Global Warming-->Global Cooling

Cambridge Professors Say Global Cooling is Due to Global Warming, No Fraud This Time

CAMBRIDGE, England, 2010-06-25 — Scientists at Cambridge University in England say that the abnormally cold winter being experienced in the United States and Europe is due to global warming. “This may seem counter intuitive to ordinary mortals,” said one of the Cambridge professors, “”but when you are from Cambridge it makes sense--if you want it to."

Well, many scientists predicted this due to the Gulf Stream's inability to carry as much heat as freshwater (meltwater) interrupts it. You do know that it is the Gulf Stream that keeps NW Europe and parts of N. America warmer than they should be, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

I'd say that this is falling right in with what was predicted. Normally that would be considered to be good science.

Also, just because average global temperatures are rising, that doesn't exclude the possibility of some locations cooling.

That makes sense to anyone that has had a course in formal logic.

Here is scary for you - the global warming nuts have gotten to the Department of Defense.

Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley, who also serves as director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change: "The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year," Titley said. "So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century."

That makes sense to anyone that has had a course in formal logic.

That depends on who was teaching that course in formal logics, but more important, it depends on the ones that were suppose to be learning something about logics.

And the “Global Warming Average Increasing Temperatures” scam is still being perpetrated, to wit:

(Recent News release) Worldwide, the average temperature for the month of May, 2010, was 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8 Celsius), the warmest May on record, back to 1880. That was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 C) warmer than average for the month as the planet's temperature continues to climb.

There is nothing about those calculated “warmer than average temperatures” which makes it possible for anyone to claim that “the planet's temperature continues to climb”. And therein is the basis of the truth of the “scam”. Their calculated increase in said Average Temperatures does not prove the earth is getting hotter, it only proved the “average” increased from the previous calculations.

Maybe a learned logician would like to check my calculations out that proves my above assertion, just to see if I made an error in said, to wit:

Extrapolated data from above:

Average Temperature for May, 2010 = 58.6 F
# of degrees increase from previously calculated average = 1.24 F
Thus, the previously calculated May average must have been = 57.36 F

Hypothetical reference data for Months of May (because no equivalent such data has ever been released to the public domain):

Pre-2010 “cool” Average Temperature for months of May = 38.7 F
Pre-2010 “warm” Average Temperature for months of May = 76.02 F
Thus, Pre-2010 Calculated Average Temperature: (38.7 F) + (76.02 F) = (114.72 F) / (2) = 57.36 F

2010 “cool” Average Temperature for month of May = 41.21 F (2.51 F increase)
2010 “warm” Average Temperature for month of May = 76.02 F (unchanged)
Thus, 2010 Calculated Average Temperature: (41.21 F) + (76.02 F) = (117.23 F) / (2) = 58.6 F

Conclusions:

The Pre-2010 and 2010 “warm” Average Temperatures remained unchanged at 76.02 F, which means that May 2010 was not any hotter than any other May on record.

The Pre-2010 “cool” Average Temperatures were 2.51 F degrees cooler than the May 2010 “cool” Average Temperature, which means that the May 2010 temperatures did not cool off as much (2.51 F as much) during the night time, and thus caused a 1.24 F increase in said May 2010 Average Temperature.

An “above normal” number of cloudy and/or rainy nights during May 2010 could easily account for said 2.51 F degrees increase in the “cool” Average Temperature. (Cloudy nights retard surface temperatures cooling)

Note: If the “cool” Average Temps and “warm” Average Temps had both increased the same amount of 2.51 F, then the change in Average Temperature is magnified. To wit: (38.7 F + 2.51 F) + (76.02 F + 2.51 F) = (119.74 F) / (2) = 59.87 F, ….. a 2.51 F increase instead of a 1.24 F increase such as was reported.

It has been an observable and measurable fact that the “cool” Average Temperatures have been increasing over the past 60 years …. but there has not been any observable or measurable fact that the “warm” Average Temperatures have been increasing over the past 60 years.

And if said “cool” Average Temperatures have been warming, then the ocean waters have been warming, and if the ocean waters have been warming then its volume has been increasing and thus the sea level will rise proportionally.

The Heat Island Effect is now severe enough to keep the “cool” Average Temperatures warmer than ever before.

GEEEZE, I luv Science, logical deductions and common sense reasonings.


.

TerryRC wrote:Well, many scientists predicted this due to the Gulf Stream's inability to carry as much heat as freshwater (meltwater) interrupts it. You do know that it is the Gulf Stream that keeps NW Europe and parts of N. America warmer than they should be, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

I'd say that this is falling right in with what was predicted. Normally that would be considered to be good science.

Also, just because average global temperatures are rising, that doesn't exclude the possibility of some locations cooling.

That makes sense to anyone that has had a course in formal logic.

Here is scary for you - the global warming nuts have gotten to the Department of Defense.

Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley, who also serves as director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change: "The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year," Titley said. "So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century."

Hi Terry,

I seem to recall that scientists used the gulf stream explanation after, rather than before, the cool weather experienced last summer. Anyway, that local conditions will ebb and flow is obvious, and it is certain that local conditions do not show anything about the globe as a whole. Heck, one day this past winter we were colder than Anchorage. I reckon this is quite common but someone noticed.

Now here is my issue. Let's say that winters were warmer or summers hotter in NW Europe and parts of N America. They would say THAT is proof of global warming. The argument is rigged. If the weather is warmer than normal, it's global warming, and if it is colder than normal, it's global warming. The man-made theory that claims to explain everything explains nothing.

I seem to recall that scientists used the gulf stream explanation after, rather than before, the cool weather experienced last summer. Anyway, that local conditions will ebb and flow is obvious, and it is certain that local conditions do not show anything about the globe as a whole. Heck, one day this past winter we were colder than Anchorage. I reckon this is quite common but someone noticed.

Well, you are wrong. They even made a movie about it with Dennis Quaid that came out years ago.

Now here is my issue. Let's say that winters were warmer or summers hotter in NW Europe and parts of N America. They would say THAT is proof of global warming. The argument is rigged. If the weather is warmer than normal, it's global warming, and if it is colder than normal, it's global warming. The man-made theory that claims to explain everything explains nothing.

Sigh.

I have explained why overall warming and melting of ice caps and glaciers can cause "localized cooling" and how what we are seeing follows predictions.

If you want to discount it, that is your choice.

Also, Sam keeps posting nonsense and calling it science. That is his choice. I saw his poor grasp of science in the Gazette comments when he tried to tell someone that photosynthesis converts light energy into mass, something he is clearly incorrect about.

In other words, an outdated certificate to teach science does not a scientist make.

TerryRC wrote:Also, Sam keeps posting nonsense and calling it science. That is his choice. I saw his poor grasp of science in the Gazette comments when he tried to tell someone that photosynthesis converts light energy into mass, something he is clearly incorrect about.

In other words, an outdated certificate to teach science does not a scientist make.

The discrediting of Einstein and his beautiful simplistic formula for the Theory of Relativitely, E=MC2, ....... is utterly being idiotic, asinine and stupid.

But one has to expect such statements coming from those who "purchased their Degree Certificate" by paying the Registration Fees and attending classes every once in awhile ..... rather than earning it by acquiring knowledge and expertise of the Subject matter.

But our society should expect "more of the same" as long as our Public School System continues to "push" more n' more Learning Disabled students through to High School Graduation and then on into Colleges and Universities where they are treated likewise.

So, America, you're gonna need it.

.

But one has to expect such statements coming from those who "purchased their Degree Certificate" by paying the Registration Fees and attending classes every once in awhile ..... rather than earning it by acquiring knowledge and expertise of the Subject matter.

Too rich! All insult, no substance. You call me mentally retarded. Awesome.

If you want to see how I earned my degree, in addition to the classes and research work, you can read my MS thesis online. It is titled "Factors Influencing Habitat Selection of Ground Beetles in Central Appalachia".

Why don't you post a link to the scientific research that YOU have done, Sammy?

Also, E=MC2 discusses the relationship between matter and energy and has nothing to do with photosynthesis, which converts EM energy to stored chemical energy that is rereleased as EM energy when the sugar is burned.

You know, conservation of energy... one of the main laws of thermodynamics...

In short, Sam, you remain ignorant, yet imply it is knowledge, making your signature line more ironic that you realize.

The discrediting of Einstein and his beautiful simplistic formula for the Theory of Relativitely, E=MC2, ....... is utterly being idiotic, asinine and stupid.

I, of course, did no such thing. It seems that you misunderstand Einstein's theory.

It merely states that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy, it doesn't mean that the equations says that mass is equal to energy and the two can change back and forth, as you seem to imply.

While it is true that mass increases when energy is added to a system, no net mass or energy is really created or lost.

Don't take my word for it, though. You can look up what physicists have said about it. I'll take their word over that of a failed science teacher.

I'll bite, though. Give me one example (non-theoretical) of energy being directly turned into mass. Don't bother using using photosynthesis. We already know that the light energy is NOT turned into mass, but rather is stored as the energy used in chemical bonding.

I remember how this came about. You asserted that CO2 couldn't store and reradiate heat energy as NOTHING in nature can do that without converting it to mass.

Fail.

TerryRC wrote:Why don't you post a link to the scientific research that YOU have done, Sammy? you can read my MS thesis online.

HA, my Biology Professor told us that iffen we wished to get a Masters then we would have to write a thesis. And iffen we wanted to write a thesis to go outside to that big Maple tree and count each and ever leaf it has on it and write our thesis about "Counting Leaves on an Acer saccharum to Determine the Amount of Foliage on a Sugar Maple" ...... and if no one has done that before they will OK it and acclaim it a great piece of research work.

What a "hoot" you are, TRC, and a blooming Bettle idiot ta boot.

First you imply that I am an uneducated idiot for stating that "photosynthesis converts light energy into mass", and then you come right back in your next post providing proof of you assertion by telling everyone that "photosynthesis converts light energy into sugar mass", to wit:

TerryRC wrote:Also, E=MC2 discusses the relationship between matter and energy and has nothing to do with photosynthesis, which converts EM energy to stored chemical energy that is rereleased as EM energy when the sugar is burned.

What next, are you again going to tell everyone that I am an idiot for telling you that sugar is a mass or are you going to tell them that you really did mean to say that photosynthesis converts light energy to a sugar mass?

TRC, our Solar Scientists estimate that "the Sun loses 4 million tons of mass each second" and that "The Sun will run out of fuel in about 5 billion (5,000,000,000) years."

So tell us oh Thesis Writing Master's Degreed One, what the hell is happening with all that mass of the Sun and where in the hell is it going or gone?

TerryRC wrote:You know, conservation of energy... one of the main laws of thermodynamics...

In short, Sam, you remain ignorant, yet imply it is knowledge, making your signature line more ironic that you realize.

YUP, I know why you think that I remain ignorant, and that's because you don't know any better.

And you don't have a clue about "conservation of energy".

TerryRC wrote:The discrediting of Einstein and his beautiful simplistic formula for the Theory of Relativitely, E=MC2, ....... is utterly being idiotic, asinine and stupid.

I, of course, did no such thing. It seems that you misunderstand Einstein's theory.

It merely states that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy, it doesn't mean that the equations says that mass is equal to energy and the two can change back and forth, as you seem to imply.

While it is true that mass increases when energy is added to a system, no net mass or energy is really created or lost.

TRC, tell that to the boys who made the first A-bomb.

First you imply that I am an uneducated idiot for stating that "photosynthesis converts light energy into mass", and then you come right back in your next post providing proof of you assertion by telling everyone that "photosynthesis converts light energy into sugar mass", to wit:

No, I didn't, I said the light energy is converted into chemical energy in the BONDS of the sugar molecule. There is no change in mass on either side of the chemical equation.

You fail at reading.

And you don't have a clue about "conservation of energy".

I obviously have a better grasp than you do.

HA, my Biology Professor told us that iffen we wished to get a Masters then we would have to write a thesis. And iffen we wanted to write a thesis to go outside to that big Maple tree and count each and ever leaf it has on it and write our thesis about "Counting Leaves on an Acer saccharum to Determine the Amount of Foliage on a Sugar Maple" ...... and if no one has done that before they will OK it and acclaim it a great piece of research work.

So you are saying that you have never added anything to man's body of knowledge through reproducible experimentation. I guess that qualifies you to make snide remarks.

Like so many critics, you have never actually done anything.

You want everybody to consider YOUR education but belittle that of everyone you disagree with.

TRC, tell that to the boys who made the first A-bomb.

You don't know how fission works, either, do you. The energy is contained in the fissile fuel. The fuel is not "disintegrated" or converted into energy, it is converted into other particles, releasing energy in the process.

No mass is lost.

You fail again.

HA, my Biology Professor told us that iffen we wished to get a Masters then we would have to write a thesis. And iffen we wanted to write a thesis to go outside to that big Maple tree and count each and ever leaf it has on it and write our thesis about "Counting Leaves on an Acer saccharum to Determine the Amount of Foliage on a Sugar Maple" ...... and if no one has done that before they will OK it and acclaim it a great piece of research work.

Apparently your biology education didn't extend to the part where scientific names are either italicized or underlined. Either Acer saccharum or Acer saccharum would have been acceptable.

For someone with such contempt for the quality of the education of others, you display a marked lack of quality in your own.

TerryRC wrote:HA, my Biology Professor told us that iffen we wished to get a Masters then we would have to write a thesis. And iffen we wanted to write a thesis to go outside to that big Maple tree and count each and ever leaf it has on it and write our thesis about "Counting Leaves on an Acer saccharum to Determine the Amount of Foliage on a Sugar Maple" ...... and if no one has done that before they will OK it and acclaim it a great piece of research work.

Apparently your biology education didn't extend to the part where scientific names are either italicized or underlined. Either Acer saccharum or Acer saccharum would have been acceptable.

For someone with such contempt for the quality of the education of others, you display a marked lack of quality in your own.

I see we have the pot calling the kettle black. However, I'm just an ignorant hillbilly, what do I know.

TerryRC wrote: Apparently your biology education didn't extend to the part where scientific names are either italicized or underlined. Either Acer saccharum or Acer saccharum would have been acceptable.

TRC, then why didn't .... YOU .... underline one of the examples in your post? You really should cease from nit-picking what you perceive to be a mistake by me, especially since you fairly often interject a blatant mistake in doing so.

And I'se dun tolt ya to lay off that Wacky Tobacca when you are posting to this Forum, ..... DIDN'T I? Of course, for the benefit of other observers, that's assuming it really is the fault of the WT.

And TRC, is that "italics thingy" something new they had to introduce to appease the Learning Disabled and/or the slow witted "dull pencils"?

Ya know, I seriously doubt that any of the old timers like Darwin, Linnaeus, etc. ever wrote very much in italicised script or printed characters. And ya know what else, I don't believe I ever seen a typewriter with a 2nd set of script characters on it ..... until IBM introduced their Selectric with the interchangeable "balls" with different fonts.

Now TRC, for the benefit of the other viewers, so that you don't lead them down the Rosey Path of Ignorant Bliss, to wit:

Binomial nomenclature – The essence of this system of naming is this: each species name is formed out of (modern scientific) Latin (or is a Latinized version of other words), and has two parts, the genus name and the species name. The two-part name of a species is popularly known as the Latin name. However, biologists and philologists prefer to use the term “scientific name” rather than "Latin name", because the words used to create these names are not always from the Latin language, even though the words have been Latinized in order to make them suitable. Names are often derived from ancient Greek word roots, or words from numerous other languages.

The first letter of the first name, the genus, is always capitalized, while that of the second is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place. Conventionally, all names of genera and lower taxa are always italicised, while family names and higher taxa are printed in plain text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature

Conventionally = conventional - conforming with accepted standards;

Get a life, TRC, ....that "accepted standards" was only adhered to by publishers until the advent of Text Editor Computer Programs whereby authors and writers could easily select different type fonts. And an "accepted standard" is not a "mandatory standard".

TRC, then why didn't .... YOU .... underline one of the examples in your post? You really should cease from nit-picking what you perceive to be a mistake by me, especially since you fairly often interject a blatant mistake in doing so.

My mistake. I do my own html tags and got in a hurry without proofing. It is clear that I did try and tag it. Where was your attempt to be correct, oh great science teacher?

Your tidbit on binomial nomenclature was funny. You will find that underlining or italicizing genus and species IS mandatory in any scientific publication. It seems you just ignore everyday convention even while criticizing the knowledge of biology grads.

So awesome.

I notice you weren't raving about E=MC2, so I'm assuming that you are avoiding admitting that you don't know what you are talking about.

Now tell us how heat can't be absorbed by particles without converting it to mass. Better yet, tell us more about those "H-pyrons".

TerryRC wrote:My mistake. I do my own html tags and got in a hurry without proofing. It is clear that I did try and and tag it.

YADA, .... YADA, .... YADA, .... and just who did you pay to write your thesis?

And is that what you told all your Teachers, and all your Professors, and the Thesis Board members ..... that "It is clear that I did try" ..... and they all gave you a passing grade because they didn't want to hurt your feelings which would have ruined you for the rest of your life?.

TRC, you make more mistakes than the average High School "drop-out"and that, sir, is proof positive that you are not "who you claim to be".

A Master in any profession or trade is expected to be a Master at doing the job, not a frigging excuse maker for the mistakes they are always making. Your Ranking does not hold any priviledges for screw-ups, boners, etc.

TRC, after all these months n' months of your posting on these Forums you should really quit trying to "blow smoke up my arse".

Your subtle pleas for sympathy falls on deaf ears, ya know, or should know.


.

So, Sam, tell us how CO2 can't store heat unless it converts it to mass. Tell us how E=MC2 means energy can just switch to mass, and vice versa. Tell us about those "H-pyrons". These are all mistakes in your understanding of science that I have personally seen you make.

I made a mistake in my html tagging - a typo.

You make regular mistakes in your science.

The thing is, and it is obvious, that you don't really know what you are talking about because you never spent the time to learn it. You read a blurb off a webpage and think you have an understanding of it. It makes you THINK that you are educated and have done it yourself.

Never mind that you are often wrong. Is it now time to threaten me and tell me how bad-assed you are, since I am the one that is always catching these mistakes in your understanding of BASIC science?

TerryRC wrote:So, Sam, tell us how CO2 can't store heat unless it converts it to mass.

Well "DUH", TRC, ..... iffen CO2 could "store heat" ..... then thousands of contractors would be using it to insulate homes, buildings, etc ....... and/or as a storage medium for Solar Energy to be used for home heating purposes during the cold winter months.

That's why, dumbass.

Mass will only store heat energy as long as the rate it is absorbing said heat energy is egual to or greater than the rate it is emitting said heat energy.

Well "DUH", TRC, ..... iffen CO2 could "store heat" ..... then thousands of contractors would be using it to insulate homes, buildings, etc ....... and/or as a storage medium for Solar Energy to be used for home heating purposes during the cold winter months.

That's why, dumbass.

No, it is because the idea for insulation isn't to STORE heat, it is to BLOCK heat. Also, CO2 doesn't make a good heat sink as it reradiates the heat in an uncontrolled and random fashion.

And you call me a dumbass. You don't even know how insulation works.

Sam, every time light passes through ANY medium, it is absorbed and retransmitted by the particles in that medium. That is why light shows when it moves through things like water or glass.

So, tell us about how particles can't absorb heat/light without converting it to mass. Tell us about how E=MC2 means that energy can be converted directly to mass and vice versa. Tell us about those "H-pyrons".

Meh.

TerryRC wrote: (Sam) "That's why, dumbass."

No, it is because the idea for insulation isn't to STORE heat, it is to BLOCK heat. Also, CO2 doesn't make a good heat sink as it reradiates the heat in an uncontrolled and random fashion.

And you call me a dumbass. You don't even know how insulation works.

TRC, your above statements are the very reason I call you a dumbass.

Tell me Oh Wise One, does the sides and bottom of a container STORE the liquid in the container or do they BLOCK the liquid from escaping from the container?

Does a sponge STORE the liquid in itself or does the sponge BLOCK the liquid from getting out of itself?

TRC, it would serve you better if you just “ask me”, .... instead of posting your asinine and idiotic statements to coerce me into teaching you something.

And Oh Wise One, iffen CO2 doesn't make a good heat sink ...... then how in hell can it possibly make a good Global Warming "greenhouse" gas?

And LORD A MERCY, why in the world are you willing to “err in favor of the claims of the proponents of AGW” ….. when it appears that you damn well know that atmospheric CO2, just like all atmospheric gasses, reradiates the heat in an uncontrolled and random fashion?

DUH, CO2 is not trapping heat energy ..... iffen it is reradiating it in an uncontrolled and random fashion. And liikewise, jails don't trap prisoners inside of them if they let the prisoners radiate outwards away from them in an uncontrolled and random fashion.

TerryRC wrote: Sam, every time light passes through ANY medium, it is absorbed and retransmitted by the particles in that medium. That is why light shows when it moves through things like water or glass.

TRC, ..... GIMME A BREAK. Visible light "only shows" if it directly hits the lense of your eyeballs or is reflected and then hits the lense of your eyeballs. DUH, that is why it is "pitch black" in space and you can't see any light that is bypassing you or any objects within you view. The Sunshine is everywhere in space but you only see it where you are.

If the visible light is absorbed by the medium ...... and then retransmitted, it is retransmitted as InfraRed and you can't see the IR with your eyeballs.

Your eyeballs see the "different colors" of the different things in nature. And the reason for that 'big boy' is that ...... that is the color of the light that is being reflected from them, or in other words, it is the "color frequencies" of the light that are not being absorbed by them things.

TerryRC wrote: So, tell us about how particles can't absorb heat/light without converting it to mass. Tell us about how E=MC2 means that energy can be converted directly to mass and vice versa. Tell us about those "H-pyrons".

Boy oh boy, TRC, now tell me, why are you harping so much about my piece of satire on "H-pyrons"?

Did ya get your arse in a bind and totally embarrassed by quoting it as the Gospel Truth, ..... before you even had a clue that it was only "satire and BS" ......... or what, big feller?

YUP, doing said sure would have proved embarrassing for you.

Next time you best pay attention when I sign something with the word "Eritas".


.