On Jun 1, 2:56*pm, "Falcon" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

We did, ten days ago. Is there nothing new with which you can wind up the
opposition?

Ten days ago, eh? So what kept you from immediately reporting it on
alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology and
sci.geo.oceanography as RC has now done?

On Jun 1, 2:48Â*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:16Â*pm, oriel36 wrote:



On Jun 1, 1:02Â*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Jun 1, 12:44Â*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:34Â*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:30Â*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

Â*"Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of
several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields
a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64
W m-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-
cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2."

Do yourself a favor Roger,this is not a childish exercise ,it lets you
and everyone else know how much they understand of climate along with
how much you understand of the Earth and its motions.

Take one chair or any object and set it in the center of a garden or
large room to represent the central Sun.Get a broom representing both
the daily rotation of the Earth and its 'tilt' and start to walk
around the perimeter while keeping the broom handle pointing in the
same direction.You will notice something immediately,at times you will
have to crab sideways,then walk backwards and then forwards in your
'orbital' motion about the central chair/Sun representing the orbital
motion of the Earth as it moves along its orbital circumference.

At the polar outposts they experience a single daylight/darkness cycle
as the Earth orbits the Sun with 6 months of daylight followed by 6
months of darkness and a brief period of polar twilight at the orbital
points of the equinoxes.What causes the polar coordinates to turn
through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes arises strictly
from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun just as you have to
walk around the central chair in order to satisfy daily rotation and
its 'tilt' characteristic in pointing to Polaris at all times.

So Roger,it would be nice to hear a proper explanation for the
temperature fluctuations at different latitudes throughout the annual
cycle before moving on to more complex variations through whatever
causes.The role of 'tilt' is in determining that the Earth has a
largely equatorial climate as opposed to a planet like Uranus which
has a polar climate so that 'tilt' does not cause the seasons,the
cause is strictly a characteristic of the orbital motion of the
Earth.So Roger,split the daylight/darkness cycles into two separate
effects and assign an individual cause for both,daily rotation for the
day/night cycle and the polar daylight/darkness cycle due to the
orbital motion of the Earth.Then you might,just might understand for
the first time that it is the length of time a latitudinal location
spends in the orbital shadow or in solar radiation which determines
global temperatures and climate rather than inclination to solar
radiation.

And you actually believe this?

The North and South polar coordinates are Â*a window into what is
happening with the orbital motion of the Earth as our planets moves
along its orbital circumference in explaining why there is a single
daylight darkness cycle of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months
of darkness.There is no or only residual rotation at the polar
outposts hence that great polar cycle,as the coordinates turn through
the circle of illumination at the equinoxes is due strictly to the
orbital motion of the Earth.

If you don't do the experiment which requires that you use the broom
handle to represent daily rotation and its constant orientation
throughout an annual cycle and actually physically walk around a
central object, you will never appreciate the distinct differences
between the daylight/darkness cycle at lower latitudes due to daily
rotation and the distinct polar cycle.

I wouldn't even beg the question as to what you think causes the
single daylight/darkness cycle at the North and South poles using
'tilt' at the explanation because it avoids the actual orbital
cause .So,get yourself a broom and delight in something new for a
change,maybe it might awaken your interpretative instincts enough to
make you laugh at the foolishness of people at the moment but
effectively you have a new explanation for both the seasons and
variations in the natural noon cycle when allied with daily rotation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's always one who thinks the rest of science is wrong and he's
(always a he) is right. You take today's prize Oriel and you join the
ranks of Ward, Denk and that one with the strange and lengthy sig that
you can seldom figure where he's saying anything. Not surprisingly,
they all sit on the denialist benches.

Oh and then there's Yacub - but he's mad.

Can a C++ script be described as mad? Or didn't you realise that Yacub
is actually the Bawana-bot, renamed by it's creators once they
realised everybody knew?

"JohnM" wrote in message
...
[...]

Ten days ago, eh? So what kept you from immediately reporting it on
alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology and
sci.geo.oceanography as RC has now done?

Colomiaaccidentinvestigation posted concerning the paper in the 23rd.
"NASA - New Study Finds Ocean Warmed Significantly Since 1993"

Just for you, posted to alt.global.warming 24th May by Falcon in it's
entirety...

Interesting comment on Lyman et al "Robust warming of the global upper
ocean"

Roger Pielke Sr. has posted a comment [1] on an article which appeared in
Nature by Kevin Trenberth entitled, "The ocean is warming, isn't it?"

I mentioned a few days ago that Kevin was still concerned with his 'missing
heat'. The Trenberth commentary is, in turn, a response to the paper by John
M. Lyman et al: "Robust warming of the global upper ocean", which was
briefly mentioned here a few days ago. Kevin's article is worth reading.

However, what caught my eye in Roger's comment was this bit towards the end.
Roger writes: "There is also an interesting statement in the Lyman et al
2010 paper ".sea surface temperatures have been roughly constant since
2000." ...

(Now who would have imagined that?)

"...which I will discuss further in an upcoming post since this means any
global average surface temperature increase since 2000 must have occurred on
land (yet, as we have seen [2], there is a warm bias in the land surface
temperature trend assessments presented by NCDC, GISS and CRU)."

References:

[1] "My Perspective On The Nature Commentary By Kevin Trenberth".
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. at http://xrl.us/bhmux3 (Link to
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com).

[2] An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the
surface and in the lower troposphere. Klotzbach et al (2009) pdf version at
http://xrl.us/bhmuzc (Link to pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com)

--

Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Jun 1, 6:34Â*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30Â*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

Â*"Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of
several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields
a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64
W m-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-
cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2."

Ø Totally irrelevant
You need real data, which you do not have

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes.

On Jun 1, 9:42*am, JohnM wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:56*pm, "Falcon" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

We did, ten days ago. Is there nothing new with which you can wind up the
opposition?

Ten days ago, eh? So what kept you from immediately reporting it on

Ø I didn't post it because it is pure nonsense and
not worth the bandwidth. The oceans will
continue to warm as the earth cools toward
reglaciation. Vide:

In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a climate
paleologist in France, concluded from detailed
studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial
climate to ice age conditions at the beginning
of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago,
took "less than 20 years". Her observations of
the decline of European forests led her to
conclude we may be in a similar period of
rapid climatic change.

Research has shown that this 20-year period is
one in which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on
humanity.

If the unchallenged results of the work of
Woillard and others who studied past ice ages
are any indication of the pace of glaciation,
once it starts, the transition period is a mere
20 years or so. And we may be well into that
20-year period now.

Woillard estimated that the period before that
final 20 years — when the earth began gearing
up for an end to the interglacial period —
could be as long as 150 years and as short as
75 years."

According to Woillard's studies and those of
other paleological climate researchers, the
transition between interglacial and glacial
periods is one of increasing violence — more
volcanic eruptions, storms, earthquakes, and
other natural disasters.

Ø Wake up John Morgan, et al.

——*——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.

On Jun 1, 5:28*pm, Last Post wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:42*am, JohnM wrote:

On Jun 1, 2:56*pm, "Falcon" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

....

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

We did, ten days ago. Is there nothing new with which you can wind up the
opposition?

Ten days ago, eh? So what kept you from immediately reporting it on

Ø I didn't post it because it is pure nonsense and
* * not worth the bandwidth. The oceans will
* * continue to warm as the earth cools toward
* * reglaciation. Vide:

* * In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a climate
* * paleologist in France, concluded from detailed
* * studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial
* * climate to ice age conditions at the beginning
* * of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago,
* * took "less than 20 years". Her observations of
* * the decline of European forests led her to
* * conclude we may be in a similar period of
* * rapid climatic change.

* * *Research has shown that this 20-year period is
* * *one in which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on
* * *humanity.

* * *If the unchallenged results of the work of
* * Woillard and others who studied past ice ages
* * *are any indication of the pace of glaciation,
* * *once it starts, the transition period is a mere
* * 20 years or so. And we may be well into that
* * 20-year period now.

* * *Woillard estimated that the period before that
* * *final 20 years — when the earth began gearing
* * *up for an end to the interglacial period —
* * *could be as long as 150 years and as short as
* * *75 years."

* * *According to Woillard's studies and those of
* * *other paleological climate researchers, the
* * *transition between interglacial and glacial
* * *periods is one of increasing violence — more
* * *volcanic eruptions, storms, earthquakes, and
* * *other natural disasters.

Ø Wake up John Morgan, et al.

——*——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
* * logic of what you say. You have to tell them
* * what is right in very simple terms. If they do
* * not agree, you will never be able to change
* * their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
* * against their religious belief, they will cling to
* * that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
* * million years. There is no way to convince

* * the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

* * the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

* * predators to change their evil ways, They
* * knew what they were doing was wrong, but
* * knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
* * them more careful in how they went about
* * performing their evil deeds.

Did you say this? I just couldn't follow it;

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

I must be stupid, sorry.

On 6/1/2010 8:08 AM, oriel36 wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:48 pm, wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:16 pm, wrote:





On Jun 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:

On Jun 1, 12:44 pm, wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:34 am, Roger wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:30 am, Roger wrote:

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

"Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of
several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields
a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64
W m-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-
cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2."

Do yourself a favor Roger,this is not a childish exercise ,it lets you
and everyone else know how much they understand of climate along with
how much you understand of the Earth and its motions.

Take one chair or any object and set it in the center of a garden or
large room to represent the central Sun.Get a broom representing both
the daily rotation of the Earth and its 'tilt' and start to walk
around the perimeter while keeping the broom handle pointing in the
same direction.You will notice something immediately,at times you will
have to crab sideways,then walk backwards and then forwards in your
'orbital' motion about the central chair/Sun representing the orbital
motion of the Earth as it moves along its orbital circumference.

At the polar outposts they experience a single daylight/darkness cycle
as the Earth orbits the Sun with 6 months of daylight followed by 6
months of darkness and a brief period of polar twilight at the orbital
points of the equinoxes.What causes the polar coordinates to turn
through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes arises strictly
from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun just as you have to
walk around the central chair in order to satisfy daily rotation and
its 'tilt' characteristic in pointing to Polaris at all times.

So Roger,it would be nice to hear a proper explanation for the
temperature fluctuations at different latitudes throughout the annual
cycle before moving on to more complex variations through whatever
causes.The role of 'tilt' is in determining that the Earth has a
largely equatorial climate as opposed to a planet like Uranus which
has a polar climate so that 'tilt' does not cause the seasons,the
cause is strictly a characteristic of the orbital motion of the
Earth.So Roger,split the daylight/darkness cycles into two separate
effects and assign an individual cause for both,daily rotation for the
day/night cycle and the polar daylight/darkness cycle due to the
orbital motion of the Earth.Then you might,just might understand for
the first time that it is the length of time a latitudinal location
spends in the orbital shadow or in solar radiation which determines
global temperatures and climate rather than inclination to solar
radiation.

And you actually believe this?

The North and South polar coordinates are a window into what is
happening with the orbital motion of the Earth as our planets moves
along its orbital circumference in explaining why there is a single
daylight darkness cycle of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months
of darkness.There is no or only residual rotation at the polar
outposts hence that great polar cycle,as the coordinates turn through
the circle of illumination at the equinoxes is due strictly to the
orbital motion of the Earth.

If you don't do the experiment which requires that you use the broom
handle to represent daily rotation and its constant orientation
throughout an annual cycle and actually physically walk around a
central object, you will never appreciate the distinct differences
between the daylight/darkness cycle at lower latitudes due to daily
rotation and the distinct polar cycle.

I wouldn't even beg the question as to what you think causes the
single daylight/darkness cycle at the North and South poles using
'tilt' at the explanation because it avoids the actual orbital
cause .So,get yourself a broom and delight in something new for a
change,maybe it might awaken your interpretative instincts enough to
make you laugh at the foolishness of people at the moment but
effectively you have a new explanation for both the seasons and
variations in the natural noon cycle when allied with daily rotation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's always one who thinks the rest of science is wrong and he's
(always a he) is right. You take today's prize Oriel and you join the
ranks of Ward, Denk and that one with the strange and lengthy sig that
you can seldom figure where he's saying anything. Not surprisingly,
they all sit on the denialist benches.


No point in dithering around with tiny fluctuations in temperature
tied to a minor atmospheric gas if you can't explain the huge seasonal
temperature fluctuations using the Earth's planetary dynamics,the
admonition is that the Earth is not a greenhouse so stop treating it
like one,at least until you comprehend fluctuations in temperature at
different latitudes at different points in the Earth's annual cycle.

Most like yourself have nothing to say but there will be those who
just might catch a glimpse of something new if they actually and
physically do that basic experiment and put their observations in
order.What eases the difficulties is considering the transition from 6
months of polar darkness to 6 months of polar daylight as a cycle just
as daily rotation generates the diurnal day/night cycle,thereby
allowing that window into the great orbital motion of the Earth and
how it behaves as it orbits the central Sun.

This is not a personal taunt nor is it a condemnation of individuals
or a group,just an invitation to be honest and open for a change in a
world that badly needs it.

Unfortunately, your insistences that we don't know this and that, and
this and that waltz must be done, don't make any sense. You can crack
any meteorology textbook and find this stuff. And none of it is new to
those doing AGW research.

On 6/1/2010 10:37 AM, Last Post wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:34 am, Roger wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 am, Roger wrote:

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

"Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of
several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields
a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64
W m-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-
cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2."

Ø Totally irrelevant
You need real data, which you do not have

Show us.

On 6/1/2010 11:28 AM, Last Post wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:42 am, wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:56 pm, wrote:

"Roger wrote in message

...

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

We did, ten days ago. Is there nothing new with which you can wind up the
opposition?

Ten days ago, eh? So what kept you from immediately reporting it on

Ø I didn't post it because it is pure nonsense and
not worth the bandwidth.

haw haw haw

On Jun 1, 6:56Â*pm, Ouroboros Rex wrote:
On 6/1/2010 8:08 AM, oriel36 wrote:





On Jun 1, 1:48 pm, Â*wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:16 pm, Â*wrote:

On Jun 1, 1:02 pm, Â*wrote:

On Jun 1, 12:44 pm, Â*wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:34 am, Roger Â*wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:30 am, Roger Â*wrote:

Please see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09043.html

Â* "Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of
several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields
a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64
W m-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-
cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m-2."

Do yourself a favor Roger,this is not a childish exercise ,it lets you
and everyone else know how much they understand of climate along with
how much you understand of the Earth and its motions.

Take one chair or any object and set it in the center of a garden or
large room to represent the central Sun.Get a broom representing both
the daily rotation of the Earth and its 'tilt' and start to walk
around the perimeter while keeping the broom handle pointing in the
same direction.You will notice something immediately,at times you will
have to crab sideways,then walk backwards and then forwards in your
'orbital' motion about the central chair/Sun representing the orbital
motion of the Earth as it moves along its orbital circumference.

At the polar outposts they experience a single daylight/darkness cycle
as the Earth orbits the Sun with 6 months of daylight followed by 6
months of darkness and a brief period of polar twilight at the orbital
points of the equinoxes.What causes the polar coordinates to turn
through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes arises strictly
from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun just as you have to
walk around the central chair in order to satisfy daily rotation and
its 'tilt' characteristic in pointing to Polaris at all times.

So Roger,it would be nice to hear a proper explanation for the
temperature fluctuations at different latitudes throughout the annual
cycle before moving on to more complex variations through whatever
causes.The role of 'tilt' is in determining that the Earth has a
largely equatorial climate as opposed to a planet like Uranus which
has a polar climate so that 'tilt' does not cause the seasons,the
cause is strictly a characteristic of the orbital motion of the
Earth.So Roger,split the daylight/darkness cycles into two separate
effects and assign an individual cause for both,daily rotation for the
day/night cycle and the polar daylight/darkness cycle due to the
orbital motion of the Earth.Then you might,just might understand for
the first time that it is the length of time a latitudinal location
spends in the orbital shadow or in solar radiation which determines
global temperatures and climate rather than inclination to solar
radiation.

And you actually believe this?

The North and South polar coordinates are Â*a window into what is
happening with the orbital motion of the Earth as our planets moves
along its orbital circumference in explaining why there is a single
daylight darkness cycle of 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months
of darkness.There is no or only residual rotation at the polar
outposts hence that great polar cycle,as the coordinates turn through
the circle of illumination at the equinoxes is due strictly to the
orbital motion of the Earth.

If you don't do the experiment which requires that you use the broom
handle to represent daily rotation and its constant orientation
throughout an annual cycle and actually physically walk around a
central object, you will never appreciate the distinct differences
between the daylight/darkness cycle at lower latitudes due to daily
rotation and the distinct polar cycle.

I wouldn't even beg the question as to what you think causes the
single daylight/darkness cycle at the North and South poles using
'tilt' at the explanation because it avoids the actual orbital
cause .So,get yourself a broom and delight in something new for a
change,maybe it might awaken your interpretative instincts enough to
make you laugh at the foolishness of people at the moment but
effectively you have a new explanation for both the seasons and
variations in the natural noon cycle when allied with daily rotation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's always one who thinks the rest of science is wrong and he's
(always a he) is right. You take today's prize Oriel and you join the
ranks of Ward, Denk and that one with the strange and lengthy sig that
you can seldom figure where he's saying anything. Not surprisingly,
they all sit on the denialist benches.

No point in dithering around with tiny fluctuations in temperature
tied to a minor atmospheric gas if you can't explain the huge seasonal
temperature fluctuations using the Earth's planetary dynamics,the
admonition is that the Earth is not a greenhouse so stop treating it
like one,at least until you comprehend fluctuations in temperature at
different latitudes at different points in the Earth's annual cycle.

Most like yourself have nothing to say but there will be those who
just might catch a glimpse of something new if they actually and
physically do that basic experiment and put their observations in
order.What eases the difficulties is considering the transition from 6
months of polar darkness to 6 months of polar daylight as a cycle just
as daily rotation generates the diurnal day/night cycle,thereby
allowing that window into the great orbital motion of the Earth and
how it behaves as it orbits the central Sun.

This is not a personal taunt nor is it a condemnation of individuals
or a group,just an invitation to be honest and open for a change in a
world that badly needs it.

Â* Â*Unfortunately, your insistences that we don't know this and that, and
this and that waltz must be done, don't make any sense. Â*You can crack
any meteorology textbook and find this stuff. Â*And none of it is new to
those doing AGW research.

There is not a single article anywhere on the planet that explains the
single polar daylight/darkness cycle where the polar coordinates pass
through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes as a consequence
of the orbital motion of the Earth.There is not a single textbook that
contains the distinct difference between the daylight/darkness cycle
due to daily rotation and the polar cycle due to orbital motion,there
is nothing distinguishing global climate from the inclusive
hemispherical weather patterns of Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter or the
dozens of different conclusions which emerge from isolating daily and
orbital motions and inspecting their characteristics.

So,you all discovered today that there is a single polar daylight/
darkness cycle and it requires an explanation just as the daily
daylight/darkness cycle does.That is how much you all understand of
global climate and the Earth's motions so continue shouting across at
each other,as far as I am concerned,people who can't explain the
seasons properly or why there are variations in the natural noon cycle
are completely lost in longer terms climatological cycles.

I expect only a few will be intrigued by conducting that simple
experiment and how the body changes its orientation through 360
degrees as it orbits the central object (representing the Sun) thereby
coming to that lovely insight where 6 months of darkness rapidly
changes to 6 months of daylight at the polar coordinates.Then and only
then people will begin to investigate climate properly and good luck
to them.