"James" wrote in message
...
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8CF.htm


Lindzen always seems to have the cleanest perspective.

bw wrote:
"James" wrote in message
...

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8CF.htm



Lindzen always seems to have the cleanest perspective.


Wrong, but squeaky

josh halpern

My competence can quickly be verified and I have given you,
and anyone else, the means to check it:

--- The data file is at:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
You can go get it for yourself.

--- A linear correlation of the months of January in that file
results in: TEMP = 13.575548 + (0.006629 * (YEAR-1879))
You can calculate this for yourself.

--- The standard test for confidence of nonzero correlation
has 124 degrees of Freedom and F = 92.992086 which is
approximately 0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
You can also perform the same statistical test and come
to the same conclusion: the world is warming.

These are facts I have provided.

You, however. have provided no facts, not a single reference,
not a single data point. All you have is bluster.

Your estimates on the error in these data
are very exaggerated. If you have better data,
please post it here. Until then I would prefer
to reason from data like these, rather than
ignorance.

These data use "GISS analysis" and were not
corrected with a population-based UHI formula.
This is a fact we have discussed too many times
before, James.

BillC wrote:


You're the fool, especially if you think the industrialized world is
going
to shut down on the basis of what are probably minor fluctuation that
may or
may not be be partly influenced by manmade emissions.


(...)

Of course, people aren't going to stop burning fossils fuels -
that is until they are gone, and that end is now in sight.
Global production of oil, if it isn't peaking already,
will likely peak within the decade. Coal and natural gas
aren't far behind. The huge increases in demand in China
and India will assure the peak arrives sooner than you
might imagine. If oil were to be equitably distributed, the
US would take a huge hit, as it currently consumes a quarter
of the worlds daily supply of oil (over 20 million barrels a
day). Average Chinese consumes an order of magnitude less oil
than the average US citizen. But they are working very
hard to catch up to our level of consumption. Something that's
not possible as global production is currently maxed out.

We will likely double the current CO2 level before fossil fuels
became so scarce as to be irrelevant. We shall see what becomes
of our 'industrialized world' at that point.

You're the fool for not being willing to admit
the consequences of this explosive doubling of the CO2
level may be catastrophic.

-Eric B

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your estimates on the error in these data
are very exaggerated. If you have better data,
please post it here. Until then I would prefer
to reason from data like these, rather than
ignorance.

No Roger. It's more of a lack of data. I just gave you the facts. One can't
take some readings and accurately apply it globally over 100 year peiod if
they are not all there. Of course you could take the science philosopy that
it's all you have so it is gospel.


These data use "GISS analysis" and were not
corrected with a population-based UHI formula.
This is a fact we have discussed too many times
before, James.


That has never been accurately answered. Modeling used the population method
when some bitched about it. If it has changed to something more realistic,
I'd like to hear it. Not just for the UHI effect but for the rural effect as
well. We discussed at one point about paving having an area about the size
of Ohio. That's for the U.S. only. In my recollection, the subject was
changed by the AGW zealots and dropped.

wrote:

Of course, people aren't going to stop burning fossils fuels -
that is until they are gone, and that end is now in sight.

Bzzztttt.

Sorry. Contestants are limited to one panic only.

Worry about using carbon fuels or carbon fuesl running out,
but not both.

--

When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?

On 12 Feb 2005 04:36:47 -0800, wrote:


BillC wrote:


You're the fool, especially if you think the industrialized world is
going
to shut down on the basis of what are probably minor fluctuation that
may or
may not be be partly influenced by manmade emissions.


(...)

Of course, people aren't going to stop burning fossils fuels -
that is until they are gone, and that end is now in sight.

No it's not. Not even close. They're discovering new fields at the
same pace they always have. New technology is opening up access to
more fields. Other technologies are unlocking tar sands.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanocata...els-report.htm

Global production of oil, if it isn't peaking already,
will likely peak within the decade.

Not inside the current paradigm. China and India are in the take-off
stages of 'I Luv My Car':

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/041230/glob...o_sales_1.html

Coal and natural gas aren't far behind. The huge increases in demand in China
and India will assure the peak arrives sooner than you
might imagine.

Wishful thinking.

(increased consumption) ... Something that's
not possible as global production is currently maxed out.

No such thing. Iraqi oil fields alone are running at minimum
production. There's a new play off the SE coast of India, expanding
fields along the east bank of the Nile, the north Alaska slope on
hold.

We will likely double the current CO2 level before fossil fuels
became so scarce as to be irrelevant. We shall see what becomes
of our 'industrialized world' at that point.

Comic-book logic guy. You've fictioned a scenario to reach the end of
a story. "And they lived headedly every after."

You're the fool for not being willing to admit
the consequences of this explosive doubling of the CO2
level may be catastrophic.

The plodding increase of 2 ppm each year (guessing the Kyoto and
increased use keep current trends steady) means the doubling point is
reached in 80 years.

Instead of the catastrophe warning, how about thinking of the dirty,
coughing, stinky, garbage-littered, world that we live in between here
and there?



-Eric B

One last time, James. Try to learn
something this time.

There are many ways to correct for UHI.
GISS uses nighttime lights as observed
by satellites. IMHO, this is the best way.
USHCN uses census data. Both methods
agree that UHI correction is small and
positive in the US.

Because, of the large demographic shift
away from the farms and too the cities in
the continental US during the twentieth
century, UHI corrected data shows more
warming there. The USHCN sites got more
rural as people moved away. That is why
the CEE-OH-TOO (pseudo) scientists always
use raw, un-UHI corrected, data, yet they
carp about the UHI problem as if it
totally invalidated all the data. You
can't have it both ways, James.

"owl" wrote in message
...
No it's not. Not even close. They're discovering new fields at the
same pace they always have. New technology is opening up access to
more fields. Other technologies are unlocking tar sands.

The rate of oil discovery is way, way down.

Production has peaked.