Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote: On Oct 19, 11:29Â*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote: On Oct 19, 10:14Â*am, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: And for Dave: Psssst... not yet for public! There are still a lot of consultations and examinations necessary.- This cahoots is actually quite hilarious! Good entertainment. Secret emails, "examinations" and "consultations" before the whole of the scientific establishment has to rethink the way in which global temperature measurements have been taken. Should be revelatory! No answer to my two questions, of course. Just a question in response. Peter; you have no answer, because the answer does not fit what you want to believe. Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Your remark about record monthly temperatures is a gem, Â*it is averages that are published after adding, dividing with rounding, etc. Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*The actual maximum temperatures for each day could be 15 or 20 degrees below the day of year record high (for each date), and if the nights didn't get colder than the average minimum for the date, warming is assumed. Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Even a sham can be unintentional.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Don't you just wish it was cooler, No, dummy, I wish it was warmer, the last 24 days in a row have been below normal, way below normal, what do I care about other places. then you'd be right. The sham is on your part, of course and is diversionary I have no confidence in the averaged global temperature method, or the assumption that it can substitute for energy content. Only the left is slimeball enough to use any tactic except sincere expression of opinion - as it so often is with sceptics/denialists, Kiss my grits, sorry to hear the left has another bot. which is why you have to keep bringing them back to the difficult questions, again and again, no matter how many times they try to squirm out of them. Why are so many experts leaving the AGW camp, it is becoming a stampede. In this case, the outcomes are pretty clear cut from global temperatures over the past 24 months. The "global temperature" is a mess of averaging, probably totally meaningless. Now go back to the two questions I asked and have a go at answering them without the diversionary fudge. Why wasn't it cooler last year and why is it as warm as it is right now? Today here was 23 degrees below normal, that does not make me happy. If your assertions, and those of so many other sceptics/denialists are correct, the earth should have cooled significantly last year and should not be as warm now. The outcomes simply don't fit your beliefs and as a result, there is no wonder that you are struggling. I remember many years when it was warmer, at least the daily maximums were higher, and there was no agenda driven goofballs trying to sell a pig in a poke. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"climate establishment does not follow the scientific method" -INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An Illustration Of A Broken Scientific Method: July 15, 2008 | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
The heart of scientific method is inquiry - a heated exchange; algore confronts his critics | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |