|
|
Hell no!Originally Posted by randerizer
The guy is not a "money or fame seeker" anymore than you and I are. That is truly an unfounded and below the belt comment. The guy was the CEO of the UK Meteorological Office for 9 years. He appears to me to be a talented and hard working scientist. Randerizer, some people are smarter and harder working than you or I.
"Colder than it is now." I guess it is some comfortable that you recognize that.
I wasn't accusing until you made the comment about not giving a rat's ass about my uninformed opinion. But I am absolutely suggesting that if he would dismiss my arguments as "uninformed," etc., the ONLY logical explanation is that he is a money or fame seeker, as opposed to being dedicated to the science..
Not too many people are more hard-working than I am, but I admit there are certainly some. However, being smarter or harder working does not mean that the scientist is correct in his/her judgement. I've pointed out questions about where his numbers come from and what I believe to be his most likely assumptions. If you want to defend him or the numbers, why don't YOU drop him an email and ask him to clarify the assumptions. Otherwise, I'm going with the fact that 99.9% of all "respected" scientists in the relevant areas are likely to use the assumptions I specified in setting up the problem (on a local scale), in which case application of those assumptions outside of that local scale is very likely to produce significant error in the final calculations.
Whatever. Write the guy a letter if you are truly so concerned. My take is that you don't accept the notion of AGW because of political/emotional reasons, certainly not logical reasons.
Buy a textbook on atmospheric physics.
Hey guys....
In case you don't already know about it, Glenn Beck will have a special on tomorrow night on his regular show on CNN Headline News on the other side of the GW issue. It will be on at 7, 9,and midnight EDT.
He has had his staff ( who are mostly CNN libs) working on this for several months just to show the other side of the story.
If you're interested in GW one way or the other it should be interesting.
Of course, I'm sure that some on here will jump on this immediately and say everyone involved in it is either not credible or an idiot.
I'll try to watch it. Should be interesting.
May 1, 2007
Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, a Study Finds
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Climate scientists may have significantly underestimated the power of global warming from human-generated heat-trapping gases to shrink the cap of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, according to a new study of polar trends.
The study, published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that an open-water Arctic in summers could be more likely in this century than had been estimated in the latest international review of climate research released in February by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“There are huge changes going on,” said Julienne Stroeve, a lead author of the new study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “Just with warm waters entering the Arctic, combined with warming air temperatures, this is wreaking havoc on the sea ice, really.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us...gewanted=print
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
New Jaworowski article.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Wow. Pretty smart for an old QB. :icon_wink:
Firing Theisman and hiring Jaworski for MNF might drive me to join a Monday night bowling league.
Hey, Guisslapp, I didn't know that you and Lyndon LaRouche were buddies.
EIR Science.......that's a gas.
Did you even read the article?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
In my experience, the "peer-review" process of such journals as Science, Nature, etc. does not guarantee that the scientific work presented is any better than what I accomplish when I wipe my ass on the crapper. In all cases, it is most reasonable to read the scientific content of the article itself and judge it on that content. With respect to the content (particularly the discussion of the problems with using ice core measurements ABSOLUTELY), I have yet to see a valid scientific response from the AGW community.
Yeah, I read it. It was hard to since I had to keep reaching for the barf bag.
Seriously, Guisslapp, you are a smart guy. Why are you willing to listen to the comments of a handful of scientists while you ignore the findings of the VAST majority. The physics of the atmosphere are really not in dispute. The most respected climate scientists in the world are basically saying the same thing, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is the result of our burning fossil fuels and that in the long-term major climate change will occur.
More importantly, did you read the article from the NY Times I just posted? Your thoughts?
randerizer, the author of that EIR Science article does a great job of misinformation. For example, he states that the ice-core record is the foundation of the AGW theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The foundation of the AGW theory is the physics of the atmosphere. WE need to know nothing ice cores in order to know that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global warming.
Further mis-information on his part regards the current increases in atmospheric Co2 levels. We only have to look at the Hawaii samples taken over the past 50 years to see the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Notice that in his article not ONCE did he talk about the physics of atmospheric gases. He only talks about something that is really not critical to the AGW theory.
I'm surprised that you are so easily fooled by a lot of hot-air.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
