OOPS, not good news for Global Warminists

ATLANTA — Rain fell in the city for a fourth consecutive day Sunday, assuring that 2007 would not go down as the driest year on record for the drought-stricken Atlanta area.

The most arid year ever recorded for Atlanta was 1954, when only 31.80 inches of rain fell.

Meteorologists had feared this year would have even less rain, predicting that showers on Sunday morning would taper off. But the rain continued long enough to raise the 2007 cumulative rainfall to 31.85 inches.

Rain has also been unusually sparse in other Georgia cities this year, including Athens, Columbia and Macon. However, each of those cities has seen worse years than 2007, said Stephen Konarik, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319120,00.html

So, because, just barely, 2007 wasn't the driest year on record in one city, global warming is a myth?

What if it had been the driest year in Atlanta? Would the global warming folks be right?

If you average rainfall in Atlanta by decade for the past 100 years, I wonder what the curve would look like.

Sam has learned what we in the science business have known (and tried to avoid) for a long time:

"If you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything."

TerryRC wrote:So, because, just barely, 2007 wasn't the driest year on record in one city, global warming is a myth?

What if it had been the driest year in Atlanta? Would the global warming folks be right?

If you average rainfall in Atlanta by decade for the past 100 years, I wonder what the curve would look like.

Probably like any other sign wave across a sheet of paper.

Sam has learned what we in the science business have known (and tried to avoid) for a long time:

"If you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything."

TRC, that was a loooooong oxymoron, ...... was it not?

I mean like you being in the "science business" for the State ....... and implying you try to avoid "torturing the data".

You are just trying to bug me Terry ........ but I guess you think of yourself as an expert on that.

Here TRC, read what a real scientist has to say. I'll post the entire article and you can tell me if you find any "bugs" in it, to wit:

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, established a consensus many years ago that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up. (TRC, THAT ONE CLUE YOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH.)

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ‘greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions. However, most environmentalists now consider its targets inadequate to enforce the emissions cuts necessary to curb climate change.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

I mean like you being in the "science business" for the State ....... and implying you try to avoid "torturing the data".

You are just trying to bug me Terry ........ but I guess you think of yourself as an expert on that.

Sam, the state gives me a check. I pursue science because, no matter how ugly, I have a love of the truth. Part of that is keeping the statistics simple.

As to bugging you, I know I am an expert. I'm going to bug you some more by pointing out that you really meant "bell curve" as opposed to "sine wave".

TerryRC wrote: As to bugging you, I know I am an expert. I'm going to bug you some more by pointing out that you really meant "bell curve" as opposed to "sine wave".

(Sam) Probably like any other sign wave across a sheet of paper.

Damn, ...... I did spell that wrong, ..... didn't I.

And "NO", TRC, ....... I didn't mean "bell curve".

I meant a "sine wave" like an AM (amplitude modulated) radio transmission signal.

And this is why, to wit:

BELL CURVE on the Web:

The shape of the graph that indicates the normal distribution.

aka the normal curve, is an idealized statistical graph of a frequency (or relative frequency) distribution for a random variable quantity whose mean, median and mode are identical; the distribution is symmetrical about this (center-line) value.

sine wave on the Web:

A smoothly varying wave that repeats itself; its frequency is the rate at which the fundamental shape repeats itself. Any waveform can be distilled into a combination of pure sine waves of varying frequencies and amplitudes.

TRC, you can call it whatever you want, ........ and I'm sure that you will argue you are right, ........ but I think you will be hard pressed in determining a "center line" ......... when plotting "yearly rainfall" on a graph.

But if you know, ...... or can figure out ...... how to do it, ...... please tell me.

And drawing that "center line" after you do the plotting ....... and calling it an "average line" doesn't count ...... because the "average" varies depending on what "segment of time" you are plotting.

cheers

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2008010515

Well Sam I dont know if you get the gazette, but this is interesting and also has a home connection.

Do you know this guy?

It should change your mind about global warming.

shermangeneral wrote:http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2008010515

Well Sam I dont know if you get the gazette, but this is interesting and also has a home connection.

Do you know this guy?

It should change your mind about global warming.

Now Shermmy, ...... which "global warming" are you referring to?

The "natural global warming cycle" the Earth has been experiencing for the past 100+ years,

or

the "Human Caused catastropic global warming" that all the "money hungry" numb-nuts are scaring the bejesus out of the ignorant folks with?

Which one ShermanG, ........... which one?

Sherm, remember when you partisan Democrats were "scaring the bejesus out of the older ignorant folks" ....... when you were telling them ...... "Bush is going to take your Social Security away"?

Sure ya do, Shermmy, ...... so don't be telling me you "don't recognize" a good scam when you see it.

Anyway Sherm, about that article, .... I started reading it this morning.

When I got to this sentence:

An Elkins scientist, Alton Byers, just spent 30 days climbing all over ………..

A scientist huh, ..... why didn't it list his credentials? Maybe one of TRC's friends, .... one of those "real scientists", huh?

But I kept reading until I got to this:

Al Gore showed before-and-after photos of vanished glaciers in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” — the most obvious display …….

And that was as far as I wanted to read.

But then I clicked on your link and finished reading it, just so you wouldn't badmouth me. And I found this out about your "real scientist", to wit:

Byers, who has been based out of The Mountain Institute in West Virginia for most of the past 18 years, began his trip in October by flying to Kathmandu, Nepal — a remote enough place in itself. A little plane then flew him to an airstrip 9,000 feet above sea level, in the middle of nowhere.

Sherm, iffen ya "click" there above ...... you can read what that NON-PROFIT Mountain Institute is all about .......

cheers

Well Sam I have been to the Mountain Institute and was quite impressed.

And as to Bush and Soc Security I am glad people got motivated and blocked his efforts to kill it.

Or to quote another rightwing hero, just let it wither on the vine.

Loving eyes never see, Sam. So I don't blame you as much as it sounds.

I know you love republicans.

But if they had their way people like yourself who depend on Soc Security would have a hard time.

TRC, you can call it whatever you want, ........ and I'm sure that you will argue you are right, ........ but I think you will be hard pressed in determining a "center line" ......... when plotting "yearly rainfall" on a graph.

You do know that averages, which is what I posited (average precipitation by decade for the past century) center around a bell curve?

Of course you do...

... I don't even know why I bother.

Regardless, we know what pisses you off... anyone disagreeing with you and not bowing to your "years of experience".

A scientist huh, ..... why didn't it list his credentials? Maybe one of TRC's friends, .... one of those "real scientists", huh?

Still up to your old tricks, hmmm.

Insult as a debate tool - how Braxton County of you.

So, if Atlanta HAD (which it almost was) had the driest year, would the global warming people have been correct?

You can pile it higher than anyone.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sam I have been to the Mountain Institute and was quite impressed.

Politically appointed "do nothing jobs" ...... funded with public money ....... has always impressed you, Sherman.

shermangeneral wrote:And as to Bush and Soc Security I am glad people got motivated and blocked his efforts to kill it.

Oh I am sure you are Shermmy, ..... I am sure you are.

By blocking Bush's efforts ...... the Democrats can continue "skimming" the current excess not needed to pay SS benefits ....... and use it for "pork barrel projects" to buy votes. And that always make you more than just glad, but extremely happy.

shermangeneral wrote:Or to quote another rightwing hero, just let it wither on the vine.

Loving eyes never see, Sam.

Now Shermmy, don't be trying to jost me again. Your "loving eyes" see everything.

GEEEZE, even you see that Social Security is "withering on the vine" and the reason you are willing for it to continue is that you want the Democrats to be able to continue "their skimming" as long as possible. No way ...... did you want Bush's Plan putting a "halt" on your "skimmings".

shermangeneral wrote:But if they had their way people like yourself who depend on Soc Security would have a hard time.

ShermanGeneral, all people depending on Social Security ...... will always be having a hard time ...... as long as there are "trough feeders" a raping the State Treasuries.


Said "raping" drives up the Cost of Living ........ and those depending on SS can not keep up with the inflation of the costs of goods and services.

GEEEZE, SS recipiants just got a 2+% COLA increase to help them "make it" through 2008, ....... but already the "inflationary costs" on goods and services have INCREASED about 15% in total ..... and are sure to increase more.

Thus, the SS recipiants are starting out the New Year .........



Sherman, for some SS'ers, that 2+% COLA may not even "cover" the increase in Sales Taxes on goods they purchase in the stores.

.

SamCogar wrote:Sherman, for some SS'ers, that 2+% COLA may not even "cover" the increase in Sales Taxes on goods they purchase in the stores. .

The answer to that is simply to reduce the amounts of "goods they purchase in the stores".

TerryRC wrote:TRC, you can call it whatever you want, ........ and I'm sure that you will argue you are right, ........ but I think you will be hard pressed in determining a "center line" ......... when plotting "yearly rainfall" on a graph.

You do know that averages, which is what I posited (average precipitation by decade for the past century) center around a bell curve?

Of course you do...

... I don't even know why I bother.

Regardless, we know what pisses you off... anyone disagreeing with you and not bowing to your "years of experience".

“NO”, ….. TRC, I did not know that “all plotted averages center around a bell curve”.

Besides, your question did not define the type of “curve”, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:If you average rainfall in Atlanta by decade for the past 100 years, I wonder what the curve would look like.

Now TRC, just because a “bell curve” is the only plotted curve you have ever heard of and thus know anything about ……. doesn’t make you an authority on a damn thing.

Now I told you, to me, it would look like a “sine wave”, ….. but you weren’t smart enough to know what I was referring to …… so you “just figured” I was wrong based on your misconception that your Masters Degree in whatever ….. makes you smarter than anyone without one.

Here ya go oh “Masterly educated scientist”, 100 years of rainfall, .... so explain to me how you figure the following is a “BELL CURVE” graph “of a frequency (or relative frequency) distribution for a random variable quantity whose mean, median and mode are identical; the distribution is symmetrical about this (center-line) value.




It doesn't look very damn "symmetrical about that (center-line) value" to me. Course I don't have a Master's Degree and thus probably not able to see clearly.

To me, it looks more like an AM radio signal ....... "a fading in ... and a fading out".

Then TRC, please answer the question I asked Sherman, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:Now Shermmy, ...... which "global warming" are you referring to?

The "natural global warming cycle" the Earth has been experiencing for the past 100+ years,

or

the "Human Caused catastrophic global warming" that all the "money hungry" numb-nuts are scaring the bejesus out of the ignorant folks with?

Commit yourself, …… oh Master Degreed trained scientist, ……. quit “wanting your cake and eating it too”.

And TRC, the following was truly a “Master Degreed piece of CYA crap”, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:A scientist huh, ..... why didn't it list his credentials? Maybe one of TRC's friends, .... one of those "real scientists", huh?

Still up to your old tricks, hmmm.

Insult as a debate tool - how Braxton County of you.

You TRC, are ALWAYS citing Degrees, …… Degrees, …… Degrees, …… as being critically important if one is to “believe anything as factual” …….. and you look down “your nose” at anyone that can’t claim having one.

Well dude, it appears you are now SUPPORTING someone who can’t claim to having a Degree.

You just get all pouty n’ pissyfaced because I’m smarter than you, …… how un-Master Degreed of you. Phony is as phony acts.

You TRC, are ALWAYS citing Degrees, …… Degrees, …… Degrees, …… as being critically important if one is to “believe anything as factual” …….. and you look down “your nose” at anyone that can’t claim having one.

Gee, Sam. That was a pretty good rant.

Learn about means, bell curves and the normal right here.

Individual data points generally center around the mean in the shape of a bell [normal] curve. You chose to plot that data in a linear manner, and that is fine (even if it tells you less). It doesn't make me wrong, however.

I know alot more about probabilities and what we tend to see in the natural world. Someday, when you are ready to learn, I may even share it with you.

Right now, you only pay attention to those that agree with you and vice versa. Waste of time.

You did look at the bit about how seven of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 10 years, didn't you?

TerryRC wrote: Individual data points generally center around the mean in the shape of a bell [normal] curve.

That was sure nuff a Masterful CYA reply.

Which is not atypical for State employees.

TerryRC wrote: You chose to plot that data in a linear manner, and that is fine (even if it tells you less). It doesn't make me wrong, however.

I chose to "plot", ..... HUH, ..... HUH?

Terry, maybe you had better take another look at that graph.

Or better yet, write a letter to the National Climatic Data Center ...... telling them you are a "trained scientist" with a Masters Degree ..... and that they don't know dippity shidt about graphing rain fall amounts.

TerryRC wrote: I know alot more about probabilities and what we tend to see in the natural world. Someday, when you are ready to learn, I may even share it with you.

Oh, you mean like "forecasting hurricanes" and such, ...... right?

.

So, what about the past 10 years and the record annual mean temps?

As to the rest of it, look for yourself. Surely an wiz like yourself understands statistics.

You do know where the "normal" curve gets its name from, don't you?

You would take an outlier and try and pass it off as a mean.

Stick to the 12oz. curls.

TerryRC wrote:So, what about the past 10 years and the record annual mean temps?

As to the rest of it, look for yourself. Surely an wiz like yourself understands statistics.

"Yes", TerryRC, ..... I understand statistics, ....... but I don't have "tunnel vision" when I am looking at and studying them.

Ten (10) years of "mean global temperatures" don't mean diddly poop. One (1) good volcanic eruption would play havoc with "global temps" for that long.

Over the past 25 years, ..... Mt. St. Helena "blew its top", the Hawaiian volcano has been in constant eruption and dozens of other volcanoes have been spewing CO2 and other particulate into the ocean waters and atmosphere.

TRC, the question is, ........ "Do you understand statistics?"

And not "tunnel vision" statistics, .... but actual, factual and true "long term statistics".

Statistics such as these, to wit:

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

Click on the following “hyper-link url” to see the graph.

The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar irradiance. Historical sunspot records give scientists an idea of the amount of energy emitted by the Sun in the past. The above graph shows sunspot data from 1650 to the present. The Maunder Minimum occured from 1650–1700 and may have influenced Europe’s little ice age. (The data from this period are not as reliable as the data beginning in 1700, but it is clear that sunspot numbers were higher both before and after the Maunder Minimum.) Since then, sunspot number have risen and fallen in a regular 11-year cycle. An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today. [Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data compiled by John Eddy (1650-1700) and the Solar Influences Data analysis Center (SIDC)]

And here is another graph of Sunspot activity from Wikipedia.



And here is a graph of temperatures for the same period from Wikipedia.



So now, TerryRC, ..... you looked at both graphs so now tell me, ..... without any of your spiteful "higher than thou" rhetoric, ........ and no smirk on your face, .... "that an increase in Solar activity/output ..... doesn't have anything to do with the increase in Global Temperatures over the past 600, 400, 200, 100, 50 or even 10 years."

Think you are capable of doing that, TRC?

.

Think you are capable of doing that, TRC?

I couldn't and wouldn't. I have never denied that natural causes could be, or are, part of the problem. In fact, I think it likely.

I will, however, point out that correlation doesn't equal causation - or is that "holier than thou"?

It would take more than a Wiki to convince me that that data is accurate.

The question I'm interested in is this - can you say, after comparing a graph of man-made emissions to one of temperature for the past few centuries, that there is NO POSSIBILITY that the two are correlated.

Difficulty level: I'm not going to spoon feed you the data.

TerryRC wrote:I will, however, point out that correlation doesn't equal causation - or is that "holier than thou"?

But TRC, ...... tens of millions of years of ...... "correlating evidence" ...... should at the very least give you a "little clue" that there is connected causation.

TerryRC wrote:It would take more than a Wiki to convince me that that data is accurate.

Now TRC, I had to find a "copy" of those graphs that I could post via the [img] protocol because I knew damn well if i just posted the "urls" to them, ...... you wouldn't "click" and look at them.

But now if you PREFER the urls for the "scientifically accredited source", ...... I can provide a few of them for all sorts of "correlating evidence" that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle.

TerryRC wrote:The question I'm interested in is this - can you say, after comparing a graph of man-made emissions to one of temperature for the past few centuries, that there is NO POSSIBILITY that the two are correlated.

TRC, are you serious?

First of all, you can not provide me with "a factual graph of man-made emissions for the past few centuries".

The best you can possibly do is present some "hypothetical estimated values" of said man-made "emissions".

Now scientists know the approximate "atmospheric CO2 concentrations" for the past few centuries via "ice core data" ....... but they sure as hell can't tell you which of the following generated "what quantities" of the CO2.

Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material for plant growth. Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels or vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Inorganic carbon dioxide is output by volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs.

And TRC, CO2 is absobed by rain and all other bodies of water in accordance with Boyle's Law.

And that is why the graphic correlation between "atmospheric CO2 and temperatures".

And that is why historical data always shows atmospheric CO2 levels lagging behind the rise in global temperatures. .......

DUH, it takes years of increased warming before the ocean waters begin warming up.

Just like it takes several months of "warming up" (March, April, May n' June) before a WV or NY river or lake warms up enough to go swimming in.

.
cheers

That is about what I thought, Sam.

Of course the measurements of solar activity are estimates, past a certain point, also.

There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 that plants DO not release that allow some fairly accurate estimates of man-made emissions.

Your correlation = causation, but my correlation is due to circumstance?

You aren't interested in the truth, that is obvious.

Billions of people on this planet, Sam. That you insist that we are not and cannot make the problem worse is like some sort of weird anti-hubris.

I will admit that natural causes are part of the problem. You have your mind made up and refuse to change your theory for ANY reason.

TerryRC wrote:That is about what I thought, Sam.

Of course the measurements of solar activity are estimates, past a certain point, also.

Past what point TRC? The Chinese were recording Sunspot activity in 800 BC and Galileo discovered sunspots from his telescopic observations at the end of 1610.

TerryRC wrote:There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 that plants DO not release that allow some fairly accurate estimates of man-made emissions.

TRC, if those greenhouse gases are keeping the earth warm, ........ why did it get down to zero degrees here in B'ville the other morning and then warm up to 28? And 2 days later up to 72 degrees and back down to 22, ...... and 2 days after that back down to 42 during the day, etc.

Where does all that GW go at night time, TRC. ...... DUH, out into space., right?

TerryRC wrote:Your correlation = causation, but my correlation is due to circumstance?

DUH, until you can provide proof otherwise.

TerryRC wrote:You aren't interested in the truth, that is obvious.

Oh yes I am, but the GW'ers havent provided any yet.

TerryRC wrote:Billions of people on this planet, Sam. That you insist that we are not and cannot make the problem worse is like some sort of weird anti-hubris.

I made no such claim, TRC.

You asked, .... "can you say, ....., that there is NO POSSIBILITY ......".

Terry, that was a stupid and asinine question for someone educated in the sciences to be asking another who was educated in the sciences.

Who was it that was always saying, "One can not prove anything in science to be true, you can only prove it is false." Was that you Terry baby? HUH

And then you act goofy and dumb ...... by asking me to "prove something".

So again, ....... "TRC, are you serious?"

TerryRC wrote:I will admit that natural causes are part of the problem. You have your mind made up and refuse to change your theory for ANY reason.

TRC, you need to get off of that "stupid and goofy trip" that you are on and pay more attention to what is going on.

Give me good reason to change and I will.

GEEEZUS Terry, If I told you that ..... "permitting large quantities of dioxins and cresote to flow into the headwaters of a trout stream would not affect anything", ....... would you refuse to change your mind on what you believe about it?

I THINK SO.

TRC, I have never said that none of the "current warming" is human caused. I wouldn't say that because I know better. But I also know that it is not CO2 that is the primary cause of it.

Terry, human created "heat islands" contribute more to the "warming" than any human caused atmospheric CO2 will ever hope to.

You are a world traveler TRC, so tell me, following a 99 deg temp day, would you be cooler spending the night ......... sitting on the sidewalk in center city Philly, ......... or sitting in your back yard in WV?

Or, following a 112 deg temp day, would you be more comfortable wearing only swimming trunks and spending the night ......... sitting on the sidewalk in center city Phoenix, AZ, ......... or sitting on a rock 75 miles from center city Phoenix, AZ out in the desert?

Whatever your answers, tell me the reason, ......... unless they were smartmouthed and pierty.

Terry, do you have any idea how many SQUARE MILES of "heat islands" that man has constructed since say 1840?

100 million, ...... 1 billion, ........ 5 billion, ....... what?

cheers

Terry, that was a stupid and asinine question for someone educated in the sciences to be asking another who was educated in the sciences.

But didn't you ask me the exact same thing about solar activity?

Do you hold me and my theories to a higher standard than you and yours... sure seems that way.

TRC, I have never said that none of the "current warming" is human caused. I wouldn't say that because I know better. But I also know that it is not CO2 that is the primary cause of it.

Glad you KNOW that, Sam. CO2 or the lack thereof has caused MAJOR climate change in the past. Ever heard of "snowball earth"?

Regardless, for someone that, as you say, would NEVER say that GW isn't partially human caused, you don't seem inclined to do anything about it and ridicule anyone that feels differently.

Oh, yeah... how did those early astronomers measure that solar activity, you know, what units did they use...

Estimates, Sam, estimates. If they are good enough for you, they should be good enough for me.

TerryRC wrote: Terry, that was a stupid and asinine question for someone educated in the sciences to be asking another who was educated in the sciences.

But didn't you ask me the exact same thing about solar activity?

Do you hold me and my theories to a higher standard than you and yours... sure seems that way.

You are right Terry, you are absolutely right. How could I have forgotten such a thing. Help me remember, will ya, point it out to me and I'll edit it citing an apology.

TerryRC wrote:TRC, I have never said that none of the "current warming" is human caused. I wouldn't say that because I know better. But I also know that it is not CO2 that is the primary cause of it.

Glad you KNOW that, Sam. CO2 or the lack thereof has caused MAJOR climate change in the past. Ever heard of "snowball earth"?

"snowball earth"? .... MERCY GAWDS Terry, what the hell are you doing citing the "snowball earth theory"?

I mean like "gee", is not Brian Harland one of those dumbassed scientist wannabees ..... that 98% of all you educated scientists were laughing at for years n' years because of his sillyarsed theory? Sure is, TRC, sure is.

Me thinks YOU ALL were laughing and telling him that if he couldn't cite a "reference" in some paper, authored by some educated scientist ..... that all of you approved of, .... then he could just shove his "ice ball" theory up his arse, RIGHT.

"YES", .... Teresa, I have heard of the "snowball earth" theory. I have watched the TV Documentary about it, ..... twice I believe.

But now Terry baby, when you stated "CO2 or the lack thereof has caused MAJOR climate change in the past", ..... just exactly what "change" were you referring to in respect to "snowball earth"?

I sure hope it was in respect to the "cancelling", ...... and wasn't in respect to the "causing", ...... cause you would be FUBAR again.

But TRC, I suspect that "causing" was what you were referring to, .... and I suspect this is where you got your "Global Warming Biased Info" from, to wit:

The beginning of a Snowball Earth event could be facilitated by an equatorial continental distribution, which allows rapid, unchecked weathering of continental rocks, absorbing vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The depletion of this greenhouse gas causes ice accumulation, which further cools the planet by reflecting solar energy back to space. The runaway system would lead to a new ice-covered equilibrium with equatorial temperatures similar to modern-day Antarctica.

To break out of the frozen condition, huge quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, emitted primarily by volcanic activity, …… (at least they got that part right )

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

Terry baby, why don't you read an article on the Snowball Earth Theory that was not written by a "Global Warming" biased prole? One such as this one, to wit:

http://www.eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

And TRC, please pay close attention to the following exert from that paper, during your reading, to wit:

Snowball Episodes and Earth History

We have shown how the great glacial deposits in Neoproterozoic rocks world-wide and the strata adjacent to them point to an extraordinary type of climatic event, a "snowball" Earth followed by a briefer but equally noxious ultra-warm "greenhouse" world. There is clear evidence that this sequence happened more than once, perhaps as many as four times between 750 and 580 million years ago.

But what caused these calamities in the first place, and why has the biological world been spared such events in more recent geological history?

One factor was clearly that the Neoproterozoic sun was weaker by approximately 6%, making the Earth more susceptible to glaciation. The slow warming of our sun since that time might explain why no "snowball" event has occurred since the Neoproterozoic, but the geological evidence is compelling that such glaciations did not occur for at least one billion years prior to the Neoproterozoic when the sun was even cooler. Recent findings by Kirschvink and his former student, David Evans, suggest that global glaciations may have occurred around 2.3 billion years ago, but not in the intervening period.

How did you like that, Miss Teresa, ....... not at all huh?

Well then, ...... lay your GirlyMan "crapolla" on me, ..... I can wash it off.

TerryRC wrote: Regardless, for someone that, as you say, would NEVER say that GW isn't partially human caused, you don't seem inclined to do anything about it and ridicule anyone that feels differently.

TRC, I don't agree with smoking Wacky Tobacca or "shooting" drugs or "sniffing" crack, ........ and I ain't inclined to "go after your arse" to do anything about it, ...... so what is your point?

TerryRC wrote:Oh, yeah... how did those early astronomers measure that solar activity, you know, what units did they use...

Estimates, Sam, estimates. If they are good enough for you, they should be good enough for me.

Terry, they didn't have to measure that solar activity. If they recorded the size and frequency of Sunspot occurances, .... some smarty pants now-day scientist could "figure it out" in a jiffy on one of those super computers they use.

cheers

Terry, they didn't have to measure that solar activity. If they recorded the size and frequency of Sunspot occurances, .... some smarty pants now-day scientist could "figure it out" in a jiffy on one of those super computers they use.

If it isn't a direct observation, Sam, it is an ESTIMATE. If the estimates I use are questionable, so, too, must yours be.

How did you like that, Miss Teresa, ....... not at all huh?

Well then, ...... lay your GirlyMan "crapolla" on me, ..... I can wash it off.

Ahhh... the ad hom attack. I was wondering when another was coming.

I sure hope it was in respect to the "cancelling", ...... and wasn't in respect to the "causing", ...... cause you would be FUBAR again.

Why, I didn't say. I said that, contrary to your assertion that CO2 isn't a major player in the present climate change, that the presence of CO2, OR LACK THEREOF, has caused major climate change in the past.

Sam, you have been owned and are just too stubborn to admit it.

TerryRC wrote: Terry, they didn't have to measure that solar activity. If they recorded the size and frequency of Sunspot occurances, .... some smarty pants now-day scientist could "figure it out" in a jiffy on one of those super computers they use.

If it isn't a direct observation, Sam, it is an ESTIMATE. If the estimates I use are questionable, so, too, must yours be.

Terry, posting statements like that, ...... I would be willing to bet $100 your "science degree" ........ is a Master's in Political Science.

TerryRC wrote:How did you like that, Miss Teresa, ....... not at all huh?

Well then, ...... lay your GirlyMan "crapolla" on me, ..... I can wash it off.

Ahhh... the ad hom attack. I was wondering when another was coming.

HORSEPUCKY, …….. there was no wondering about it, ……. you knew damn well it “was coming”.

Terry, I don’t “call you” a feminine thinking GirlyMan just to be posting an “off-the-wall” insult. I label you that ……. because that is what you are.

TRC, you absolutely refuse to address my arguments, but instead reply with piffle and BS ....... and then when I criticize you for your adolescent behavior ……. you reply with your noninfrequent use of “ad hom attack”. GEEEZUS, after 40+ years and three (3) wives, …… I know how females think, connive, detract, ignore, accuse, interject and distort when engaged in an argument …… or divorce, ……. they don’t want to lose.

Terry, did you shed a few tears, …… like Hillary did, ….. just before you girl’ily “ad homed” me? …… YUP, …… girl’ily, to wit:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Terry, as you should note there above, ...... your GirlyMan accusations of "ad hom attacks" are based on your "partial usage" (aka: think, connive, detract, ignore, accuse, interject and distort) of the definition of "ad hominem argument".

Terry, you have "convinently" chosen to ignore the last phrase of said definition, thus proving without a doubt your devious dishonesty, ... aka: feminity.

TerryRC, I do not believe I have ever failed to "address the substance of the argument or produce evidence against the claim" ......... prior to criticizing you for your behavior.

TerryRC wrote:I sure hope it was in respect to the "cancelling", ...... and wasn't in respect to the "causing", ...... cause you would be FUBAR again.

Why, I didn't say. I said that, contrary to your assertion that CO2 isn't a major player in the present climate change, that the presence of CO2, OR LACK THEREOF, has caused major climate change in the past.

Right, TRC, and you could have said the same thing about “the presence of solar energy” or "the presence of atmospheric volcanic particulate", and all three (3) variations would be nothing more than "weazelworded piffle".

aka: think, connive, detract, ignore, accuse, interject and distort

TerryRC wrote:Sam, you have been owned and are just too stubborn to admit it.

HA, only in your wildest dreams.

Terry, you haven’t provided any “factual tender” to purchase a damn thing, …… so anything you claim ownership of ….. must be stolen.

cheers