wrote:
Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!

AP article
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...5global001.cfm

The actual article in PNAS currently free to the public.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1

[Note the highly unusual inclusion of political references in
this scientific paper. I haven't exhaustively surveyed the
history of PNAS, but l doubt the the reviewers at PNAS would
have allowed this before. Science has taken the gloves off!]

Global surface temperature has increased


I find it amusing that these "scientists" show a 1.3 million year proxy

temperature graph and end the last 8th of the graph with a 135 year
actual temperature reading.

"The paleoclimate SST, based on Mg content of foraminifera
shells, provides accuracy to
1°C (29). Thus we cannot be sure that
we have precisely aligned the paleo and modern temperature scales.
Accepting paleo and modern temperatures at face value implies a
WEP 1870 SST in the middle of its Holocene range. Shifting the
scale to align the 1870 SST with the lowest Holocene value raises
the paleo curve by
0.5°C. Even in that case, the 2001-2005 WEP
SST is at least as great as any Holocene proxy temperature at that
location. Coarse temporal resolution of the Holocene data,
1,000
years, may mask brief warmer excursions, but cores with higher
resolution (29) suggest that peak Holocene WEP SSTs were not
more than
1°C warmer than in the late Holocene, before modern
warming. It seems safe to assume that the SST will not decline this
century, given continued increases of GHGs, so in a practical sense
the WEP temperature is at or near its highest level in the Holocene.
Fig. 5, including WEP data for the past 1.35 million years, shows
that the current WEP SST is within
1°C of the warmest interglacials
in that period."

Perhaps you can take this opportunity to provide the expert peer review
of this study. Remember, you don't have to replicate the data!

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Peer review that tripe? That would slide across my desk and into my
garbage can....

Comparing proxy to actual temperatures is only something you would do
Hamilton, along with that joke of a graph.

The first sentence is "The paleoclimate SST, based on Mg content of
foraminifera shells, provides accuracy to
1°C (29)." A substantive
comment would have been something along the lines of:

1) that reference really does not say that
2) That reference does say that, but is wrong for this reason (then
give reason)

You're the joke.

Tracy P. Hamilton

wrote in
oups.com:


Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!

AP article
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...5global001.cfm

The actual article in PNAS currently free to the public.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1

[Note the highly unusual inclusion of political references in
this scientific paper. I haven't exhaustively surveyed the
history of PNAS, but l doubt the the reviewers at PNAS would
have allowed this before. Science has taken the gloves off!]

Global surface temperature has increased


I find it amusing that these "scientists" show a 1.3 million year
proxy

temperature graph and end the last 8th of the graph with a 135 year
actual temperature reading.

"The paleoclimate SST, based on Mg content of foraminifera
shells, provides accuracy to
1°C (29). Thus we cannot be sure that
we have precisely aligned the paleo and modern temperature scales.
Accepting paleo and modern temperatures at face value implies a
WEP 1870 SST in the middle of its Holocene range. Shifting the
scale to align the 1870 SST with the lowest Holocene value raises
the paleo curve by
0.5°C. Even in that case, the 2001-2005 WEP
SST is at least as great as any Holocene proxy temperature at that
location. Coarse temporal resolution of the Holocene data,
1,000
years, may mask brief warmer excursions, but cores with higher
resolution (29) suggest that peak Holocene WEP SSTs were not
more than
1°C warmer than in the late Holocene, before modern
warming. It seems safe to assume that the SST will not decline this
century, given continued increases of GHGs, so in a practical sense
the WEP temperature is at or near its highest level in the Holocene.
Fig. 5, including WEP data for the past 1.35 million years, shows
that the current WEP SST is within
1°C of the warmest interglacials
in that period."

Perhaps you can take this opportunity to provide the expert peer review
of this study. Remember, you don't have to replicate the data!

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Peer review that tripe? That would slide across my desk and into my
garbage can....

Comparing proxy to actual temperatures is only something you would do
Hamilton, along with that joke of a graph. Looks almost like Coppock
made it.

The DisgustingGuffy would prefer no data instead of proxy data, or he
would hop into his time machine and go get the actual data rather than
infer anthing from proxy data. TheDisgustingGuffy is like that when he is
not licking pus from oozing syphallis sores.

The DisgustingGuffy wrote in
ups.com:


Roger Coppock wrote:
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!

AP article
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...5global001.cfm

The actual article in PNAS currently free to the public.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1

[Note the highly unusual inclusion of political references in
this scientific paper. I haven't exhaustively surveyed the
history of PNAS, but l doubt the the reviewers at PNAS would
have allowed this before. Science has taken the gloves off!]

Global surface temperature has increased


I find it amusing that these "scientists" show a 1.3 million year proxy

temperature graph and end the last 8th of the graph with a 135 year
actual temperature reading.

Ahhh, James Hanson.......what a nut!


Oh and these "sciencetists" haven't taken the gloves off, they have
just lost thier objectivity! Which makes them nothing better than....
lets say.... you!

The Exxon stoodges like you are getting all known.

Eventually there will be a $10,000,000 fund put up to sue your ISPs and
get your home address and real names through subpoena power -- then the
TRUTH Commissions begin. We'll find out back to the first grade what made
you a traitor to the human race. Not that we forgive you for that, but we
want to know what kind of child abuse turns out sicko psychos who would
hinder the emergency response team to a world crisis.


http://www.samspade.org/t/whois?a=24...om;server=auto
http://charter.com/

We know where the subpoena for TheDisgustingGuffy goes to.

Roger Coppock wrote:
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!

AP article
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/...5global001.cfm

The actual article in PNAS currently free to the public.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1

[Note the highly unusual inclusion of political references in
this scientific paper. I haven't exhaustively surveyed the
history of PNAS, but l doubt the the reviewers at PNAS would
have allowed this before. Science has taken the gloves off!]

Global surface temperature has increased

Some will disagree, on the degrees, of accuracy, with politically
generated see nothing know nothingness.
The scientists are more correct than they are wrong.
Those without the education and training in these fields would do well
not to show their foolishness of exhibiting their declarations that the
Scientists are the one that lack any knowledge or expertise because they
are out of step with the Government of Globalist Big Business.

Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30 years
has something to do with it?)

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strong El Nin~os to become permanent El Nin~o!!!!!!!!!!!
..

El Guapo wrote:

So, if the planet wasn't getting warmer, would it be getting cooler?
Wouldn't that also make it a "different planet than the one we know?" Or
does Hansen believe that the climate would just stay the same forever, if we
would just stop adding greenhouse gases? If so, has he not looked at his
own charts?

I think that's what bugs me the most about people like Hansen. If the
global temperature was falling instead of rising, he would still be crying
about how we were sliding into a new ice age, and the government was doing
nothing to stop it.

If there was truly no anthropogenic causation, most conservatives would
have no quarrel with the evidence. Only when Man is blamed do we see
their outrage. To them it's an admission that we aren't all-powerful in
this world, and their egos can't handle that. They won't admit that
nature is really in charge and it scares them. If an ice age was
imminent and Man was not causing it, people would probably panic and
head for the equator. People fear cold more than warmth and they don't
understand the significant of "just a few degrees warmer."

P.T.

El Guapo wrote:

So, if the planet wasn't getting warmer, would it be getting cooler?
Wouldn't that also make it a "different planet than the one we know?" Or
does Hansen believe that the climate would just stay the same forever, if we
would just stop adding greenhouse gases? If so, has he not looked at his
own charts?

The climate will eventually change with or without us, but right now
it's changing *because* of us and it could ruin our historical good
fortune. We are living in a lucky climate window and take it for
granted. Nature has no concern if we live or die, so it's up to us.
This is no time for arrogance and best-case conjecture. The solution to
global warming is also the path to cleaner living - that's the good
news.

I think that's what bugs me the most about people like Hansen. If the
global temperature was falling instead of rising, he would still be crying
about how we were sliding into a new ice age, and the government was doing
nothing to stop it.

If there was truly no anthropogenic causation, most conservatives would
have no quarrel with the evidence. Only when Man is blamed do we see
their outrage. To them it's an admission that we aren't all-powerful in
the world. They are afraid that nature is really in charge - and it is.
If an ice age was imminent and Man was not causing it, people would
likely panic and head for the equator. People fear cold more than
warmth and they don't understand the significance of "just a few
degrees warmer." They also have trouble reacting to anything that
doesn't happen instantly.

P.T.

In article lgate.org,
"Brad Guth" wrote:
"Question Quigley" wrote in message
news:GnlSg.3219$Kw1.2715@trnddc05

Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30 years
has something to do with it?)

That freon of R-12 is a mere drop in our global warming bucket that's
not exactly helping, but it's not the primary cause by any long shot
(there's not exactly a big soot factor with R-12). Actually the
conversion from R-12 to the alternatives was much worse for our
environment,

No it wasn't, but you're loco anyway.

and it was another damn spendy (multi billion dollar)
effort. Just printing all of that loot created far more physical
pollution than the R-12 it supposedly got rid of.

BTW; how much global R-12 is still being produced, and of how much is
still in use?

What other than R-12 is getting produced that's much worse off for our
environment?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com

EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what? It's only going to go all the way, and that's even if all of
humanity left Earth for another planet or moon.

Without us humans, it would have simply taken a few extra centuries, or
possibly a few extra thousands of years, but because of our locally
orbiting mascon and the IR/FIR worth of our moon that has only been with
us since the last ice age, plus our badly failing magnetosphere might
suggest that it doesn't really matter, or does it?

Is there some remaining question that Earth is getting much hotter? (I
don't think so)

Is there any question that our magnetosphere has been failing us? (I
don't think so)

Why not focus our best talents and the few remaining resources on
surviving these ongoing trends, or would you much rather die as is
(dumbfounded)?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Question Quigley" wrote in message
news:GnlSg.3219$Kw1.2715@trnddc05

Is that what it is? And I thought my central A.C. unit was low on freon.

(Maybe the 360,000 lb of R-12 I've put in the system over the past 30 years
has something to do with it?)

That freon of R-12 is a mere drop in our global warming bucket that's
not exactly helping, but it's not the primary cause by any long shot
(there's not exactly a big soot factor with R-12). Actually the
conversion from R-12 to the alternatives was much worse for our
environment, and it was another damn spendy (multi billion dollar)
effort. Just printing all of that loot created far more physical
pollution than the R-12 it supposedly got rid of.

BTW; how much global R-12 is still being produced, and of how much is
still in use?

What other than R-12 is getting produced that's much worse off for our
environment?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT 12,000-YEAR HIGH!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE AT HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!!!!
EARTH'S TEMPERATURE WITHIN 1K OF 1,000,000-YEAR
MAXIMUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say; So what's the difference? It's only going to go all the way,
and that's even if all of humanity left Earth for another planet or
moon, and we took all of our farting cows along with us.

Without us humans and our cows, it would have simply taken a few extra
centuries, or possibly a few extra thousands of years, but otherwise
because of our locally orbiting mascon and resulting tidal friction plus
the extra IR/FIR worth of our moon, that which has only been with us
since the last ice age, plus our badly failing magnetosphere might
suggest that it doesn't really matter, or does it?

Is there some remaining question that Earth is getting much hotter? (I
don't think so)

Is there any question that our magnetosphere has been failing us? (I
don't think so)

Why not focus our best talents and the few remaining resources on
surviving these ongoing trends without having to prematurely expirer, or
would you much rather die as is for not trying (as though dumbfounded)?

Since mother Earth is never going to cool off, I have a few terrestrial
energy producing solutions that are 100% renewable (meaning zero CO2,
zero NOx and absolutely zilch worth of soot), as I'm certain others like
yourself will equally share and share alike if you'll help such others
to focus their supposed talents and resources that'll get the job done.
I also have R-1024 insulation that's as structural as you'd like to make
it, compared to the wussy stuff that's currently available is by itself
a win-win for the old global warming gipper.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG