

8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.

9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.

10) Earth is tilted.

11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.

12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer).
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17.gif
Result, positive feedback predominates, Ice Age.

13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
natural global warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...precession.gif

14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in mean temperature as a function
of precession.

15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.

16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "Carbon cycle".

It went straight over the top of your stupid ****in' head, didn't it?
You chocolate egg deniers are all the same, you pretend chocolate
eggs don't exist. The real question is whether or not the Easter Bunny
laid them or if they are anthropogenic.
I have not denied global warming exists, you stupid ****, so STFU
since you don't know whether the cause is anthropogenic or natural,
you stupid, ignorant, arrogant *******.


but all the players admit the atmosphere is very chaotic and
complicated. so this is a straw man argument, it is not false but
the rest of the argument is that not enough is escaping the planet.
the problem is how much and why. not the strawman argument androcles
presents.


josephus



--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Surfer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/8...-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research
that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
manipulation.

Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.


As opposed to speculations about the Easter Bunny done by Androcles, Surfer
posted statements and graphs from scientific institions (at least most of
them).

If you want to argue with NASA or GISS or NOAA or CRU on a scientific basis,
then please go ahead.
But if you only argue on the basis of what you read on a denier blog site
about what they think they read in some private emails then please STFU and
let our scientists do their work.

Rob

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Surfer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/8...-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate
research that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
manipulation.

Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.


As opposed to speculations about the Easter Bunny done by Androcles,
Surfer posted statements and graphs from scientific institions (at least
most of them).

If you want to argue with NASA or GISS or NOAA or CRU on a scientific
basis, then please go ahead.
But if you only argue on the basis of what you read on a denier blog site
about what they think they read in some private emails then please STFU
and let our scientists do their work.


Some simple facts about climate.

Negative feedback:

1) Sun heats ocean.

2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.

3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.

4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.


Positive feedback:

5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.

6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.

7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.

Changing the balance:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...erSunlight.jpg

8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.

9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.

10) Earth is tilted.

11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.

12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer).
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17.gif
Result, positive feedback predominates, Ice Age.

13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
natural global warming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...precession.gif

14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in mean temperature as a function
of precession.

15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.

16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "Carbon cycle".

It went straight over the top of your stupid ****in' head, didn't it?
You chocolate egg deniers are all the same, you pretend chocolate
eggs don't exist. The real question is whether or not the Easter Bunny
laid them or if they are anthropogenic.
I have not denied global warming exists, you stupid ****, so STFU
since you don't know whether the cause is anthropogenic or natural,
you stupid, ignorant, arrogant *******.

there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
on 21stcenturysciencetech.com). the melting
of land-ice is quite small, because a)
most glaciers are *not* receding, and b)
almost all of it is in Antarctica, which is not melting
(true, icebergs calve, there .-)

thus:
I just want to know,
why he attributes Leibniz's *vis viva* to Coriolis. now,
the Coriolis effect is interesting, because
it can also be a force, "depending."

thus:
his problem is not "research on the net;"
it appears that English is not his primary language,
so that we really can't say, what he is trying
to say. if you have ever tried to "deal"
with AP, you know of what I type.

the only possible cure -- other than
cruising on fora in his mother tongue, but
of which (like AP) he may not be literate --
is to *try* to read Shakespeare (and
this applies to everyone, who thinks he is or
ought to be literate in the "King's English,"
as proven in the KJV .-)

thus:
I missed that on the initial scan; it is to laugh!... but
I was interested to read of Soros' funding --
what a creep "philanthropist," he is (you can
check this on the LaRouchiac site .-)

so, basically, all Hindu gods should be toasted, if
y'know what I mean (althoug, of course,
each is very useful in its own domain, I'm sure,
other than "what is the speed of the propogation
of light?")

Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

On Apr 27, 12:37*pm, spudnik wrote:
there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
on 21stcenturysciencetech.com).

Congratulations. You've fallen for a Lyndon LaRouche web site. Now
don't you feel silly?

"josephus" wrote in message
m...
Androcles wrote:
"Rob wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:30:06 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/8...-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet
containing
thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate
research that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see
unambiguous
evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
manipulation.

Its not clear to me how serious those claims are.

However, evidence for global warming is also available from other
sources.

Evidence for chocolate eggs is also available from other sources. The
question is, did the Easter Bunny lay them?

Its not clear to me how serious your claims are.


As opposed to speculations about the Easter Bunny done by Androcles,
Surfer posted statements and graphs from scientific institions (at least
most of them).

If you want to argue with NASA or GISS or NOAA or CRU on a scientific
basis, then please go ahead.
But if you only argue on the basis of what you read on a denier blog
site
about what they think they read in some private emails then please STFU
and let our scientists do their work.


Some simple facts about climate.

Negative feedback:

1) Sun heats ocean.

2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds.

3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation.
If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud
obscures the sun.

4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms,
less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant.
If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm.


Positive feedback:

5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields.

6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption.
Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects
sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim
in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean.

7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls,
more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder
it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer
it will get.

Changing the balance:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...erSunlight.jpg

8) Earth's orbit is elliptical.

9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law.

10) Earth is tilted.

11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion.

12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at
aphelion (Southern summer).
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17.gif
Result, positive feedback predominates, Ice Age.

13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight
at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot
has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic
Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had
when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat
than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback,
natural global warming.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...precession.gif

14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above.
Overall result - a small change in mean temperature as a function
of precession.

15) CO2 levels rise as a consequence of a warmer planet, not as
the cause. Why? Because with more heat we have more thunderstorms
and more lightning and more forest fires, plants grow faster in a
richer CO2 atmosphere and the world gets greener instead of whiter.
Green is the good colour, white is the bad colour. Plants are green
because green absorbs sunlight. This is the rainforest effect.

16) Far more strange gases are vented to atmosphere by
volcanoes than by man. See "Carbon cycle".

It went straight over the top of your stupid ****in' head, didn't it?
You chocolate egg deniers are all the same, you pretend chocolate
eggs don't exist. The real question is whether or not the Easter Bunny
laid them or if they are anthropogenic.
I have not denied global warming exists, you stupid ****, so STFU
since you don't know whether the cause is anthropogenic or natural,
you stupid, ignorant, arrogant *******.


but all the players admit the atmosphere is very chaotic and complicated.

Go sailing somewhere else, all players agree you are an idiot.

On Apr 27, 1:34*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 27, 12:37*pm, spudnik wrote:

there is no overall sea-level rise (see an article
on 21stcenturysciencetech.com).

Congratulations. *You've fallen for a Lyndon LaRouche web site. *Now
don't you feel silly?

Lets see if I got you right: A website says there is no overall sea
level rise. It is a Lyndon LaRouche website. Lyndon LaRouche has a
(rightwing) agenda. Therefore it follows that there must actually BE a
HUGE sea rise from all the melting ice due to the global warming that
all scientists are in complete agreement exists created by not enough
taxes on CO2.

Great scholarship, sonny.

You COULD actually go and look up the actual satellite data on sea
levels. And you might discover that, yes there actually IS a sea level
rise. Only it's pretty much been the same as it's been since before
the industrial revolution: Namely 2 millimeters per year. Waddya
know?

OMG, some dood hates Lyn!... well,
find the article about actual sea-level data
from tidal stations, yourself, mister Nice-guy.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...wa/tanawa.html
What Is a Torquetum?
The torquetum, an analogue computer, can tell us, without long and
tedious calculation, at any time of the night when planets or the Moon
are visible, what their angular distance is from the Sun, or from the
first point of Aries, and/or from some bright star in their vicinity.
It can also tell us how much they are above or below the ecliptic.

This would give us a fairly quick way to construct an almanac, with
enough data to predict at least lunar eclipses, as well as
occultations of bright stars or planets by the Moon—the which dramatic
events ought to confirm the longitude readings obtained by using the
torquetum to measure lunar distance.
—Rick Sanders

* * * 148940000 *km^2 Earth land area
* * * 510072000 *km^2 Earth sea area
* * * 14000000 *km^2 Antarctica area
* * * 1.6 *km Ice height
* * * 22400000 *km^3 Antarctica Ice volume
* * * 0.043915369 *km vol/area= height
* * * 43.91536881 *meters ** 1000
* * * 0.002 *metres 2 mm/year
* * * 21957.68441 *years

thus:
I dug into your wikilink, Sue;
the upshot is that there is only practiceably "patial vacuum,"
with all kinds of waffling about "free space;"
particularly laudable is:
Scientists working in optical communications tend to use free space to
refer to a medium with an unobstructed line of sight (often air,
sometimes space). See Free-space optical communication and the What is
Free Space Optical Communications?.

The United States Patent Office defines free space in a number of
ways. For radio and radar applications the definition is "space where
the movement of energy in any direction is substantially unimpeded,
such as the atmosphere, the ocean, or the earth" (Glossary in US
Patent Class 342, Class Notes).[40]

Another US Patent Office interpretation is Subclass 310: Communication
over free space, where the definition is "a medium which is not a wire
or a waveguide".[41]

thus:
now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare
wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder
about his death at fifty-three, after dining
with a manslaughterer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if
you really want to get into WS's politics,
find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine,
"Why the British hate Shakespeare" -- if you can do so,
at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners.

thus:
the whole *problem* is the diagramming,
which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned
into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched
on paper. you simply do not need the pants,
the lightcones they're made with, and
the paradoxes of "looping in time" because
of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate
with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died.

as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes,
you won't be able to do *any* physics,
that isn't "junkyard physics."

thus:
you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster"
than "photons," which is three things that have
never been seen. Young proved that all properties
of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo-
electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls
o'light for British academe. well, even if
any large thing could be accelerated to so close
to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known
as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space"
-- which is no-where "a" vacuum --
it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting,
per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all,
this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics,"
not "vacuum energy dynamics").

thus:
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

On Apr 27, 7:26*pm, spudless wrote:
OMG, [yawn/flush]

do you read anything you write, you ****-eating-imbecile?